Critical Leadership Praxis in Global Complexity

There is increasing research evidence of the importance of Critical Leadership Praxis (CLP) to address intersecting social, political, cultural and economic challenges that threaten global democracy and human flourishing. Polarised political discourses, competing rights and the rise of right-wing populism challenge the conception and practice of the democratic school leader (Säfström & Månsson, 2022). Existential global threats: war, conflict, pandemics and climate change, require critical, ethical and anticipatory responses, manifested in recent constructions of school leadership (Söderström & Seiser, 2024), if we are to understand and unlearn, through questioning deeply held assumptions and biases, the paradigms through which humankind has created the polycrises (Patton, 2024) threatening our world today.

Leading in a BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear and incomprehensible) world

In this paper, we conceptualise challenges to the professional work of principals, through Cascio’s (2020) notion of a BANI (brittle, anxious, non-linear and incomprehensible) world that is Facing the Edge of Chaos (Cascio, 2020), and we draw on contemporary literature to align characteristics of CLP with the BANI typology.  With increasing divergence around the purpose of schools a contemporary global reality of principalship in the BANI era (Asirit, 2023; Couture & Murgatroyd, 2024), we contend that school principals’ CLP is an educational leadership imperative if we are to envision and realise a democratic and sustainable future (Mitchell, 2025) through and beyond current polycrises (Patton, 2024). We further argue that while principals’ CLP is an essential characteristic to navigate the geopolitical conflicts (Lizotte & Nguyen, 2020) and polycrises of the BANI world, CLP must be nurtured, understood and intentionally developed through leadership preparation programmes that recognise and critique challenges in the complex, temporal and multi-layered ecosystems that education aims to improve.

Principalship in a Complex Ecosystem: Conceptual Framework and Empirical Study

We have engaged with contemporary leadership literature to create a conceptual framework that positions the school principal in a complex educational ecosystem, illustrating intersecting spaces through which principals’ agency and critical praxis may be emboldened or constrained. In this framework, the principals’ moral agency, political acuity and CLP are central to the advancement of equity and democracy through overlapping and interconnected global and political spaces. The space categorization (rather than level or layer) is deliberate as it reflects our experiences of the spatial and relational interactions, or flow (Lewis & Lingard, 2023), between education policy conception and policy enactment (or resistance).

We then extend our exploration of principal’s agentic CLP using empirical data from semi-structured interviews with participants from an Enhanced Political Awareness (EPA) leadership development programme for aspirant school principals in Scotland. The EPA programme was developed through an existing partnership between the University in Scotland and a school district, to support aspirant principals to develop CLP and political acuity; the wisdom, intelligence and courage to address the contextual and systemic political challenges that undermine leadership for social justice and democracy (Mitchell, 2025). We present findings from the data, highlighting authenticity, capacity and safety as enablers and/or barriers to agentic and critical praxis in principalship. We conclude with propositions to advance the development, currency and support of principals’ CLP for democracy and social change in a complex, BANI world and suggest further research on principals’ conceptions of agentic CLP.

Positionality

This paper is motivated by the authors’ combined professional experience of teaching, principalship and leadership development with a specific research interest in principalship for social and global justice. Our conscious positionality has influenced the paper, the intention being to enhance the validity of the research and the credibility of the resultant propositions to chart the way forward for principals’ CLP in a BANI world.

Empirical Study: Rationale, aim and research questions The Enhanced Political Awareness (EPA) programme provides challenging professional learning for aspirant principals; fostering active and intentional critique of the political powers and structures that undermine human flourishing and maintain systemic oppression (Heberle et al., 2020). During the period 2021 – 2013, participant routine evaluation of the professional learning and challenge in the democratic collaborative space was highly positive. However, some leaders wrestled with the task of applying their learning in practice contexts. This disparity led the authors to seek ethical approval to conduct an empirical study that problematised the professional learning → practice transfer from the EPA programme, with two research questions: 1. What factors support or undermine the agentic application of participants’ learning from the EPA programme in nano, micro and meso practice spaces? 2. How can the university provider and local district support and enhance participants’ critically conscious leadership practice, during and on completion of the EPA programme? Theoretical Framework The empirical study was undertaken in the spring of 2024. We drew on intersections between feminist and Marxist theories (hooks, 2000; Madhavi & Rao, 2024), both of which identify systemic structures of power and oppression and therefore provided a valuable lens to explore EPA participants’ CLP in their contextual sites of practice, with an emphasis on their agency and capacity to challenge neoliberal hegemony and systemic oppression. We privileged the lived experience of the principal as a system leader through intersecting spaces in the ecosystem. Research Participants Eight former EPA participants from 2021 – 2023 cohorts were recruited through purposive sampling, to include diversity in role, context, gender and ethnicity. Data collection Semi-structured one-to-one interviews were used to gather data. The interview process drew from Clandinin at al. (2000) and Smith (2016), providing opportunities for participants to explore and map their experiences in their respective spaces of practice. The interviews focussed on the professional learning → practice transfer through three broad areas of discussion: 1) Agency in their critical leadership practice. 2) Contextual support or isolation in sites of practice. 3) Competing priorities and ideologies that intersect all system levels. Data Analysis The inductive analysis of the interviews followed a sequential framework adapted from Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis focussed on trends in the narratives and areas of curiosity and significance within and beyond the initial professional learning → practice transfer themes identified from the routine EPA course evaluation.

Aspirant principals benefit from quality professional learning to develop practices that are attentive to shifting constructions of principalship in a BANI world. However, the professional learning to practice transfer remains problematic. Analysis of the interview data concluded that highly rated learning experiences on the program did not lead to confident application of CLP in every space of practice. Themes relating to levels of authenticity, capacity and professional safety, were highlighted, that impacted on the transference of knowledge and learning to agentic CLP. Consequently, we propose: • Critical attention to factors that support or constrain participants’ agentic application of CLP in their spaces of practice, as a fundamental characteristic of the learning, reflection and critique embedded in principalship development programmes. • Political and educational actors in the ‘ecosystem’ should promote and articulate the merit of CLP as a leadership norm. Future Research? There are wider, systemic implications for future leadership development. If we believe, as argued in this paper, that CLP influences democracy and justice, then there must be consideration at all spaces in the ‘system’ given to the value of CLP in Europe and beyond. We suggest further investigation of: • How the value or merit of CLP is articulated and promoted (or undermined) as a leadership norm. • Whether and how critique from the profession is invited and valued in political and policy spaces. • The extent to which the conceptual framework of the principals’ role in the ecosystem is applicable in semi- or non-democratic systems and contexts. While greater capacity and confidence in principals’ enactment of CLP can better challenge political and social constructions that reinforce marginalization and oppression, ‘systems’ that perpetuate such constructions requires to change to enable and welcome critique and challenge, with agreement on the purpose of education, as and for justice, for a sustainable and democratic global future.

Asirit, L. B. L. (2023). Investigating the Interplay of RAAT Leadership Qualities in Shaping School Leadership Competence in the Bani Landscape. International Journal of Education Development and Management Studies.4(4), 186-215. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Cascio, J. (2020). Facing the age of chaos. URL: https://medium. com/@ cascio/facing-the-age-of-chaos-b00687b1f51d. Clandinin, D. J., Connelly, F. M., & Phelan, A. M. (2000). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of educational practice. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 288. Couture, J. C., & Murgatroyd, S. (2024). Education Futures for School Leadership: Evidence-Informed Strategies for Managing Change. Taylor & Francis. Gencer, Y. G., & Batirlik, S. N. (2023). Importance of Leadership in Managing Post-Pandemic Crises. In Managing Inflation and Supply Chain Disruptions in the Global Economy, 104-122. Heberle, A. E., Rapa, L. J., & Farago, F. (2020). Critical consciousness in children and adolescents: A systematic review, critical assessment, and recommendations for future research. Psychological Bulletin, 146(6), 525. hooks, B. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston: South End. hooks, B. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. South End Press Lewis, S., & Lingard, B. (2023). Platforms, profits and PISA for schools: new actors, by-passes and topological spaces in global educational governance. Comparative Education, 59(1), 99-117. Lizotte, C., & Nguyen, N. (2020). Schooling from the classroom to the state: Understanding schools as geopolitical sites. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 38(5), 920-937. Madhavi, B., & Rao, K. N. (2024). Feminism Through a Marxist Lens: Intersections and Insights. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 9(4), 013-017. Mitchell, A. (2025). Political Acuity in School Principalship: Implications for Leadership Preparation, Development and Praxis. In: Peng, L. and Gurr, D. (Eds.) Educational Leadership Preparation and Development: International Perspectives. Springer Nature. Patton, M. Q. (2024). Evaluation in the Polycrisis Epoch. In The Political Economy of Evaluation in Greece: Interdisciplinary Perspectives for an Inclusive and Forward-Looking Evaluation (pp. 15-37). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Smith, B. (2016). Narrative analysis. Analysing qualitative data in psychology, 2, 202-221. Säfström, C. A., & Månsson, N. (2022). The marketisation of education and the democratic deficit. European Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 124-137. Söderström, Å., & Seiser, A. F. (2024). Ethical and moral perspectives in leading schools. In Teacher ethics and teaching quality in Scandinavian schools (pp. 126-142). Routledge.