Educational Leadership: Enabling Positive Planetary Action Through Regenerative Practices and Complexity Leadership Theory

Abstract

Uniquely rooted in regenerative leadership and complemented by Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT), this conceptual essay offers a theoretical exploration of how educational institutions can act as dynamic systems that catalyze adaptive, community-led responses to anthropocentric socio-environmental crises. Rather than sustaining existing structures, educational leadership for regeneration seeks to restore ecological balance and nurture emergent capacities for long-term resilience. Positioned as key sites of influence, educational institutions are explored as engines of innovation capable of mobilizing students, educators, and communities toward collective environmental action. CLT offers a valuable lens for understanding how leadership emerges from nonlinear, adaptive processes within schools, enabling the development of innovative, collaborative, and responsive strategies required for navigating complexity and leading planetary-positive change. Drawing on a synthesis of the recent global literature, this paper begins by outlining the need to go beyond sustainability in envisioning regenerative futures, followed by an introduction to regenerative principles. It then examines the current and evolving role of educational leadership, the relevance in enabling whole-institution transformation, and how this relates to regenerative practices. The theoretical frameworks of systems thinking and CLT are introduced before noting their application within regenerative educational leadership. The final sections identify implementation challenges and offer practical recommendations, including curriculum innovation, professional development, and youth-led advocacy, before concluding with a call for education as a vehicle for cultivating planetary-conscious citizens and systemic change. This work contributes a timely and theoretically grounded model for reimagining educational leadership in an era of global turbulence.

1. Introduction

The world is currently experiencing an unprecedented convergence of crises, including climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, and widening global inequalities, all of which exert significant pressure on planetary systems [1,2,3]. These challenges are deeply interconnected, rendering it impossible to address them in isolation [4]. At the heart of a meaningful response lies education, a powerful catalyst for equipping individuals and communities with the knowledge, critical thinking capabilities [5], and ethical awareness [6] necessary to initiate and sustain transformative change. While significant shifts in educational purpose and practice are needed, meaningful transformation can begin with small, individual actions that gradually build toward broader systemic change.

Education holds a crucial role in generating environmental regeneration and social responsibility [7]. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [8] has emphasized the urgent need for high-quality climate education to support mitigation efforts and ensure just transitions. By embedding ecological systems thinking into curricula, education can deepen learners’ understanding of the interdependence between human and natural systems, thereby cultivating a shared responsibility for planetary well-being [9].

Although education across all phases is considered in this paper, insights from higher education are instructive. Barnett’s [10] concept of the “ecological university”, an institution that fully acknowledges its interconnectedness with the world, can be extended to educational institutions more broadly. Such institutions develop students as global citizens, instill a sense of care for the planet, and empower educators and learners to realize their potential as agents of planetary renewal. While Lehtonen et al. [9] also focus on higher education, the imperative to integrate regenerative thinking applies equally to schools, colleges and community-based educational programs. Without this foundational integration, regenerative efforts risk remaining fragmented and ineffectual.

The problems which this paper addresses are that despite a growing awareness of planetary crises, there appears to be insufficient research combining regenerative practices and educational leadership. Additionally, educational leadership remains largely rooted in Western, hierarchical and mechanistic models that are ill-suited to the complexity and urgency of today’s ecological and social challenges [1]. There is a pressing need for leadership paradigms that promote systemic, regenerative, and collaborative responses within educational institutions. To achieve this systemic transformation, educational leadership must play a pivotal role. These leaders must embed regeneration into institutional strategies, policies, and pedagogical practices–shifting from managerial paradigms toward dynamic, systems-informed approaches. This paper offers a novel conceptual contribution by integrating regenerative leadership with Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) [11] to reconceptualize educational leadership in the context of planetary health. While regenerative principles have gained traction in environmental discourse, their application in educational leadership remains underexplored. The innovative synthesis of CLT with regenerative education provides a fresh theoretical lens to understand how adaptive, decentralized, and collaborative leadership models can enhance systemic change in learning institutions.

Drawing from global literature, this paper explores how educational leadership for regeneration, when viewed through the lens of Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) [11], can empower education communities to take positive planetary action. The discussion proceeds by examining regenerative futures, [re]imagining leadership practices, exploring systems thinking and CLT, and detailing the implications for institutions seeking to cultivate education as a force for ecological and social regeneration.

2. Regenerative Futures: Why Go Beyond Sustainability?

In recent years, the idea of sustainability, which seeks to balance environmental protection, social equity, and economic growth, has encountered significant criticism. Such scrutiny has intensified as we continue to witness ongoing environmental deterioration [12]. The Brundtland Commission Report originally defined sustainable development as meeting ‘the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ [13] (p. 15). While many focus on this definition, the report also implies limits:

a.

The possibility that current and future environmental needs are constrained by technological advancements and societal structures, which limit the ecosystem’s capacity to meet these demands.

b.

The notion of “needs”, particularly the fundamental necessities of poorer populations worldwide, which should be accorded with utmost importance.

Since the Brundtland report, scholars have offered various revisions to this definition of sustainability, but its essence remains largely unchanged. So, sustainability aims to maintain environmental conditions and reduce harmful impacts. It seeks to mitigate negative effects, ensuring resources are consumed judiciously for future generations [12,14]. The goal is to balance the environment, society, and economics to avoid depleting or causing irreversible damage to ecosystems [15]. This broad vision of sustainability is reflected in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which were designed to provide a comprehensive framework for addressing global challenges through coordinated action [16].

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework for national, regional and global sustainable development over a 15-year period until 2030 [16]. Even though the adoption of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) across many sectors is increasing [1], the required impact has yet to emerge [17]. Nevertheless, the SDGs encompass a broad range of global priorities, including poverty eradication, quality education, climate action, clean energy, and sustainable economic growth, all aimed at creating a more just, resilient, and environmentally responsible world.

Yet critics, such as Hutchins and Storm [1], contend that sustainability initiatives are being executed in a mechanistic manner, with an increased focus on measuring and controlling various aspects in isolation. Furthermore, Buckton et al. [14] emphasize the shortcomings in addressing fundamental contemporary forces, such as capitalist systems, commodification, and perspectives that view humans as distinct from the natural world. All of which are clearly articulated by Bainbridge [18] in relation to education. Additional critiques, such as Biermann et al. [19] and Gasparatos et al. [20], address the political aspects of sustainability and the lack of transformative action alongside the overly systematic and reductionist approaches employed in the sustainability framework. Notwithstanding the criticism, it is imperative not to simply dismiss the concept of sustainability, the SDGs, and the ongoing work that ensues. Rather, it is necessary to utilize these principles, particularly within education, whilst extending their application further.

The term “regeneration”, although lacking a succinct definition, is increasingly employed in the current literature as an alternative to, or in addition to, sustainability [4]. That said, the literature linking regeneration and education is scarce. Although sustainability and regeneration are related concepts, their approach and impacts differ. Complementing sustainability, regeneration takes a more proactive approach by actively healing, restoring, reinvigorating, and enhancing ecosystems, societies, and resources [12,15]. The concept of regeneration has been described as conditions that create life [14], where “emergent properties derive from positive synergistic interactions of agents, both human and non-human, are able to influence the multiple social-ecological conditions and processes in which they live and that live within them” [21] (p. 369).

So, rather than merely minimizing damage, regenerative methods aim to replenish and strengthen natural and social systems, enhancing their health and resilience over time [14]. Here, the focus is on mending existing harm to communities and ecosystems, which are interlinked within bioregional frameworks, in a manner that generates prosperity for the environment, people, and the economy [12]. To do so, Gibbons [2] reported that ‘Advancing regenerative sustainability will require fundamental shifts supported by more awareness and education, theoretical and practical development, leadership, empowering communities’ (p. 5483). Realizing this transformative shift requires educational leadership that promotes regenerative principles, embedding them into institutional internal and external community engagement to cultivate future leaders equipped to drive meaningful change.

3. Regenerative Principles

Regeneration requires principles that reinstate systems’ ability to produce various forms of capital through mutual evolution. This approach comprehensively examines past dysfunctional patterns, assesses the current equilibrium of natural, physical, human, and economic resources, and directs development efforts towards replacing ineffective systems [12]. According to Caniglia et al. [4], scholars agree that regenerative processes aim to achieve three main objectives. First, stimulating enhanced well-being in natural and human environments through holistic practices and community involvement. Second, encouraging beneficial feedback loops that create symbiotic relationships between ecological, societal, financial, and infrastructural resources to produce prosperity across all spheres. Thirdly, demonstrating reverence for local circumstances, including ecological, cultural, and economic factors, to ensure progress suits the specific ecosystem, cultural heritage, and economic conditions of the area.

A regenerative approach to leadership recognizes the interconnected nature of systems and the need for holistic, transformative action. Sanford [22] (pp. 27–31) presents seven principles of regeneration (see

Table 1. Sandford’s [22] seven principles of regeneration.

Principle	Feature
‘Image a whole at work’	A living system is defined by its natural boundaries. It cannot sustain life if divided into parts. To understand the functioning of a living system, it is essential to envision it whole, engaged in being alive.
‘Work toward potential not ideals’	Examine the entirety of a situation and its unique possibilities, rather than concentrating on idealistic notions or perceived difficulties. When we fixate on problems and adhere to preconceived standards, we inevitably begin from our current position, limiting ourselves to mere enhancement instead of regeneration.
‘Reveal and express essence’	Failing to begin with essence, or the DNA of the living organism, leads to immediate classification and compartmentalization based on patterns of our own creation. By defining an entity by category alone, one overlooks its vitality and distinctiveness, reducing it to merely one among similar objects.
‘Engage with living systems developmentally’	The practice of developmental work enables individuals to express their essence, uncovers patterns, and eliminates barriers that hinder such expression.
‘Design from a mindfulness of nestedness’	All living entities are interconnected, existing within each other. No element stands alone. Consider how a household is embedded within a neighborhood, which is part of society, itself situated within a cultural framework. The concept of nesting refers to the web of connections and dependencies between smaller and larger integrated systems.
‘Intervene at systemic nodes’	Envisioning a system that is vibrant, dynamic, and interconnected with other living systems. The flow of life and its transformations are driven by activities at crucial junctures rather than dispersed components.
‘Innovate for systemic reciprocity’	The interconnected nature of existence makes organisms mutually reliant, forming the foundation of living systems theory: holistic reciprocity, rather than isolated transactions for personal gain. The core of systemic mutuality and ecosystem renewal lies in developing competence as contributors within life’s embedded systems.

) that address these aspects.

Based on Sanford’s [22] principles, regeneration cannot emerge within a single entity, whether team, department, organization, community, or nation. Instead, it arises from integration and interconnectedness. Overcoming organizational boundaries and breaking educational barriers for sustainability/regeneration helps lead to a non-hierarchical leadership approach [15]; this shift requires leaders to develop collaborative skills within and beyond their contexts.

Hardman’s [15] regenerative leadership framework encompasses four fundamental principles, represented as quadrants (refer to

Table 2. Hardman’s [15] (p. 15) four principles for regenerative leadership.

Principle	Action
1. ‘Facilitating access to the source of personal purpose and emerging self’	Leaders expand their awareness of the complex connections between ecological and societal frameworks, including their place and role within the global ecosystem.
2. ‘Connecting with others through keen observation and deep listening’	Leaders perceive reality as it truly is, rather than how we are conditioned to view it by withholding judgment after recognizing that current methods in nearly all spheres of human endeavor are not sustainable. This enables the leader to transcend the ego and mechanistic perspective by utilizing all facets of the human mind, heart and spirit.
3. ‘Eliciting collective purpose through generative conversation’	Leaders effectively champion sustainability and regenerative initiatives by promoting constructive conversations and genuine engagement with all relevant stakeholders, spanning both internal and external organizational boundaries.
4. ‘Engaging in collective action to strategize optimal solutions to emerging futures’	Leaders embed a sustainable mindset into the organizational culture to enable a comprehensive regeneration strategy.

). These principles are interconnected by an infinity symbol, which signifies the circular, continuous and progressive approach characteristic of regenerative leaders. This method implements regenerative practices at individual and group levels, creating a dynamic space between personal and collective realms.

Hardman’s [15] framework concludes with the notion of circular systems of collaboration. This idea posits that as organizations and systems become more interrelated, power and decision-making processes become increasingly decentralized and diffused. This shift occurs because collaborative practices amongst both internal and external stakeholders transition from being exceptional to becoming the norm in their operational methods.

Educational leadership for regenerative practices is dynamic and ever-changing. This leadership approach is continuously developing, reshaping, and progressing. It is rooted in the interplay of ‘human interactions, systems thinking, and the exchange of thoughts, ideas, emotions and feelings’ [23] (p. 14). This approach seeks to cultivate learning environments that are adaptive, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of both people and the planet. However, equity is not addressed in either of the above models. Candelarie [23] asserts that equity-mindedness holds educational leaders to a higher level of leadership, highlighting the need for a regenerative leadership model that explicitly integrates equity into its framework; one that has yet to be fully developed.

Without a holistic pedagogical approach that prioritizes equity alongside environmental and economic sustainability, educational institutions risk perpetuating a single bottom-line mentality [15], where standardized assessments and knowledge commodification dictate educational aims. To move beyond these limitations, regenerative educational leadership must embrace equity as a principle, ensuring learning environments empower stakeholders while enabling ecological and social regeneration.

4. Educational Leadership Practices

Educational leadership is a multifaceted and dynamic discipline that influences the vision, direction, cultural conditions, and effectiveness of educational institutions [24,25,26,27]. It transcends administrative duties, encompassing the capacity to influence, inspire, and establish conditions conducive to meaningful learning experiences and institutional development. Traditionally, leadership was perceived as rigidly hierarchical [11], with education being no exception [28]. However, according to Bush [25] and Nadeem [28], more contemporary models, such as transformational, distributed, and complexity-informed leadership, emphasize collaboration, adaptability, and shared decision-making to navigate the challenges of modern education. Yet, Haddock-Fraser et al. [26] report that decision-making is becoming more bureaucratic, which can enhance standardization and efficiency as originally intended, but it may also lead to sluggish progress, hinder innovation, and encourage risk avoidance.

Effective educational leadership necessitates that leaders not only achieve academic objectives but also cultivate inclusive, innovative, and future-oriented environments [26]. As education encounters increasing pressures from globalization, digital transformation, and ecological crises, educational leadership must evolve to become more regenerative, promoting resilience, creativity, and collective action to prepare students for an uncertain yet dynamic future [3,29].

Today’s planetary issues necessitate a different approach [1,15]. Globally, educational leadership studies frequently reveal a focus on immediate concerns, widespread apprehension, reactive practices, an emphasis on bureaucracy, and cost-cutting, coupled with anxieties, vulnerabilities, stress and exhaustion [30,31]. Alongside these, machine logic, which prioritizes organizational efficiency [15], can be found in many educational institutions worldwide and has given rise to the prevalent rigid hierarchical structures still observed in many contemporary settings. These structures frequently result in siloed work environments and are characterized by excessive bureaucratic constraints and educators in a constant state of stress [30]. Furthermore, as research shows that stress reduces collaborative working and creativity [32], these structures inadvertently compromise the wellbeing, innovation, agility, and empowerment of the institutional community [1]. Such operational models are inefficient but also markedly unsuitable for navigating the increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) landscape that defines our current global context [33].

To truly thrive on a planet where our environment also reflects this thriving nature, it is necessary to effectively mobilize individuals and generate the requisite support, knowledge, and action to address environmental challenges, termed thrivability [34]. To achieve this, it is imperative to reconceptualize educational leadership, wherein institutions view themselves as living systems rather than machines [1]. In many contemporary, dynamic organizations, leadership is no longer confined to a specific role or individual positioned at the apex of a hierarchical structure. Instead, it has evolved into collective leadership within a self-organizing system [35]. Such systems are characterized by their inherent complexity, instability, and unpredictability, making it impossible for a single person to exert complete control.

Consequently, leadership permeates throughout the organization rather than being concentrated in a symbolic top-tier position or team [11]. As a result, there is an increasing adoption of alternative leadership paradigms that focus on serving the business, the wider society and the environment, one of which is regenerative leadership [1]. However, as Bush [25] reports, hierarchy persists in education systems worldwide. Nonetheless, Fullan [36] emphasizes the evolving nature of educational leadership, noting that it is becoming less linear, especially in schools. Still, it is important to recognize that many dominant models of educational leadership often stem from the Global North or Western epistemologies, which may not fully account for the diverse worldviews and knowledge systems of indigenous and Global South communities.

Educational Leadership for Regeneration

Educational leadership for regeneration is an emerging approach that aims to transform educational systems beyond sustainability for a flourishing planet [1]. In 2012, Hardman [15] identified education as the foremost priority in his research on regenerative practices. As a result, he proposed a framework for regenerative leadership based on a study of successful leaders in various sectors, including education, emphasizing the need for comprehensive transformation beyond rational approaches to change. The author encompasses the cultivation of enhanced creativity, heightened authenticity, increased purposefulness, greater compassion, and improved synchronization with both internal and external life forces. He further emphasizes that a regenerative leadership approach is implemented across all levels, encompassing both formal and informal leaders. As such, leaders who embrace regenerative principles do not position themselves ahead of their followers; instead, they are immersed in the work alongside those they lead [15,23]. They engage others in disseminating knowledge and translating this knowledge into action to heal and create depleted resources. These individuals excel at connecting people with purpose and facilitating collective vision-building [23].

Globally, educational leadership (at all levels) plays a central role in student learning, albeit indirectly, molding the expertise and capabilities of upcoming generations [37,38,39]. Leithwood et al. [39] and Mogaji and Newton [40] report that educational leaders impact the institution in several ways, amongst them, building and communicating shared visions, developing relationships, and setting the institutional ‘ethos, values, and learning interventions for students’ [40] (p. 17). Thus, leaders not only influence student outcomes but also shape the wider culture and climate of educational institutions, enabling environments where innovation, equity, and holistic development can thrive—components required for regeneration.

Advancing beyond sustainability, regenerative educational leadership advocates flexible, systemic approaches that rejuvenate ecosystems and foster a profound bond with the natural environment [41]. By integrating ecological awareness, critical thinking, and creativity (amongst others) into curricula (both formal and informal), leaders and educators can equip students with the tools to undertake meaningful ecological restoration efforts [42]. Furthermore, as community plays a central feature of many educational establishments, facilitating community partnerships between learners, educators, households, and local groups to spearhead collective projects strengthens social capital, develops a shared sense of responsibility, and enhances the capacity for collective action toward environmental regeneration and community resilience [43,44].

Accordingly, by educational leaders integrating ‘human learning and development with a profound relational consciousness’ [41] (p. 2), education can transcend the preservation of current conditions and actively contribute to global environmental renewal. Recognizing the interconnectedness of ecological, social, and educational systems, it becomes essential for regenerative leadership to embed systems thinking as a foundational approach to understanding and addressing the complex challenges facing both education and the planet.

5. Theoretical Frameworks

To navigate today’s challenges, educational leadership must be grounded in theoretical frameworks that embrace uncertainty, interconnectedness, and change. Systems thinking (ST) and Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) offer complementary perspectives. ST enables a holistic understanding of interdependencies within educational and ecological systems, while CLT provides a dynamic model for enabling emergent, collaborative leadership within those systems. Together, they offer a robust foundation for regenerative educational leadership.

5.1. Systems Thinking

The incorporation of ecological systems thinking into educational frameworks enables learning to support not only the advancement of individual capacities but also the sustainability and resilience of interconnected socio-ecological systems [41]. ST is inherent to regenerative leadership, providing a framework for understanding the interconnectedness of social, ecological, and economic systems, thus enabling leaders to develop adaptive solutions [15]. ST has received many definitions since being coined by Richmond in the 1980s. Arnold and Wade [45] suggest it features three components: elements (system characteristics), interconnections (how characteristics interact), and a goal or purpose. Defined by Shaked and Schechter [24], ST is ‘a way for human beings to understand systems’ (p. 9), taking into account interactions among components within a system rather than isolating elements. It enables the recognition of patterns and dynamics within complex contexts, fostering integrated understanding of challenges. After Senge first elevated ST in 1990 [46], it has revolutionized our approach to understanding interconnectivity and processes [1] alongside humans’ place in the biosphere [15].

Accordingly, ST acknowledges the interrelationship between system parts, emphasizing that the collective system surpasses the importance of reducing the system to its individual elements [24]; within organizations, ST minimizes the ‘inefficiencies of the silo mentalities’ [47] (p. 285). While mechanistic approaches advance isolated components, ST cultivates understanding of complexity, evolution, and interrelationships [1]. This holistic perspective enables a comprehensive grasp of our world’s intricate web of connections. Shaked and Schechter [24] identify two major meanings of ST: ‘Seeing the whole beyond the parts’ and ‘Seeing the parts in context of the whole’ (p. 11). In the complex environments where educational institutions operate, involving multiple stakeholders from the beginning of initiatives is crucial from a systemic perspective, as it leads to collective impact [15].

Systems thinking extends to Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT). While systems thinking focuses on understanding interconnected relationships within a system, CLT emphasizes how leadership emerges dynamically within these systems in response to uncertainty and change [3,11]. While systems thinking provides a foundation for understanding ecological and social systems’ interconnectedness, it alone cannot navigate the dynamic nature of planetary regeneration. CLT complements systems thinking by emphasizing emergence, adaptability, and decentralized leadership, recognizing that transformational change arises from complex, self-organizing systems. In education, this means shifting from top-down decision-making to collaborative, networked leadership, where students, educators, and communities co-create innovative solutions.

5.2. Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT)

Educational institutions should function as dynamic, self-organizing systems embedded within broader networks, constantly adapting to internal and external influences [48]. Rather than operating in isolation, schools, colleges and universities are interconnected with communities, policies, economies, and environmental conditions, shaping and being shaped by these relationships. In such complex systems, core leadership dynamics must move beyond linear, hierarchical control toward adaptive, participatory, and emergent approaches that enable innovation and resilience. In education, Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) supports a shift toward empowering stakeholders to co-lead transformative action [3,11,29]. Moreover, the decentralized and emergent nature of CLT offers a more inclusive framework, creating space for culturally distinct and locally grounded approaches to inform and enrich regenerative educational practices.

CLT is a theoretical framework introduced by Uhl-Bien et al. in 2007 and advanced by Uhl-Bien and Arena [11]. It originates from complexity theory, is based in natural sciences, and includes concepts such as adaptation, evolution, and survival [48]. CLT maintains key features of complexity theory, including emergence, self-organization, and Complex Adaptive Systems. Emergence arises through self-organization rather than directives from above, manifesting when sufficient elements come together to form clusters, leading to something new that transcends individual actions [49,50]. Emergence characterizes change within complex systems, where outcomes cannot be predicted based solely on system knowledge or initial conditions [51]. This balance between stability and unpredictability is achieved through self-organization, adaptability, and structure, contributing to system resilience [11]. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) can adapt rapidly in environments that enable their emergence and effective functioning [11,52]. However, CAS must work within simple rules to maintain systemic integrity [11]. CAS represent complex systems of connected components adapting to environmental needs; they are the ‘basic unit of analysis’ of complex open systems where goals connect networks of diverse agents through interactions resulting in novel behavior [52,53] (p. 299).

By moving beyond complexity theory, leadership, as interpreted through the framework of CLT, distances itself from leader-focused approaches [54]. It challenges conventional, top-down leadership models by acknowledging that leadership arises from dynamic interactions within complex systems. Unlike rigid, hierarchical approaches, CLT moves beyond leadership as an individual concept [11,52], instead emphasizing adaptability, collaboration, and decentralized decision-making [11], allowing educational establishments to respond effectively to uncertainty and change [3,29].

CLT comprises three key leadership functions as proposed by Uhl-Bien and Arena [11]: entrepreneurial, enabling, and operational leadership. Entrepreneurial leadership generates innovation through the collective engagement of ‘leaders’ who, through ideation and collaborative action within teams, contribute to innovation. This process aligns with enabling leadership. Enabling leadership cultivates the adaptive interface between operational and entrepreneurial leadership by leveraging systemic dynamics. It facilitates innovation through collaborative networks, interconnections, and mobilizing collective knowledge across the organization to stimulate adaptive action. Beresford-Dey et al. [3] extended enabling leadership to include compassionate leadership, which emphasizes emotional and relational dimensions by fostering empathy, trust, and psychological safety–critical conditions for enabling collaboration, resilience, and collective sense-making within complex systems. In operational leadership, leaders plan and manage strategies to achieve vision within formal structures. They guide processes to yield results through efficient resource utilization. This approach provides a framework for flexibility [3,11]. These three interdependent functions allow leadership to emerge across all levels, enhancing adaptability, relational capacity, and innovation–all of which are essential for advancing regenerative transformation.

CLT’s emphasis on adaptability and collaboration aligns well with the dynamic nature of modern educational environments, where rapid technological advancements, societal changes and the need for planet-positive actions necessitate flexible leadership approaches. By enabling a culture of innovation, equity and co-decision-making, educational leaders can harness the collective intelligence of their teams to address complex challenges more effectively. Moreover, the integration of compassion as a key element of enabling leadership as proposed by Beresford-Dey et al. [3], acknowledges the importance of emotional intelligence and empathy in creating supportive and resilient educational communities where compassion for the society and the environment is central to nurturing a culture of shared responsibility, ethical decision-making, and collective action toward social and ecological well-being.

6. Applying CLT and Regenerative Educational Leadership

This section presents a visionary perspective on the potential of regenerative leadership and CLT in education, highlighting the transformative potential before laying out the challenges associated with such leadership practices and the limitations of this paper.

Educational institutions are increasingly recognized as key agents of planetary change, with the potential to cultivate environmental regeneration and social transformation [21,55]. As the world faces urgent ecological and societal challenges, such institutions must evolve beyond their traditional roles of knowledge transmission to become living systems that actively contribute to sustainability and regeneration [21,55,56]. This shift requires a leadership paradigm that moves toward entrepreneurial, adaptive, participatory, and networked approaches [29]. By integrating regenerative leadership and CLT, educational establishments can transition from institutions focused on predictability and control to dynamic, self-organizing systems that nurture ecological consciousness, resilience, and collective action.

The three strands of CLT, Operational Leadership, Enabling Leadership, and Entrepreneurial Leadership [11], offer a powerful framework for embedding regenerative leadership within educational settings. Operational Leadership ensures that schools, colleges and universities maintain structure and stability while integrating regenerative practices, including equity, into policies, curricula, and institutional practices. Enabling Leadership fosters collaboration, co-creation, and decentralized decision-making [11]; allowing students, educators, and communities to participate in shaping regenerative initiatives. It also promotes compassion through relational intelligence and emotional resilience [3], essential for navigating complex environmental and social challenges. Entrepreneurial Leadership drives innovation and emergent change, encouraging risk-taking, adaptability, and creative problem-solving [11] in response to ecological and societal needs. By aligning these three leadership strands, educational contexts can function as living systems, balancing stability, inclusivity, and transformative action to cultivate a new generation of leaders committed to planetary regeneration.

Viewing education institutions asCAS highlights their interconnectedness with broader environmental, social, and economic networks [57,58]. Complexity science informs education reform by emphasizing adaptability, emergence, and relational interdependence, enabling institutions to respond flexibly to shifting ecological and societal conditions [29,48,58]. In this context, CLT enables regenerative practices by shifting leadership from control to co-creation, where students, educators, and communities actively shape transformative initiatives. It also creates a move from predictability to adaptability, promoting emergent learning, problem-solving, and innovative solutions [11] to environmental challenges, fostering holistic, place-based approaches to regenerative sustainability. For example, through activities such as regenerative agriculture, rewilding institutional and community grounds, community circular economy activities, and student-led climate and ecosystem restoration projects. By encouraging decentralized initiatives, institutions can function as catalysts for systemic transformation [29]. Through CLT and regenerative principles, educational institutions can cultivate a new generation of leaders who not only understand the complexities of planetary systems but are also equipped with the skills, agency, and vision to drive meaningful, long-term regeneration.

6.1. Challenges Associated with Applying Educational Leadership for Regeneration and Complexity Leadership Theory

While the theoretical promise of regenerative educational leadership is significant, its practical application remains limited. Current practices continue to prioritize performance metrics, standardized curricula, and hierarchical decision-making structures [15,25,26]. These approaches inhibit innovation, collaboration, and systems thinking necessary for regenerative change. Leadership training programs appear to rarely include content on complexity or regenerative principles, and educators seldom receive support for co-creative, student-led initiatives. These gaps present obstacles to institutional transformation and highlight the need for professional development and systemic support.

Despite the transformative potential of leadership for regenerative practices and CLT in education, several challenges could hinder their adoption. One of the most constraining obstacles is the persistence of the enthusiastic application of top-down and bureaucratic structures within educational institutions [25,26,58,59]. These leadership models, often synonymous with centralized systems, prioritize procedures, rules and regulations [25], leaving little room for the adaptive, enabling, and entrepreneurial approaches (or indeed, intrapreneurial approaches as reported by Beresford-Dey et al. [29]) required for regenerative leadership. Systemic inertia, fueled by longstanding bureaucratic procedures, accountability pressures, and risk-averse cultures, can make transformation slow and fraught with friction [30].

Additionally, there can be several forces limiting a shift toward more decentralized, co-creative models, even when their benefits are widely acknowledged. According to Lee [60], these forces are both structural and psychological. Structurally, entrenched hierarchies and institutional inertia often favor stability and control, making it difficult to reconfigure power dynamics without resistance. Individuals in formal leadership roles may feel their authority threatened by decentralized approaches and, consciously or unconsciously, may resist or undermine such efforts in order to retain control. This can manifest in subtle gatekeeping behaviors, delayed decision-making, or selective endorsement of change initiatives. Psychologically, the shift challenges ingrained professional identities, particularly among educators and administrators accustomed to clear lines of authority and command.

For many, top-down structures can offer predictability and role clarity, features that can be perceived as safeguards in already overstretched and high-pressure environments [61]. The ambiguity and distributed accountability inherent in co-creative models can provoke anxiety or reluctance, especially in institutions grappling with the fear of failure [29]. Moreover, external accountability mechanisms, such as government inspection regimes, performance metrics, and funding models, often reinforce compliance and standardization, disincentivizing risk-taking and experimentation [62] that regenerative leadership requires. These cultural, structural, and systemic barriers must be acknowledged and intentionally addressed through strategic planning, inclusive dialogue, and capacity-building to enable meaningful and sustained transformation.

Other barriers include fragmented curricula, limited subject understanding and limited systemic support, competing priorities, league tables, and limited resources for regenerative initiatives [42,63,64,65]. Implementing environmentally and socially transformative practices requires financial investment, time, and professional development–resources that are often scarce in underfunded or overstretched educational settings [42,66,67]. Also, the pressure to meet accountability measures and improve league table performance can sideline broader educational aims [65] in regenerative futures and practices. In this context, establishing strong community networks becomes critical, offering shared resources, collaborative learning opportunities, and the potential to realign educational priorities with long-term ecological and social regeneration goals. Without institutional backing, educators and educational leaders may struggle to integrate sustainability, systems thinking, and regenerative leadership principles into curricula and school operations [64].

6.2. Recommendations

For educational leaders to overcome identified barriers, embracing CLT requires a shift in leadership enactment [3,29] to enable regenerative practices. Leaders must move beyond traditional command-and-control models to cultivate adaptive leadership that welcomes uncertainty, values innovation, and responds to challenges [11,15,29]. This involves working towards potential (not ideals) [22], creating space for experimentation, learning from failure, and enabling reflection and growth. This directly addresses the systemic inertia and risk-averse cultures highlighted earlier in the paper. Leaders should prioritize network-based leadership and equity, with decision-making distributed across stakeholders [23], including students, staff, families, and community partners. By shifting to collaborative networks, educational leaders can mobilize collective intelligence and create conditions for regenerative action to flourish [15] within and beyond schools. Such approaches respond to the paper’s analysis of hierarchical resistance and enable more inclusive leadership ecosystems.

Empowering youth-led activism and advocacy should be a central component of regenerative educational leadership [68], as this not only amplifies young people’s voices but also engenders active citizenship and intergenerational collaboration. This reflects the earlier call to recognize students not only as learners but as co-leaders in shaping regenerative futures. By supporting student-led initiatives and creating spaces for youth participation in decision-making, educational institutions can nurture agency, leadership, and a shared commitment to ecological and social regeneration [69,70]. Additionally, establishing and sustaining strong community and cross-sector networks is vital. Collaborative partnerships with local organizations, businesses, and ecological initiatives can provide much-needed resources, knowledge-sharing platforms, and experiential learning opportunities [71,72]. These networks not only help offset resource constraints but also ground regenerative leadership in real-world contexts, ensuring that education remains relevant, responsive, and regenerative in purpose and practice.

Furthermore, educational leaders should champion a shift toward regenerative practices by embedding ecological literacy, systems thinking, and community engagement across the curriculum [15,41]. This requires moving beyond siloed subject delivery to adopt interdisciplinary approaches [64] that connect environmental, social, and economic themes, thereby equipping students with the knowledge and capacities needed to navigate and contribute to a rapidly changing world. Finally, education leaders should consider developmental processes (their own and in others) that nurture deeper creativity, heightened compassion, and greater alignment with both internal experiences and external environmental dynamics [15]. This orientation echoes the earlier argument that meaningful change requires internal reflection as well as structural reform.

For policymakers, supporting regenerative educational leadership requires reorienting education systems as drivers of ecological and social regeneration. This involves recognizing schools, colleges, and universities not just as academic institutions but as community hubs that foster environmental stewardship, social equity, and collective well-being [43,44]. Professional development frameworks should include complexity-informed and regenerative leadership, including systems thinking training that equip educators with the conceptual tools and relational skills to navigate uncertainty, lead collaboratively, and respond to interconnected challenges of climate change, inequality, and global instability. However, such leadership development must begin with an internal shift, rooted in personal motivation, reflective practice, and a willingness to change. Regenerative leadership is not only institutional but also deeply personal, requiring leaders to cultivate self-awareness and a sense of responsibility toward the wider world.

That being said, targeted professional development programs can help current and aspiring leaders understand the value of decentralized and collaborative models, alleviating anxieties around relinquishing control and navigating complexity. This aligns with the paper’s identification of psychological barriers to adopting regenerative and CLT-based approaches. Embedding regenerative leadership principles into leadership training and ongoing professional development can gradually shift mindsets and promote a culture of innovation and collective responsibility. A recent example of such a change is evident in Scotland’s “Target 2030” A movement for people, planet and prosperity [73], which recognizes the need for systemic and collaborative planning for all stakeholders.

Moreover, reform efforts should include a systemic re-evaluation of accountability frameworks. Policymakers and education authorities could reconsider how success is measured, broadening assessment criteria beyond academic performance and league tables to include indicators of environmental literacy, community engagement, and whole-institution sustainability practices. This shift would legitimize regenerative aims within mainstream education and encourage settings to embrace long-term, value-driven goals.

Building on the challenges identified and the recommendations proposed, further research is needed to deepen our understanding of how the theoretical principles explored, particularly Complexity Leadership Theory and regenerative leadership, translate into meaningful change in real-world educational settings. There is a need to investigate the long-term impacts of this approach on the culture, student outcomes, community engagement, and environmental action. Longitudinal and comparative studies could reveal how regenerative practices evolve and influence the adaptive capacities of educational institutions. Research should also explore the intersection between student agency and leadership, and collective planetary action, examining how young people co-create change within institutions and broader ecological and social systems. This inquiry would help illuminate the relational dynamics and conditions that generate student-led initiatives and inform inclusive, future-oriented models of leadership in education.

6.3. Limitations

While this essay offers a theoretical exploration of regenerative educational leadership through the lens of CLT, it is limited by a lack of empirical data to substantiate the proposed models in practice. The discussion draws primarily on secondary literature and conceptual analysis, which, while valuable for framing the discourse, may not fully capture the contextual and operational challenges faced by diverse educational institutions. Furthermore, the generalizability of the discussion is constrained, as implementation of regenerative leadership approaches may vary significantly depending on cultural, political, and institutional contexts. Future research involving longitudinal, comparative, case-based, or action-oriented studies would be essential to evaluate the practical efficacy and adaptability of these frameworks in real-world educational settings.

7. Conclusions

While sustainability seeks to preserve equilibrium between present development and resource conservation for future generations, regenerative development takes a more integrative and forward-looking approach [15]. It draws on past lessons and envisions future possibilities to shape evolving systems that create mutual flourishing within a resilient and interconnected global ecosystem [12,14,22]. In this context, educational leadership for regenerative practices emerges as a vital paradigm for navigating the multifaceted ecological and social challenges of the 21st century. This approach moves beyond maintaining the status quo; it advocates for restoring, revitalizing, and reimagining educational institutions as living systems, capable of cultivating resilient, responsive, and regenerative learning environments [21,55,56]. Embracing regenerative educational leadership enables institutional transformation and opens pathways for engaging diverse cultural paradigms, allowing education systems to integrate indigenous, local, and place-based knowledge in pursuit of more just, inclusive, and ecologically attuned futures.

Rooted in systems thinking [15,22,41], relational intelligence [3], and enriched by the three core strands of CLT, operational, enabling, and entrepreneurial [11], regenerative educational leadership can promote decentralized, collaborative, and co-creative modes of leadership. These practices should empower learning community members, including students, educators, and wider communities, to engage with uncertainty through innovation, compassion and shared agency. By enabling emergence, entrepreneurialism, and collaborative/co-creative leadership beyond formal roles, this model facilitates critical competencies and the formation of ethically grounded change agents.

By embedding regenerative leadership within a Complexity Leadership Theory framework, educational institutions can become more adaptive, inclusive, and ecologically responsible. While the theories discussed offer strong foundations, it is ultimately the willingness of educational leaders, practitioners, and institutions to embrace ambiguity, cultivate relational practices, and shift from mechanistic to living-systems thinking that will determine the success of these approaches. Regenerative leadership is not simply a theoretical ideal; it represents a timely and necessary evolution in how education can respond to the deep, intersecting crises of our age. As such, the transformation begins with small, intentional shifts, both personal and institutional, that accumulate into systemic change.

The added value of this paper lies in its advancement of the field by bridging the gap between regenerative sustainability and leadership studies. It makes a unique contribution by connecting regenerative sustainability and educational leadership theory, using Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) as a conceptual scaffold. It challenges the adequacy of linear, hierarchical leadership models in responding to global socio-ecological crises and repositions educational institutions as ecosystems of transformation. Thus, it extends the theoretical discourse on education for sustainability by offering a strategic, systems-informed narrative that integrates complexity and regeneration.

Critically, this essay argues that regenerative leadership is not simply a theoretical ideal but a practical and necessary evolution in how educational institutions can respond to deepening planetary challenges. The discussion shifts the focus from fixed outcomes to dynamic, emergent processes, inviting leaders to embrace ambiguity, cultivate reflective practice, and nurture systemic change from within. While the theories discussed offer strong conceptual foundations, the potential for real transformation depends on the personal and institutional willingness to adopt these practices.

Finally, though detailed research recommendations are outlined in the previous section, it is worth reiterating the need for empirical investigation into how CLT-informed regenerative leadership translates into institutional and community-level impact. Future research should explore these dynamics through longitudinal studies and participatory methods to inform context-specific pathways for regenerative education in practice.