Anna Martensson, Kristen Snyder, Pernilla Ingelsson, Ingela Backstrom
4 min
This study explores how preschool leaders in a Swedish municipality define and apply the concept of long-term thinking within their management practices. Given the increasing pressure to align educational goals with sustainable development, the researchers sought to understand how leaders bridge the gap between theoretical ideals of long-term planning and the daily realities of school management. Using a grounded theory methodology, the authors conducted oral and written interviews with 21 school leaders to analyze their perspectives on long-term thinking and its role in quality development.
The study reveals that long-term thinking is not a monolithic concept but rather a twofold strategy. First, it acts as an anchor, providing a stable mission that guides the organization's purpose. Second, it serves as a steering mechanism that helps leaders navigate decision-making and process development.
However, the application of this strategy is often fragmented. The researchers identified two distinct approaches:
A common thread across these approaches is the phrase "hold on and persevere," which leaders use either as a coping mechanism for reactive stress or as a source of strength for proactive, long-term development.
For organizations to achieve sustainable quality development, they must move beyond viewing long-term thinking as a mere buzzword. The study highlights that without robust support systems—such as clear alignment between budget planning, organizational culture, and strategic goals—leaders remain trapped in a cycle of reactive firefighting. This research provides a framework for educational leaders to better integrate their daily operational tasks with the broader, long-term mandate of preparing children for a sustainable future.
Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore the concept of long-term thinking in a non-business context to gain deeper insights into bridging the gap between the theory of long-term thinking and its application as a management strategy. Design/methodology/approach To explore the concept of long-thinking further in a non-business setting, a grounded theory study was conducted with preschool leaders in a municipality in Sweden to examine how the leaders describe, define and apply the concept of long-term thinking in their schools. Interviews with school leaders, both written and oral, were used for data collection. Findings This study illustrates that the concept of long-term thinking can be twofold. First, the description can be as an anchor that reflects a mission. Second, the description can be a steering mechanism that guides decision-making. The findings also reinforce the importance of organisations developing an organisational culture that connect their vision and goals with the values and needs of their customers. Research limitations/implications This study was carried out in a single organisation and shows a snapshot of the organisation's status at the time the data were collected. Therefore, the findings are not generalisable to all organisational settings; rather the findings may be transferable to other settings. Practical implications The results can be used to help identify areas where preschools in a municipal context can engage with sustainable quality development in order to build systems that support work with quality in a more structured way. Originality/value Long-term thinking is seen, within both theory and organisations, as necessary to achieve success in terms of sustainable development and quality, and this study contributes with knowledge about the current gap between theories of long-term thinking and practice in organisations.
Alex: [reflective] That is a meaningful reframe. It turns what sounds like a vague management principle into a two-part diagnostic. You can ask: what is this leader actually anchoring, and what are they actually steering? If they cannot answer both questions clearly, they are probably still firefighting.
Sam: [measured, precise] And the study argues the gap between policy and practice is often exactly that—not a resource failure, but a conceptual failure to link the mission to the daily work. Leaders who lacked clear anchor points were the most frustrated, because they were essentially trying to navigate by holding onto the anchor alone. [[RP_SECTION:scope-and-limitations|Scope and Limitations]]
Alex: [analytical] Worth flagging the scope here, though. This is a single-organization case study using grounded theory. The framework is generative, but the evidentiary base is narrow. How far does the authors' own caution extend?
Sam: [grounded, honest] They are appropriately cautious. Grounded theory is designed to generate conceptual frameworks, not to test them at scale. The anchor-and-steering duality is a hypothesis worth taking seriously, but it has not been subjected to the kind of multi-site, quantitative validation that would let you make strong causal claims. What the study gives you is a well-specified conceptual structure and a clear operationalization of the mediating variable—that is genuinely useful, but it is a starting point, not a settled finding. [[RP_SECTION:practical-application|Practical Application]]
Alex: [thoughtful] So the practical takeaway for someone running an organization is less "implement this framework" and more "use this as a diagnostic lens." Ask whether your long-term thinking is doing both jobs, and if not, which one is missing.
Sam: [concluding, quiet confidence] That is the right read. The audit question is simple: are you anchoring your core values, and are you actively steering your processes toward them? If you cannot distinguish those two functions in your own strategy, the study suggests you are likely still in firefighting mode—regardless of how many long-term plans you have written.
Alex: [measured] A useful corrective. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.