Objective: This systematic review aims to clarify and deepen understanding of how system leaders lead educational changes. Generally, system leaders are seen as individuals who are able to drive systematic transformation and ensure lasting impact within and beyond a singular organization (Boylan, 2016). Various countries have experienced diverse changes in education systems, including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland, Australia, and the United States. In these societies, policymakers, principals, middle school leaders, and teachers are considered as system leaders to play significant roles in dealing with these changes (Boylan, 2018; Grice, 2019; Farrell et al., 2012; A. Hargreaves et al., 2008; Muijs, 2020; Day et al., 2008). In the academic field, there is an emerging body of research on how system leaders respond to educational changes (Aaron et al., 2022; Bhengu et al., 2020; Chukwu et al., 2024; Cousin, 2019; Davies et al., 2014; Greany, 2015; Gurr & Drysdale, 2018). These studies not only enrich the knowledge about system leadership, but also provide research evidence, concepts, methods, and tools for stakeholders in the field of education to lead changes.

However, few researchers have conducted a systematic review of such studies. Such a systematic review can provide a reference for researchers to explore system leadership from the dimensions of focuses, methodologies, theoretical frameworks, innovations, and trends, and provide research-based evidence and strategies for educational practitioners to formulate and implement system leadership policies, assume the role of system leaders, and enact system leadership. Therefore, this review searches and analyzes the literature on system leaders’ responses to educational changes from 2005 to 2024. It reveals the general strategies and subtle differences in system leaders’ practices in responding to educational change. Also, it constructs an in-depth understanding of which individuals, as system leaders, coordinate diverse resources and relationships to promote system-wide improvements in the context of global education system reform.

Research Questions: According to the above objective, the author proposed three questions to guide this systematic review: (a) Who are system leaders? (b) What educational changes do system leaders face? (c) How do system leaders respond to these educational changes?

Theoretical Framework: This review uses complexity theory as a framework to analyse the selected literature. In the education system, changes are often uncertain and complex. System leaders need to understand the complexity of this education system and adapt to the changing environment to respond to various challenges effectively. This phenomenon of system leaders responding to educational change is closely related to the dynamic environment, nonlinear relationships, and adaptability emphasized and explained by complexity theory (Greany & Kamp, 2022). Therefore, based on complexity theory, this review can more reasonably clarify and construct how system leaders understand and respond to multiple changes in the education system. The work of Davis and Sumara (2008) and Greany and Kamp (2022) on complexity theory emphasized internal diversity and internal redundancy, neighbour interaction and distributed control, and randomness and coherence are considered as a group, respectively, to explain the complexity of the system. Based on this, this review analyses the practice of system leaders in education reform from these three dimensions (i.e., internal diversity and internal redundancy, neighbour interaction and distributed control, and randomness and coherence).

Authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) process (Ahn & Kang, 2018; Moher et al., 2015; McKenzie et al., 2021) and conducted multiple rounds of searches and screening in databases to form a pool of literature for review. We selected two databases, Web of Science and Scopus, extensively covered in educational research and literature related to this review. We followed the following three criteria when searching for literature in these two databases, including (a) peer-reviewed English journal articles; (b) the titles, abstracts, or keywords of the articles all contain “system leader” (or “system leadership”), “education,” and “change” (or “reform”); (c) The publication year is between 2025 and 2024. Based on the above criteria, we retrieved 648 articles that entered the screening process. We conducted three rounds of screening for these articles. Finally, 57 articles were obtained. In order to ensure the search results, we searched in Web of Science and Scopus at three different time periods based on the established search criteria. The three search results were consistent, ensuring our search results' reliability and accuracy. In addition, to ensure the effectiveness of the screening process and results, we jointly reviewed the titles, abstracts, and full texts required for reading and preliminary analysis at least twice. When we reach a consensus on an article, it can enter the final literature pool. After constructing the literature pool, we used the thematic analysis method to form a series of themes and sub-themes related to system leaders and their practice and effects on dealing with educational changes.

Based on the selected studies, this systematic review explains the paths of system leaders in three dimensions to cope with educational changes. First, enhance professionalism. When the reform causes an imbalance or redundancy in allocating specific resources and human resources within the education system, system leaders tend to set standards based on relevant policies and research to ensure that the resources and human resources entering the system are diverse rather than numerous. In addition, they also optimize the allocation of resources and human resources within the system through investigation and research to avoid the majority of high-quality resources being concentrated in advantageous or dominant institutions and individuals. Thus, they can promote the balanced development of various organizations and individuals within the system. Second, balance the collective and the individual. Some changes may lead to excessive focus on collective interests and neglect of individual development. System leaders would guide the establishment of trust between members and organizations within the system, prompting them to be willing to work for the sustainable development of the system. System leaders also encourage different stakeholders within the system to express the wishes of their groups through meetings, voting, etc. By summarizing the voices of all parties, system leaders try to establish shared visions and goals for the broad system, along with meeting the needs of different individuals. Third, balance change and invariance. New reform policies may be inconsistent or even conflicting with existing policies. In this case, system leaders tend to enhance their understanding and sensitivity of education policies through training, Internet access, etc. Based on a complete understanding of the connection and difference between the original and new policies, system leaders would adjust the system's norms and guide members to carry out actions consistent with the direction of reform.

[1]Aaron, T. S., Meyers, C. V., Hitt, D. H., & VanGronigen, B. A. (2022). Principals’ perspectives on the shift to short-cycle school improvement planning. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221137462 [2]Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 71(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103 [3]Bhengu, T. T., Mchunu, B. S., & Bayeni, S. D. (2020). Growing our own timber! Lived experiences of five school principals in using a systems thinking approach for school development. SAGE Open, 10(1). Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020902061 [4]Boylan, M. (2016). Deepening system leadership: Teachers leading from below. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 57–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213501314 [5]Boylan, M. (2018). Enabling adaptive system leadership: Teachers leading professional development. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216628531 [6]Chukwu, O. A., Nadigel, J., Kasaai, B., Boateng, R., Glazier, R. H., & McMahon, M. (2024). Understanding the training, mentorship, and professional development priorities of early career embedded researchers. International Journal of Health Planning and Management. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3800 [7]Cousin, S. (2019). System leaders in England: Leaders of a profession, or instruments of government? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(4), 520–537. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217751726 [8]Davies, A., Busick, K., Herbst, S., & Sherman, A. (2014). System leaders using assessment for learning as both the change and the change process: Developing theory from practice. Curriculum Journal, 25(4), 567–592. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.964276 [9]Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity as a theory of education. 5(2), 33–44. [10]Farrell, C., Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, J. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811417587 [11]Greany, T. (2015). More fragmented, and yet more networked: Analysing the responses of two local authorities in England to the Coalition’s ‘self-improving school-led system’ reforms. London Review of Education, 13(2), 125–143. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.13.2.11 [12]Greany, T., & Kamp, A. (2022). Working with complexity: Leading school networks in Aotearoa New Zealand and England. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221124746 [13]Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2018). System leadership and school leadership. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 3(2), 207–229. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.30828/real/2018.2.4 [14]Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1