When Steering Becomes an Obstacle

**Summary**

This blog explores how centralized steering in education policy can lead to distance, powerlessness, and resistance. What does it ask of leaders to find a balance between providing direction and allowing space?

Recent criticism of top-down steering in education policy is not only a reflection of practical objections, but also of a deeper systemic tension. While the education sector becomes increasingly rigid due to central decisions and uniformity, it is becoming ever clearer that the connection between policy and practice is not strengthened by detailed control, but rather by space for autonomy and shared ownership. The paradox is striking: the need for steering and control in education, once intended to create stability and equality, now undermines professionals’ sense of involvement and responsibility.

Education is a complex system in which the distance between policymakers and daily practice seems to be growing. How can leaders restore trust in such a context? How can space be created in which autonomy can flourish without completely letting go of the reins? And how do we, in times of increasing centralization, find the balance between steering and letting go?

The centralization of education policy has major consequences for system dynamics. Where policy once stood closer to practice, it is now often experienced as an external force detached from the reality of teachers and education professionals. Policies imposed from above reduce the sense of influence and ownership. This not infrequently leads to alienation: people feel like executors of others’ decisions, not co-owners of the course being set.

From a systemic perspective, this is counterproductive. When people have no influence over decisions that directly affect them, motivation declines and behavior shifts from proactive to reactive. Leadership that seeks only to increase control thus creates a culture of passivity. We then see energy that could have been invested in improvement or innovation diverted into resistance, cynicism, or simply surviving within imposed frameworks.

The experience of powerlessness often leads to protest and resistance, as recently seen in the education sector. It is important to recognize that this protest is not always directed at the content of the policy, but often at the lack of participation and at the way decisions are made.

From a psychodynamic perspective, prolonged powerlessness is undermining. It evokes frustration, but also feelings of fear and loss of professional identity. When teachers or other education professionals feel that their expertise is not recognized, a gap emerges between them and decision-makers. This gap fuels distrust, reinforces defensive behavior, and increases the likelihood that valuable feedback will not be shared.

Fear plays a major role here: fear of losing influence, of unexpected changes in work practice, or of no longer being seen as an expert. Leaders who ignore these feelings risk hardening resistance. Leaders who acknowledge them and engage in dialogue, on the other hand, build bridges.

By actively listening and taking emotions seriously, a leader can redirect the energy contained in protest toward constructive engagement. This requires the courage to question one’s own assumptions and to make space for another perspective.

Imagine being a school leader confronted with fierce criticism of new policy imposed from above. You can respond by enforcing the policy more strictly, or you can open the conversation. Creating a platform where teachers and staff can share their concerns and ideas can lead to a surprising amount of creativity and solution-oriented thinking.

Such an approach does not require letting go of steering, but rather sharing ownership. It means providing frameworks within which people can develop their own solutions. In practice, this can take the form of translating policy goals into open questions: “How can we, as a school, achieve this objective in a way that fits our context?”

When people help shape the implementation, engagement increases. A culture of learning and improvement emerges instead of one of obedience and execution.

Every leader in education acts with the best intentions, but not every action has the desired effect. Sometimes, without realizing it, we maintain patterns that limit autonomy—perhaps by intervening too quickly, or by structuring processes in such a way that little room remains for individual initiative.

Leadership in times of uncertainty and change requires the courage to also examine one’s own behavior. It calls for sharing rather than possessing, for giving space while still holding direction.

True renewal does not arise from imposing more rules, but from creating conditions in which professionals can fully apply their expertise—for students, for one another, and for the future of education.

*Rene de Baaij*