Studies on leadership and educational leadership (EL) on the European and international level have not been ideal regarding theoretical foundations (Alvesson, 2019; Niesche & Gowlett, 2019; Wang, 2018). The pace of theoretical and conceptual development appears more modest than the increase in the volume of empirical research (Alvesson, 2019; Wang, 2018). This conceptual paper contributes to the ongoing theory turn in recent critical EL research (Niesche & Gowlett, 2019). We focus on the theoretical foundations of EL research by addressing three critiques pointing at some of the conceptual challenges in contemporary research on EL. The paper then elaborates the potential for non-affirmative theory of education to offer a theory and language to overcome these challenges. The study is anticipated to have impact on both European and international audiences.

Challenges in need of resolution 

Examining the current state of the art, we have identified three critical challenges within Educational Leadership (EL) research.  

Firstly, there exists an ambiguity in how EL research conceptually and theoretically connects EL practices with other societal fields, such as the economy or politics. This lack of a well-defined position poses the risk of fostering isolated or partial interpretations of the relationships between education and broader societal fields, potentially constraining the understanding of educational institutions. An approach devoid of context overlooks the various levels of leadership autonomy and remains silent on the educational role of schools, both from an individual and societal standpoint.

Secondly, numerous approaches to EL as a multilevel phenomenon rely on universal terminology or generic theories, neglecting the necessary conceptual sensitivity required for the leadership of educational institutions. Universal approaches tend to treat multilevel leadership uniformly, irrespective of the specific societal institution under consideration. Conversely, particularistic research approaches, when focused on educational institutions, often isolate separate levels of leadership, failing to grasp the comprehensive view of EL. Moreover, many multi-level approaches omit addressing the mechanisms through which policy interests permeate educational institutions, encompassing both affirmative and enactment-oriented processes.

Thirdly, research on leadership and EL commonly asserts that a crucial aspect of leadership involves providing direction, creating conditions for change, and influencing others' learning. While it is widely acknowledged that leadership encompasses a pedagogical influence, the field remains significantly undertheorized in this regard. Despite various initiatives, such as those proposed by Kasworm and Bowles (2012), EL research lacks a comprehensive language to address both the pedagogical dimensions of leadership and the ultimate objectives of EL—namely, teaching, studying, and learning. 

In response to the aforementioned limitations, this paper advocates for a shift that involves recognizing the following. (i) EL requires an idea of how education relates to other societal practices, (ii) EL and pedagogical leadership (PL) are phenomena occurring at different leadership levels simultaneously, and (iii) EL theory requires an idea of the pedagogical process because pedagogical processes constitute its object, and because EL itself features a pedagogical dimension (PL). Theory acknowledging these dimensions could better explain the pedagogical dimensions of leadership at and between different levels, while understanding the object of EL: teaching, studying, and learning.  

Based on these assumptions, our aim is to take educational theory as a starting point for approaching EL by studying whether non-affirmative theory of educationand Bildung (NAT) (Benner, 2023) may provide a theoretical language for elucidating the pedagogical character of relational leadership interaction, at and between all levels of governance and leadership. NAT draws on the relational and processual theory of Bildung, aligning itself with the Humboldtian model of education in the Western tradition. Given the conceptual nature of this paper, our theoretical approach serves as our methodological foundation.

The paper draws on NAT, based on the modern tradition of Bildung as developed by Rousseau, Fichte, and Herbart (e.g. Benner, 2015; 2023; English, 2013; Elo & Uljens, 2023, in press; Horlacher, 2004). Figure 1 lays out the fundamental principles of NAT; two regulative principles focusing on education´s relation to society and two constitutive principles focusing on pedagogical interaction. NB! CONFTOOL DISTORTS FIGURE, see instead: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0 Constitutive principles Regulative principles A Theories of Summoning to self activity Pedagogical transformation of education societal influences and requirements B Theories of Bildsamkeit as attunement of Non-hierarchical order of Bildung humans to receptive and cultural and societal spontaneous corporeity, practices freedom, historicity and linguisticality Fig. 1 Four basic principles/concepts of NAT (Elo & Uljens, 2023), following Benner (2023). The first regulative principle in the bottom right-hand corner addresses the relation between education and other societal practices encompassing politics, culture, religion, and economics. This principle aligns with our first critique, contending that contemporary societies exhibit a non-hierarchical interplay among societal practices, where each facet influences and is influenced by the others simultaneously. The second regulative principle corresponds to our second critique, probing into how policies, financing, administration, and other forms of governance/leadership — spanning from supranational entities to individual teachers — contribute to transforming societal interests to pedagogical work. Given the many levels of decision-making in the education system, this principle asks to what extent autonomous action to determine the meaning and value of aims and contents of educational influences exists on and between levels of EL. Both constitutive principles (Figure 1) directly address our third critique on the absence of a robust theory of pedagogical interaction in EL. The first constitutive principle, located in the bottom left-hand corner, underscores the significance of pedagogical interaction, drawing on the German concept of "Bildsamkeit," which denotes the subject's self-active, spontaneous, and perpetual dynamic engagement with the world. In this context, "Bildsamkeit" involves the individual's ability to relate to, and potentially surpass, their current understanding and existence in the world (Benner, 2023). The second constitutive principle defines a pedagogic intervention as a summons of self-activity; an invitation or provocation to an already self-active Other, to direct her attention and engage in self-transcending activity that likely will result in intended changes through a process of learning. PL, understood as a pedagogic summons, entails directing an Other’s self-activity to transcend their current state through a process of self-directed transformation.

Addressing the first critique, our analysis concludes that in a political democracy and liberal economy, Educational Leadership (EL) exerts influence on politics and the economy, while simultaneously relying on citizenship and professional education. Leadership in support of staff necessitates a deliberative and processual conception. Non-affirmative Theory of Education (NAT) elucidates the pedagogical qualities of EL by questioning the extent to which such practices embrace a non-affirmative character. NAT contends that while external legitimate interests need to be recognized, they should not be affirmed one-sidedly, as it would instrumentally subordinate education to external interests, violating Western democratic education ideals. Regarding the second critique, embracing a non-hierarchical view as the foundation for EL, NAT introduces a leadership language incorporating the dynamics of influence across and within levels of leadership. EL mediates and transforms external interests, providing various degrees of freedom for enactment processes on other levels. Originally designed to understand teaching in the context of Bildung (summoning, Bildsamkeit), the terminology describing dyadic teaching, studying, and learning processes is extended in response to the third critique. The notion of summoning the 'Other' now encompasses a 'generalized Other,' including individuals, organizations, boards, policies, or nations. Consequently, Pedagogical Leadership (PL) is contextualized in diverse settings, extending beyond traditional pedagogical situations. Adopting a Bildung theoretical point of departure, where the subject’s relation to the world, others and herself is constitutively open, provides a processual view of being human; an unending process of becoming but always in relation to something other than the subject herself. PL is an intervention in the Other’s relation to herself, to other human beings, and to the world. Invitational summoning of the Other creates a temporally limited reflective, shared space enabling the Other to transcend her current way of understanding and being.

Alvesson, M. (2019). Waiting for Godot: Eight major problems in the odd field of leadership studies. Leadership, 15, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715017736707 Benner, D. (2015). Allgemeine Pädagogik (8th edition). Beltz Juventa. Benner, D. (2023). On affirmativity and non-affirmativity in the context of theories of education and Bildung. In M. Uljens (Ed.), Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung (pp. 21–59). Springer. English, A. R. (2013). Discontinuity in learning: Dewey, Herbart, and education as transformation. Cambridge University Press. Elo, J., & Uljens, M. (2023). Theorising pedagogical dimensions of higher education leadership—A non affirmative approach. Higher Education, 85, 1281–1298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-022-00890-0 Elo, J. & Uljens, M. (Eds.) (in press). Multilevel pedagogical leadership in higher education – a non-affirmative approach. Springer Open Access. Horlacher, R. (2004). Bildung – a construction of a history of philosophy of education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 23, 409–426. Niesche, R., & Gowlett, C. (2019). Critical perspectives in educational leadership: A new ‘theory turn’? In Niesche, R. & Gowlett, C. (2019). Social, critical and political theories for educational leadership, (pp. 17–34). Springer. Uljens, M. (2015). Curriculum work as educational leadership: Paradoxes and theoretical foundations. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.27010 Uljens, M. (Ed.). (2023a). Non-affirmative theory of education and Bildung. Springer Open Access. Uljens, M. (2023b). The Why, Where, How and What of Curriculum Leadership: A Non-affirmative Approach. In R. Ahtiainen, E. Hanhimäki, J. Leinonen, M. Risku & A-S. Smeds-Nylund (Eds.), Leadership in educational contexts in Finland: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 179-197). Springer Open Access. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-37604-7_9 Uljens, M., & Ylimaki, R. (2017). Non-affirmative theory of education as a foundation for curriculum studies, Didaktik and educational leadership. In M. Uljens and R. Ylimaki, (Eds.), Bridging educational leadership, curriculum theory and Didaktik—Non-affirmative theory of education (pp. 3–145). Springer. Wang, Y. (2018). The panorama of the last decade’s theoretical groundings of educational leadership research: A concept co-occurrence network analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54, 327–365.