Although the concept of “hybrid” broadly refers to “… a combination or mixture of two or more different elements; something having a mixed origin, nature, or character” (Oxford University Press, n.d.), the concept of hybrid professionalism has more specific origins. The term can be traced to the relationship between bureaucratic organizations and professions (Breit et al., 2018).

Hybrid professionalism is distinct from both occupational professionalism and organizational professionalism (Evetts, 2013), which are also used to describe the interaction between professions and bureaucratic structures. Occupational professionalism is grounded in collegial authority, professional discretion, and occupational control over work, with regulation carried out by practitioners themselves. In contrast, organizational professionalism is rooted in managerialism and rational-legal authority, characterized by standardized procedures and closely aligned with Weberian models of bureaucracy.

In a sense, hybrid professionalism combines elements of both occupational and organizational professionalism, as it typically refers to occupational professionals who incorporate managerial responsibilities, tasks, and perspectives into their work. Noordegraaf (2007, p. 771) defines hybrid professionals as “reflective practitioners; their links with outside worlds are part of professionalism; they form a social category/class,” and argues that hybrid professionalism has become a natural aspect of both professional and managerial life. The term often applies to professionals who have transitioned into managerial roles and oversee the work of other professionals (Sirris, 2019; McGivern et al., 2015; Croft et al., 2015).

However, this should not be confused with a leadership position located solely within the traditional professional hierarchy (Primus inter pares), as hybrid professionals also operate within the organizational hierarchy. Rather, it is important to recognize that hybrid professionals in such roles require a new type of knowledge and competence that extends beyond their profession’s core area of expertise (Breit et al., 2018; Blomgren & Waks, 2015; Kurunmäki, 2004). In this paper, this new type of knowledge is referred to as the additional knowledge, which complements the profession’s original body of knowledge. For example, in the case of medical managers, their original body of knowledge lies in medicine, while the management knowledge and competencies they acquire as they hybridize represent their additional knowledge.

A large share of the literature on hybrid professionals has focused on public-sector professionals who incorporate knowledge, values, and perspectives introduced by the New Public Management (NPM) reforms of the 1980s and beyond (Breit et al., 2018; Spyridonidis & Currie, 2016; Blomgren & Waks, 2015; Hodgson et al., 2015). However, hybridization is not necessarily limited to professionals’ engagement with NPM and may have begun earlier. Despite this, historical studies of hybrid professionalism—which could provide deeper insights into how hybridized professionalism evolves over time—remain scarce.

An extensive knowledge system is widely regarded as the defining feature that unites all definitions of a profession (Torstendahl & Burrage, 1990). The profession’s knowledge base plays a central role in the process of professionalization. Alongside criteria such as full-time employment in the occupation, membership in a professional association, legal protection of title or tasks, and adherence to codes of ethics, formal academic education is considered a fundamental component in establishing a profession (Nilsson & Blume, 2021; Wilensky, 1964).

While early functionalist analyses emphasized a comprehensive body of knowledge and expertise as a key trait of professionals, more recent perspectives have highlighted the role of knowledge in securing exclusionary closure vis-à-vis other occupational groups (Saks, 2016; 2012). It is essential that professionals maintain control over educational institutions and certification programs. By doing so, they can preserve their monopoly over professional practice and ensure that only those who have completed the requisite education and training are granted entry into the field (Freidson, 2001).

Moreover, when professional work is based on expert and exclusive knowledge, professionals are better positioned to claim autonomy and resist external control, direction, or evaluation (Levay & Waks, 2009; Waring & Currie, 2009; Freidson, 2001). Professional knowledge can take various forms, including “codified, abstract knowledge associated with formal training, but also esoteric, indeterminate, and experiential knowledge that is tacit in nature, situated in practice and embodied in practice” (Waring & Currie, 2009, p. 758). Among these, abstract knowledge is most frequently emphasized as critical for asserting professional claims (Spillman & Brophy, 2018; Evetts, 2013; Freidson, 2001). Professionals use abstract knowledge to redefine problems, uncover novel tasks and domains, and establish barriers to entry. In this context, abstract knowledge aligns with what Lam (2000, p. 492) terms “embrained knowledge,” referring to formal, theoretical and scientific knowledge that holds high societal status. Such knowledge typically requires extended periods of formal training (Waring & Currie, 2009; Abbott, 1988). Importantly, formal education and its resulting academic credentials also function as status symbols and entry of barriers, reinforcing claims for professionalization (Saks, 2012).

Existing understandings of professional knowledge and expertise are derived almost exclusively from studies focused on professionals’ relationship to their original body of knowledge. In contrast, our understanding of hybrid professionals’ additional knowledge in management is far less developed. Notably, there is a lack of in-depth and systematic research on how hybrid professionals acquire this type of knowledge. As this has not been an explicit focus of studies on hybrid professionalism, current insights suggest that such knowledge is typically acquired through extended experience working in leadership roles (Blomgren & Waks, 2015), on-the-job training (Breit et al., 2024), and individual, self-directed learning (Kurunmäki, 2004), rather than through extensive formal education.

Furthermore, the understanding of both the content and form of the management knowledge that professionals acquire as they hybridize remains limited. The few studies that have analyzed this knowledge in depth have primarily focused on doctors, concluding that—compared to medical knowledge—management knowledge is typically complementary and technical, rather than abstract, in nature. For example, Llewellyn (2001) offered insights into hybrid professional’s knowledge by discussing how medical managers operate through “two-way windows,” integrating both medical and managerial expertise. She argued that, unlike medical expertise, management expertise is not grounded in abstract knowledge, making it relatively easy for doctors to assimilate. Similarly, Kurunmäki (2004) demonstrated that it was primarily management accounting techniques that transferred to doctors and contributed to their hybridization, while the fundamental abstract knowledge underpinning those techniques played only a minor role. As she observed, clinicians’ medical knowledge was “complemented by a new set of techniques that enabled them to prepare budgets, calculate costs, and set prices” (ibid., p. 336). As both studies suggest, it is medical knowledge—not managerial knowledge— that forms the professional basis of medical managers, while management knowledge serves merely as a complement.

This depiction of hybrid professionals’ additional knowledge—as acquired through informal means rather than extensive formal training, technical in character, and complementary to their original body of knowledge—may help explain why most studies on hybrid professionalism have not addressed this knowledge in relation to the group’s professional ambitions. While research has shown that hybrid professionals’ dual competencies have enabled them to assume new roles and identities (Alamaa et al., 2025; Sirris, 2019; Currie et al., 2016; McGivern et al., 2015; Spyridonidis et al., 2015), adopt alternative work strategies (Breit et al., 2024; Spyridonidis & Currie, 2016; Waring & Currie, 2009), and enhance innovation capacities (Burgess & Currie, 2013), the idea that their additional knowledge may significantly influence their professionalization process and long-term development has yet to be demonstrated. Moreover, given that professionalization is typically a long-term process, studies with a limited timeframe—which is common in research on hybrid professionalism—risk overlooking such gradual dynamics.

To address the limitations outlined above, this article adopts a historical case study approach to examine the management knowledge conveyed through the education program of Swedish principals over time, and what it reveals about their professionalization process. Medical doctors—often the focus of studies on the additional knowledge of hybrid professionals—are, along with lawyers, typically regarded as classical professions that embody all defining traits of a profession (Abbott, 1988; Wilensky, 1964). By focusing instead on a group whose professional status is less firmly established, this study offers an opportunity to explore whether the acquisition of an additional body of knowledge can play more than a complementary role in the development of a profession.

As outlined in the theoretical discussion above, the content, form, and control of the knowledge delivered through a group’s education program are essential for understanding its potential role in professionalization processes. The content reflects the profession’s area of jurisdiction, while the form and control of the knowledge determine the types of professionalization claims that can be made (cf. Saks, 2016, 2012; Abbott, 1988). An abstract body of knowledge that is controlled by the profession and delivered through formal academic training thus constitutes a strong foundation for professionalization claims.

Throughout most of history, Swedish principals and teachers have been regarded as part of the same profession and shared a common knowledge base (cf. Ullman, 1997; Jarl et al., 2012). Traditionally, principals were recruited from among teachers and received little to no additional training. For the first 550 years of its existence (1290-1828), the principalship was a rotating, time-limited assignment held by teachers within the school, with the principal regarded as Primus inter pares—"first among equals” (Ullman, 1997, p. 58). By the mid-1880s, qualifications for principals at higher educational levels included teaching experience, academic merits (such as a PhD), and experience as a lecturer (Ullman, 1997). For principals at lower levels, required qualifications included a bachelor’s degree and documented teaching skills. It was not until the 1930s that short courses in “school administration” were introduced, although not all school principals in Sweden participated (Ekholm, 2017).

In 1958, the title of principal (rektor) was expanded beyond its traditional association with higher school forms (läroverken) to also include the lower school forms (folkskolorna). However, this change was met with resistance, as leaders of higher school forms felt their title was being devalued (Ekholm, 2008). In contrast, leaders of lower school forms supported the idea of school leadership as a distinct occupation separate from teaching, advocating for “school administration” as its academic foundation (Ullman, 1997, p. 183). This notion was unfamiliar to principals at the higher school levels, who viewed their role as firmly grounded in the teaching community, with Primus inter pares as a fundamental principle (Ullman, 1997). For acceptance to grow among higher-level principals, a shift would be required—one that embraced more advanced administrative perspectives aligned with concepts such as “school leadership” and “strategic decision-making,” going beyond the performance of simple administrative tasks.

In 1966, eight years after both groups were assigned the title of principal, they were united under a common association (Sveriges skolledarförbund). This transition prompted principals to leave their previous memberships in teachers’ associations, further distancing them from the teaching profession (Ullman, 1997). Disputes over the Primus inter pares principle continued into the 1970s. Questions emerged regarding whether principals were required to hold academic teaching degrees (Public Commission Report 1974:53), with some arguing that other school professionals, such as psychologists and counselors, should also be eligible for principal positions. The earlier view of principals’ duties as purely administrative was gradually abandoned and replaced by the notion that principals should serve as leaders—an expectation that required specialized training.

Version 1 (1976-1987): The first large-scale principals’ education program was launched in 1976 (Ekholm, 2017). Concerns about workplace issues and the need for principals to engage with broader society prompted its introduction (Government Bill 1975/76:39, p. 311). The program comprised 25 days spread over two years, including lectures, group discussions, and two internships. A guiding principle was to address “…real problems with reference to the participants’ own experiences and work situation” (Government Bill 1975/76:39, p. 312). The internships were to be carried out in “a line of business typical for the neighborhood” (Government Bill 1975/76:39, p. 312) and in “the municipality’s children and youth activities” (ibid.). Although there were proposals to integrate the program into universities or teacher training colleges, this idea was abandoned, and the program was instead organized by the National Board of Education (NBE) (Ekholm, 2017).

In 1985, the Swedish government tasked the NBE with developing a new education program for principals based on earlier experiences (Ekholm, 2017). To accommodate principals who had already completed the mandatory program, it was proposed that the new program be divided into four types: recruitment, introduction, advanced, and further training (Government Bill 1985/86:173, p. 4). Although integration into universities was considered, it was rejected in favor of a more practice-oriented approach, rooted in the everyday realities of schools (Jacobsson et al., 2013; internal document). The broader shift toward management by objectives and results in the public sector influenced the program’s aims, which sought to provide principals with an understanding of the societal objectives of the school system, the conditions that promote goal attainment, and “a thorough understanding of the rules and systems governing school activities” (Government Bill 1985/86:173, p. 4).

Version 2 (1987-1993): The second version of the principals’ education program was introduced in 1988 and remained under the jurisdiction of the NBE (Ekholm, 2016). It was mandatory, with advanced training similar in scope to the previous program, although the internship component was reduced and refocused to provide principals with leadership experiences in other industries (Jacobsson et al., 2013).

The early 1990s marked a period of profound transformation in the Swedish school system (Blomgren & Waks, 2017; Jarl et al., 2012). A sweeping decentralization reform was enacted in 1991, transferring responsibilities for staff, resource allocation, and the organization of school and teaching activities from the state to municipalities. Over the following years, the school system was reshaped into a competitive market for educational services through school choice and independent school reforms (Government Bill 1991/92:95; Government Bill 1992/93:230). These reforms were not unique to Sweden, but reflected a broader trend associated with New Public Management.

Version 3 (1993-2001): In 1993, the principals’ education program underwent another reform. The NBE had been disbanded in 1991 and was replaced by the Swedish National Agency for Education (NAE). After several previous attempts, the program finally became an academic education, decentralized to six Swedish universities, with the NAE acting as the commissioning authority. The program also became less practice-oriented, as the internship was discontinued. As municipal authorities assumed greater responsibility for schooling, decisions regarding participation were delegated to them. The curriculum of this third iteration of the program encompassed school objectives, control mechanisms, pedagogical development, and performance evaluations (Public Commission Report 1999:63). The program increasingly aimed to support principals in planning, budgeting, and evaluating school outcomes, aligning with contemporary managerial trends.

As principals were assigned greater managerial functions under the NPM reforms, their separation from the teaching profession deepened. The principals’ association (Sveriges skolledare) also formulated its own ethical guidelines, further strengthening the principals’ professionalization project (Jarl et al., 2012). The separation from the teachers peaked when a new school law came into effect in 1991. With this law, the final remnant of the Primus inter pares principle was abandoned, as a teaching degree was no longer required to become a principal (Ullman, 1997). Instead, principals were expected to acquire pedagogical insight “through training and experience” (Swedish Education Act, SFS 2010:800, Ch. 2, Sec.11). To date, no formal requirements exist for specific preparatory education for principals (Skott & Törnsén, 2018). This reform severed the formal connection between teachers and principals which had been established through their shared undergraduate training. Although a large majority of principals (87%) still hold a pedagogical university degree today (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2021, p. 21), they are no longer formally constructed as a hybrid profession combining a teaching degree with managerial responsibilities.

By the late 1990s, it was again deemed necessary to review the principals’ education program (Ekholm, 2016). Recommendations included closer integration with universities, the introduction of a headmaster examination, and the creation of a new academic subject, “Educational Leadership”. Advocates argued that such a subject should integrate research and provide a scientific foundation. However, the Swedish government opposed establishing a new scientific discipline, maintaining that such decisions were the prerogative of universities (Government Bill 1999/2000:135, p. 75). A fundamental disagreement persisted over whether the program should be a government-controlled education program or further integrated into the academic system with looser governmental control. The government favored the former, arguing that it would give it “the opportunity to delineate the roles and responsibilities of principals and related stakeholders in overseeing and developing the school system” (Government Bill 1999/2000:135, p. 74).

Version 4 (2001-2009): The fourth iteration of the principals’ education program began in 2001. This version emphasized its connection to the governmental control system and strengthening the alignment with national goals (Jacobsson et al., 2013). The academization of the program continued in parallel, as principals who wished could benchmark their accomplishments against academic standards to earn academic credits (Ekholm, 2016). The number of universities offering the program expanded from six to eight. In 2004, responsibility for the program was transferred to a new agency—The Agency for School Development (Government Letter 2001/02:188). This agency was short-lived; being disbanded in 2008, after which responsibility for the program was transferred back to the Swedish National Agency for Education.

Version 5 (2009-): In 2007, a Department of Education working group proposed a new framework for principals’ education (Departmental Series 2007:34), which became the foundation of today’s program. It was structured around three subjects: school law and the exercise of authority, management by objectives and results, and school leadership. The first subject introduced principals to the school’s mission, governance, and legal frameworks, emphasizing their governmental mandate. The second addressed the assessment of student and school performance against national objectives, including organizational control methods such as management accounting and quality assurance (Jacobsson & Svensson, 2017). The third offered practice-oriented leadership training linked to daily managerial responsibilities (Departmental Series 2007:34, p. 58). The working group stressed that the program should serve as “a governmental control tool” (ibid., p. 6), delivered as contract education through universities. In 2008, the program was further formalized and integrated into the academic system: it became mandatory, carried 30 credits (ECTS) at an advanced level, and could be incorporated into a master’s degree.

The Professions Program (2022-). Although principals’ education program has remained largely unchanged since 2009, the issue of Swedish principals’ education has continued to attract policy attention. In 2022, a new competence development initiative (Government Bill 2022/23:54), known as the Professions Program, was introduced. The program targets Swedish principals, teachers, and preschool teachers. It does not replace the principals’ education program but functions as a professional development initiative designed to strengthen teaching quality, professional status, and the attractiveness of the profession. In June 2023, the government further specified the mandate to procure continuing education for Swedish principals, which may form part of a master’s degree in school leadership (Government Decision 2023-06-01, p. 2). The Professions Program combines academic courses, collegial learning, and practice-related research (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2025).