Abstract
Sustainable leadership has become a significant focus in educational leadership. Still, concerns persist regarding the clarity of its definitions and their impact addressing critical educational needs. This study employs a systematic review to address these definitional challenges. Seven themes emerge, categorized into three meta-themes: effectiveness and impact, sustainability systems thinking, and collaborative responsibility and future orientation. These findings reveal the diversity of sustainable leadership themes and challenge the assumption that achieving a universal definition is the key to collaborative progress. This methodologically rigorous study enhances our understanding of sustainable leadership in education, offering valuable insights for further research.
Keywords
Introduction
Institutional leadership confronts the challenge of sustaining growth and continuity (Dalcher, 2020). Sustainable leadership is being recognized as a valuable strategy for educational institutions to effectively manage the delicate balance between fostering innovation and upholding sustainability, ensuring positive outcomes for both the present and the future (Filho et al., 2020; Hargreaves, 2007). As an approach, sustainable leadership encompasses a range of objectives, including a communal context, ethical conduct, societal obligations, innovative methods, systemic transformation, and stakeholder engagement (Aslamiah et al., 2020). Sustainable leadership transcends organizational boundaries and operates within an open organizational and social ecosystem influenced by shared values (Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew, 2018). Over time, sustainable leadership aligns an organization’s values with its internal culture and external societal expectations. It ensures that organizational and social influences are carefully balanced within an inclusive framework that acknowledges the interconnectedness of entities. Arguably, sustainable leadership is less a style in the sense that the term might be used of, for example, transformational leadership (Ferdig, 2007), than a philosophy of leadership similar to servant or authentic leadership (Burns et al., 2015). Many authors have argued that its ultimate objectives are long-term success and positive contributions to the community (Dandapani & Shahrokhi, 2022; Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew, 2018).
Educational institutions are among the most significant social institutions shaping society’s present and future (Aslam et al., 2022). As they necessitate educational leadership capable of formulating sustainable solutions to enhance their operations, conserve resources, encourage shared responsibility, foster inclusiveness, contribute to societal development, and prioritize learning and personal growth over imposing top-down directives, these requisites will be explored as potential elements of sustainable leadership (Filho et al., 2020; Khan Malik, 2021; Sanford et al., 2019).
It is important to distinguish between leadership for sustainability and sustainable leadership. Leadership for sustainability primarily centers on leadership actions directly linked to environmental and sustainability initiatives, often with a narrower focus. This may involve strategies to reduce an organization’s environmental footprint, integrate sustainability into school curricula, or participate in community sustainability projects (Boeske, 2023; Burns et al., 2015). In contrast, this study will focus on sustainable educational leadership, encompassing a broad spectrum of principles, including societal context, ethical conduct, societal commitments, innovative approaches, systemic transformation, and stakeholder engagement (Gerard et al., 2017).
Despite the increasing demands for sustainable leadership, it is still a dynamic and evolving concept among researchers. The need for a comprehensive understanding of sustainable leadership continues, which is crucial for researchers, educators, policymakers, and practitioners. This underscores the importance of further research and collaborative efforts to enhance our understanding of the multifaceted dimensions of sustainable leadership (Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew, 2018; Lambert, 2012; Liao, 2022).
This paper contributes to these discussions by reporting on a systematic review of the concept of sustainable leadership in education. It begins by attempting to answer the definitional question: what is sustainable leadership in educational settings? It aims to identify shared characteristics and differences of sustainable leadership in general and education. By examining existing literature systematically and methodologically, this study seeks to comprehensively understand sustainable leadership as a concept and its implications for educational leaders’ practice.
Methods
Purpose
This systematic review aims to gather and analyze published definitions of sustainable leadership in education to identify shared characteristics and differences of the concept, both in general and specifically in education. It followed the general approach adopted and reported in the review by Bailey et al. (2023), albeit in a different field. In particular, the focus is on distinct definitions, excluding duplicates or citations of others’ definitions. Several excluded studies simply reference previously published definitions, while others do not provide any definition, perhaps assuming that the concept is self-evident (e.g., Hategan & Hategan, 2021; Iqbal et al., 2021). The study aims to explore the constitutive attributes of these definitions using an adaptive methodology to identify dominant themes. It was anticipated that gaining a deeper understanding and clarity regarding these definitions would facilitate the development of a more coherent and effective exploration of the ideas and practices underlying the ongoing debate on sustainable leadership in education.
Search Strategy
To ensure a structured and replicable approach, a systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA checklist (Page et al., 2021). The search was performed using the Scopus database and the Google Scholar search engine. The search terms used were “sustainable leadership” AND “education” OR “sustainable leadership education.” The initial search yielded 48 results in Scopus and 206 in Google Scholar. All publications from 2007 onward were considered for analysis, as the first available article in the Scopus database for this search term was published that year.
In contrast to typical reviews, our search did have a formal start date of 2007, aiming to identify definitions dating back from that year onward. The search strategy initially focused on abstracts, which were then screened using predefined inclusion criteria to ensure that only relevant papers were included in the study. Subsequently, full-text versions of the selected documents were accessed for a more comprehensive review. The following inclusion criteria were applied during the screening process:
(1) Language: The source was written in English.
(2) Relevance: The focus of the source explicitly addresses sustainable leadership in education.
(3) Content: The source must explicitly discuss sustainable leadership in education, providing a definition and a description of its key elements or criteria for its application in educational contexts.
By employing these criteria, the study aimed to identify relevant sources contributing to a comprehensive understanding of sustainable educational leadership.
Data Extraction
The data extraction process involved several steps to ensure rigor and accuracy. Initially, one researcher conducted the database search, while another researcher independently screened the studies based on titles, abstracts, and predefined inclusion criteria. We evaluated each potential source to enhance the screening process’s reliability. During this phase, studies were excluded if they were unrelated to sustainable educational leadership.
Once the articles had been screened for relevance, all researchers independently reviewed the full-text studies to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria and contained relevant definitions. Through this thorough examination, a total of (12) definitions were identified from (7) sources. The extracted definitions were cross-checked for duplicates, which were eliminated to maintain the integrity of the analysis. As a result of this process, (11) definitions from (7) discrete sources were obtained. A PRISMA chart was generated to provide a visual summary of the data extraction process, which is presented in Figure 1.
PRISMA flow diagram: sustainable leadership in education.
The identified definitions are presented in Table 1 for easy reference. This comprehensive approach to data extraction aims to maximize transparency and enables a more in-depth understanding of the collected definitions.
Identified Definitions of Sustainable Leadership in Education.
We employed a systematic approach to their analysis, which involved thoroughly examining each definition to uncover nuanced details contributing to the understanding of sustainable educational leadership. To achieve this, the research team conducted a thorough linguistic and contextual analysis of each definition. This involved dissecting the language used, examining the historical and educational context in which the definitions were presented, and identifying any implicit or explicit themes.
Furthermore, the analysis process was structured and iterative. Initially, each definition was reviewed individually, allowing us to delve into its unique characteristics. Subsequently, a comparative analysis was conducted to identify recurring patterns and thematic threads transcending individual definitions. This iterative process allowed for a comprehensive exploration of the core concepts and themes within each definition and their collective impact on the essence of sustainable leadership in education. Additionally, three overarching meta-themes were derived from these recurrent themes. A coherent framework was then developed based on this meticulous categorization, with each meta-theme representing a distinct aspect of sustainable leadership. Ultimately, they developed a comprehensive and intuitive model that vividly depicted the interrelationships and interactions among the diverse meta-themes. This framework served as a navigational guide, aiding in comprehending the intricate dimensions that define sustainable leadership within the educational context.
We analyzed the definitions of sustainable leadership in education. They classified them into three meta-themes containing seven sub-headings, as shown in Figure 2.
Themes and sub-themes of sustainable leadership in education.
Within Figure 2, the significance of these three meta-themes comes to the forefront, representing the essence of the sustainable leadership concept.
Discussion
The search process resulted in the identification of 11 distinctive definitions of sustainable leadership in education. These definitions have collectively been categorized into seven distinct themes, further consolidated into three overarching meta-themes. The relatively limited number of definitions underscores the need for a more comprehensive exploration of sustainable leadership in an educational context (Hallinger & Suriyankietkaew, 2018; Lambert, 2012; Liao, 2022).
Effectiveness and Impact
The meta-theme “Effectiveness and Impact” serves as a comprehensive exploration of sustainable leadership in education, delving into its various dimensions beyond superficial administrative roles. At its core, this theme is centered on the enduring pursuit of positive outcomes within educational institutions. It seeks to unravel the intricacies of leadership, envisioning a future where these institutions not only prosper but also make lasting and sustainable contributions to the community. This theme, therefore, delves into the essence of sustainable leadership, providing a nuanced understanding of how leadership practices can lead to meaningful and enduring impacts on educational environments and the broader society.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Positive Impact
This subtheme relates to leadership as a form of guidance characterized by “...leadership whose positive effects are sustained, or whose effectiveness does not fade over the tenure of the individual concerned” (Hargreaves and Goodson, 2006, p. 25). The essence lies in the endurance of positive leadership outcomes, emphasizing the imperative for sustained effectiveness throughout the leader’s term.
Operationalizing this paradigm places a great deal of responsibility on the leader, involving systematically instilling and fortifying sustainable leadership principles within the educational institution and the broader societal context (Filho et al., 2020). The leader’s agency is exemplified through actions and decisions yielding positive and sustainable impacts during their tenure (Fry & Egel, 2021). These meaningful changes include the promotion of enhanced learning environments, cultivating a forward-thinking vision, improving stakeholder quality of life, and facilitating capacity building (Iqbal, Ahmad, & Halim, 2020). These transformative changes, championed by the leader, encapsulate the role of sustainable leadership, signifying a commitment to lasting positive effects.
Crucially, this subtheme highlights the significance of departing from transient goals. In fact, the sustained effects should persist beyond the leader’s term of office (Barut & Onay, 2017; Sengupta et al., 2020). This sustained approach aligns with the foundational principles of sustainable leadership, such as sustaining learning, success over time, and sustaining the leadership of others, ensuring that the positive changes initiated by the leader persist over time (Chaudhry & Noureen, 2023). This intentional focus on long-term goals, as opposed to short-term achievements, underscores the leader’s commitment to a sustained and meaningful impact, enriching the educational landscape and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. Thus, the enduring legacy of a sustainable leader is marked not only by the changes implemented during their tenure but by the lasting imprint on the institution’s trajectory, reflecting a dedication to sustained excellence and effectiveness (Lee, 2017).
Building Leadership Culture Based on Moral Purpose for Long-Term Success
The theme “Building Leadership Culture Based on Moral Purpose for Long-term Success” is epitomized through by the following definition: “... is made up of the key factors that underpin the longer-term development of the school. It builds a leadership culture based on moral purpose that provides success that is accessible to all” (Davies, 2009, p. 7). This articulation highlights a key aspect of sustainable leadership, emphasizing the primary goal of ensuring success for every member of the educational community (Sanford et al., 2019). This commitment is explicitly grounded in ethical conduct and the principle of equality. As elucidated by Davies, sustainable leadership strives to accentuate the significance of moral heritage in its operations, transcending the realms of transient leadership to establish an enduring and sustainable impact.
Notably, this leadership model distinguishes itself from many earlier forms by its ambitions of endurance (Bulmer et al., 2022). This subtheme focuses on the role of stakeholder engagement, trust, and shared responsibility in addressing complex challenges (Liao, 2022). Acknowledging the role of continuous improvement and the effective management of financial and human resources, sustainable leadership aligns with the principle of sustainable growth (Kondrotaitė & Burinskienė, 2023). This commitment to inclusivity, ethical foundations, and long-term impact positions sustainable leadership as a holistic framework extending beyond immediate achievements. Inclusivity emphasizes the active involvement of all stakeholders in decision-making processes, fostering a climate of trust and shared responsibility. Ethical foundations underscore the adherence to moral principles, ensuring that leadership decisions align with values and contribute positively to the broader community. The focus on long-term impact signifies a deliberate departure from short-term gains, with sustainable leadership dedicated to enduring excellence and effectiveness over time (Bulmer et al., 2022). Together, these elements create an environment conducive to the thriving of every participant, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and sustained positive contributions.
Sustainability and Systems Thinking
One of the least contentious features of the sustainable leadership concept is its alignment with paradigmatic discourses of sustainability. This paradigm is populated with principles like quality, adaptability, openness, adeptness in navigating complex challenges, and a discerning grasp of systemic dynamics (Kondrotaitė & Burinskienė, 2023). Resilience and openness in addressing challenges’ (Glaser & Entine, 2014) elucidate this further by portraying “Sustainable leadership as involving the quality of personal resilience and openness in dealing with complex challenges” (p. 25). The theme “Systems thinking and sustainability” dovetails with the notion presented by Bendell and Little (2015, p. 25), who advance the idea that “Sustainable leadership can be viewed as a systems-conscious approach.”
Resilience and Openness in Addressing Challenges
Resilience and openness in addressing challenges are distinctive hallmarks of sustainable leadership, as articulated by Glaser and Entine (2014). Their definition encapsulates “Sustainable leadership as involving the quality of personal resilience and openness in dealing with complex challenges” (p. 25). This essence of sustainable leadership emphasizes the significance of adaptability and continuous operation in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, even amid resource constraints (Iqbal & Piwowar-Sulej, 2023). It goes beyond mere survival, promoting the cultivation of strength across physical, emotional, and mental dimensions (Waldner, 2023). This holistic approach is in harmony with personal and social values and morals, reflecting a comprehensive commitment to navigating challenges while upholding ethical considerations.
Sustainable leadership integrates personal resilience with an open mindset to address multifaceted challenges, aiming for a positive impact on individuals, organizations, and the world (Miceli et al., 2021). This combination of personal strength and a forward-thinking approach situates sustainable leadership as a response to challenges and a proactive force engaging with complexity. The principle of resilience and openness emphasizes the dynamic and forward-thinking nature of sustainable leadership, showcasing its role as an adaptive force capable of navigating adversity.
Systems Thinking and Sustainability
According to Bendell and Little (2015), “Sustainable leadership can be viewed as a systems-conscious approach” (p. 25), emphasizing its cognizance of broader systemic implications. This orientation acknowledges that leadership decisions extend beyond immediate concerns and impact larger systems encompassing economic, environmental, and social dimensions (Liao, 2022). Consequently, sustainable leadership is inherently committed to formulating comprehensive and enduring solutions that address multifaceted challenges (Sultan et al., 2022). This commitment often finds expression in promoting teamwork, fostering cooperation, and cultivating a shared vision for systemic change. In other words, a sustainable mentality is one that seeks to harmonize social, economic, and environmental goals (Lund et al., 2018), matched with a balance that aims for the long-term well-being of constituent interconnected elements of the system (Bulmer et al., 2022). The emphasis on a systems-conscious approach, thus, distinguishes sustainable leadership and positions it as a strategic and forward-thinking paradigm. Consequently, sustainable leadership represents a transformative paradigm (Sanford et al., 2019), steering away from traditional leadership models and embracing sustainability principles and practices. It fosters inclusivity, cooperation, and responsiveness, heralding a leadership guided by the ethos of sustainability (Cuhadar & Rudnák, 2022). By integrating sustainability concerns into the fabric of leadership, sustainable leadership seeks to redefine organizational progress, facilitate enduring change, and ultimately support the realization of a more sustainable future.
Collaborative Responsibility and Future Orientation
As an overarching concept in education, sustainable leadership converges upon a unique amalgamation of principles coalescing into the meta-theme of collaborative responsibility and future orientation (Svensson & Wood, 2006). This meta-theme, further discernible in the interaction among key themes, reveals sustainable leadership as a dynamic paradigm attuned to the enduring legacy of educational institutions.
Strategic Leadership for Sustainability and Change
Sustainable leadership’s ascendancy and credibility stem from its innate commitment to empowering all stakeholders within its expansive framework, driving their desired progress while considering sustainability imperatives (Iqbal, Ahmad, Nasim, et al., 2020). This commitment to transformative change for sustainability is the foundation of the meta—“Strategic Leadership for Sustainability and Change” theme. This overarching theme is then distilled into a concept of “leadership in driving sustainable organizational change,” eloquently articulated by Lynn et al. (2011, p. 25). According to Lynn and colleagues, sustainable leadership represents a departure from exploitative leadership. Instead, it involves individuals with earned authority assisting groups in achieving their desired progress on sustainability issues. This aligns with the notion of making progress on sustainability issues, as scholars such as Avery and Bergsteiner (2011, p. 25). They underscore that sustainable leadership entails a senior management approach to designing organizational change processes that address sustainability issues profitably.
Stakeholder Engagement and Value Creation
A profound connection with cooperation and shared responsibility lies at the core of sustainable leadership’s achievements. Collaboration among stakeholders, rooted in their shared commitment to the educational enterprise, generates a synergy that propels sustainable leadership from the realm of theory into an impactful reality. This foundational principle of shared responsibility is a cornerstone for achieving sustainable leadership’s overarching goals, as emphasized by the findings of Jayashree et al. (2022). In conclusion, the pivotal role of collaboration and shared responsibility within sustainable leadership underscores its multifaceted nature and highlights its capacity to catalyze holistic educational progress.
The inherent inclusiveness of sustainable leadership underscores its profound recognition of the multifaceted roles played by all stakeholders. This recognition emphasizes the imperative to address stakeholder needs without compromising the continuous operation of educational institutions. This integrated approach extends to safeguarding the broader ecosystem, including the environment, society, and future generations, thereby creating enduring and fundamental value for all these entities. This underlying principle aligns with the theme of Stakeholder Engagement and Value Creation. These ideas are further supported by Edge Equilibrium (2015), who contends that sustainable leadership involves “. . . behaviors and practices that create permanent value for all stakeholders, including the environment, future generations, and society at large.” (p. 2). This notion is also exemplified by Kantabutra and Saratun (2013), who defined sustainable leadership as “. . . the ability to meet the needs of an organization’s direct and indirect stakeholders (e.g., employees, clients, pressure groups and communities), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of the future mission of the founders” (p. 3).
A central ambition of sustainable leadership is its capacity to harmonize the immediate goals of educational institutions with the broader imperatives of sustainable development. Sustainable leadership achieves this equilibrium by shifting away from a narrow, shareholder-centric perspective and embracing a comprehensive triple-bottom-line approach that prioritizes people, the planet, and financial prosperity. This transformative ethos, succinctly articulated by Jayashree et al. (2022), underscores that sustainable leadership operates within a dynamic equilibrium. This equilibrium signifies the harmony between immediate educational goals and sustainable development, allowing for the coexistence of diverse stakeholder interests and ensuring the enduring prosperity of the educational ecosystem.
Holistic Leadership, Future Orientation, and Shared Responsibility
The above interpretations are consistent with the “Holistic Leadership, Future Orientation, and Shared Responsibility” theme. The interplay among these themes confirms their continued relevance and suggests a deep connection between sustainable leadership and its long-term impact on educational institutions.
Sustainable leadership in education embodies a unique temporal perspective, as evidenced by the definition found by Metsämuuronen et al. (2013, p. 3). Laukkanen emphasizes that it pertains to “a long and enduring history of future-oriented decisions and actions.” This future-oriented perspective is further exemplified by the theme that “Holistic leadership considers past, present, and future” (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006, p. 4). They describe sustainable leadership in terms of practices that should be holistic, involving an integrated view of the past, present, and future, both locally and elsewhere. For example, this may entail a school leader considering the historical context of their institution, current educational challenges, and future societal needs when making decisions and setting educational priorities.
Sustainable leadership is characterized as inherently enduring and applicable across diverse settings (Ferdig, 2007). Collectively, these definitions reflect a leadership paradigm that learns from history, engages with the present and envisions a future marked by continuity, adaptability, and a broad understanding of its implications. This temporal focus further underscores the comprehensive nature of sustainable leadership in education. Harmonizing historical insights, current achievements, and forward-looking ambitions embody a leadership ethos finely attuned to the dynamic educational landscape. As the concept of sustainable leadership evolves, this temporal integration stands as a critical foundation for fostering long-term educational growth and positive impact. Within the dynamic interplay between the crucial facets of effectiveness and impact and the holistic orientation toward the future, sustainable leadership reveals a perceptive insight into one of its cornerstone principles – collaboration and shared responsibility across all levels. This profound realization manifests in the emergent theme of “Holistic Leadership, Future Orientation, and Shared Responsibility,” a linchpin binding the various dimensions of sustainable leadership.
A noteworthy example of this tenet can be found in Hargreaves and Fink’s (2004) definition of sustainable leadership in education. In their assertion, sustainable leadership is described as “. . .a shared responsibility that does not unduly deplete human or financial resources, and that cares for and avoids exerting negative damage on the surrounding educational and community environment. Sustainable leadership has an activist engagement with the forces that affect it and builds an educational environment of organizational diversity that promotes cross-fertilization of good ideas and successful practices in communities of shared learning and development” (p. 99).
We analyzed this theme, highlighting the importance of sustainable leadership as “a shared responsibility” and the training of school leaders in sustainable practices. These themes emphasize the need for collective efforts to foster an educational environment that thrives through shared responsibility.
Sustainable Leadership Among Indigenous Communities
The different definitions and themes of sustainable leadership explored here reveal both the emerging paradigm and the internal components of sustainable leadership. They also, we suggest, illustrate how Western practices and ideas have framed and boundaried thinking in educational leadership. While it is true that collectivism lies behind approaches such as collegiality and distributed leadership (Jarvis, 2021), most accounts maintain a presumption that leadership is a property of individuals within networks of social relationships (Yukl, 2006). Sustainability is inevitably seen as applicable to external entities and environments: it is a task to be accomplished or perhaps a philosophy, but it is not inherent to the actors involved.
It is interesting to compare these accounts with those of some indigenous people, who conceptualize individuality and society differently. The Orang Asli of Malaysia, to consider one example, is a heterogeneous indigenous population, with different languages and customs, but sharing a belief in the inseparability of human life and the natural (Bala & Tan, 2020; Dong et al., 2022): the soul of nature and the soul of human beings are believed to be unified and contiguous. Land is a touchstone for identity and not merely a possession (Angit & Jarvis, 2024). For the Orang Asli, leaders have roles that might not be immediately recognized as such elsewhere. For example, the village officeholder, the Poyang, is responsible for strengthening communal bonds and reinforcing shared meanings (Nicholas, 2021). His role is regarded as crucial, if not central. “Sustainable leadership” in this context, then, is not about stewardship in any blandly benign way but an expression of the wholeness of people and the natural world that goes way beyond the social contracts (Burnyeat & Johansson, 2022) familiar to inhabitants of Western societies. It is in an entirely literal sense about self-management and self-preservation. At a minimum, the existence of these alternative models of leadership should remind us that our understandings of specific concepts and phenomena are inevitably shaped and boundaried by our cultural inheritances.
Conclusion
Sustainable leadership practices remain critical in the ongoing pursuit of transformation and sustainability within the education sector (Farooq, 2018). This article sought to contribute to efforts to understand this phenomenon by issues by systematically reviewing definitions from the available literature. There has been no aim or assumption that this task ought to result in a “correct” or “descriptive definition.” It is not clear that such a task is possible, anyway, especially when dealing with constructed concepts (Scheffler, 1961). Definitions phrased as “x is . . . .” or “x means . . .” superficially appear to claim some descriptive authority. However, the evident variety of definitions and their constituent elements undermines such ambitions. Instead, we suggest all of these definitions are “stipulative” in the sense that they “give notice that it is to be taken as equivalent to some other exhibited term or description, within a particular context” (Scheffler, 1961, p. 13). In other words, stipulative definitions indicate the specific usage by authors in specific contexts: “this is what we mean by the term here.” They are terms of shared understanding (Bailey, 2021) rather than attempts to derive the essence of a concept. This, we tentatively suggest, is the value of reviews like that reported here, as their analyse highlights the diversity of uses of the terminology of sustainable leadership in education. This undermines any presumptions of consensus in any bit the most general sense, but also reveals the generative power of competing accounts.
In light of this, the current study embarked on an exploration of various definitions, aiming to distil a more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which definitions of sustainable leadership have been and are used in the literature. A tapestry of themes and connections emerged, 11 distinct definitions of sustainable leadership in education emerging from our analysis. These definitions were meticulously grouped into 12 specific themes, further coalescing into three overarching meta-themes. The scarcity of definitions underscores the urgency for a more exhaustive investigation into sustainable leadership’s dimensions within the educational field.
Notably, the meta-theme “effectiveness and impact” emerged as a common denominator of many accounts of sustainable leadership (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2006). The meta-theme “holistic leadership and future” also emerged, accentuating a temporal perspective encompassing past, present, and future considerations (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006, p. 4). This forward-looking stance found embodiment in the theme “future-oriented decision-making for educational development” (Metsämuuronen et al., 2013, p. 3). Moreover, collaboration and shared responsibility emerged as a linchpin, interweaving diverse dimensions of sustainable leadership and emphasizing the significance of collective endeavors in nurturing a thriving educational milieu. The theme “stakeholder value and environmental” sheds light on stakeholders’ multifaceted roles, further underscoring the need for a balanced approach to educational advancement (Kantabutra & Saratun, 2013, p. 3). Furthermore, the transformative potency of sustainable leadership came to the fore through the theme “leadership in driving change for sustainability” (Lynn et al., 2011, p. 25).
In summary, sustainable leadership in education can be defined as a dynamic and multifaceted paradigm characterized by its foundational emphasis on effectiveness and long-term impact. This form of leadership takes a holistic approach, considering the past, present, and future, and prioritizes future-oriented decision-making for educational development. It underscores the critical role of collaboration and shared responsibility among stakeholders and strongly emphasizes stakeholder value and environmental considerations. Furthermore, sustainable leadership is inherently transformative, driving positive change for sustainability within educational institutions. Overall, it represents a comprehensive and forward-looking approach that seeks to redefine educational progress through the lens of sustainability principles.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust (Grant Number 211200/Z/18/Z to AC). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
