Leadership in a world with limits
Professor Carole Elliott, Professor of Leadership Development at the University of St Andrews Business School, explains why leadership must move beyond the individual to meet the challenges of ecological and social sustainability.
We can no longer treat leadership and sustainability as separate agendas. If we are serious about a sustainable future, we have to rethink what leadership looks like and how we develop it.
That belief underpins my work and is why I offered to lead at the 23rd International Studying Leadership Conference, which takes place in St Andrews next week. The conference brings together more than 120 scholars and practitioners from around the world to examine how leadership and leadership development can support both ecological and social sustainability. In the wake of COP30, which sharpened global commitments but left many questions about implementation, the challenge for organisations and institutions remains the same: what does responsible leadership look like now?
For me, the first step is to acknowledge that leadership is messy. We often speak about it in grand terms, such as transformation, vision and purpose. Yet the reality of leading an organisation is far more complex. It means managing competing interests, limited resources and constant uncertainty. Sustainability only adds to that complexity. It asks leaders to make decisions that recognise the limits of our planet while balancing the immediate needs of the people, communities and organisations they serve.
Too often, though, leadership development ignores that reality. We still focus on developing the individual, the idea of the leader as hero. Participants are taken out of their organisations, placed in an intensive learning environment, and then sent back into the same systems that often discourage the kind of change they have been encouraged to make. Unsurprisingly, the impact is limited.
If we are to take sustainability seriously, we must reframe leadership development as a collective and continuous process. We need to connect it to real work, not isolate it from it. That means creating space for leaders to reflect on their decisions in context and keeping those conversations going once formal programmes end. Coaching, peer learning and follow-up support matter because change happens over time, not in a single weekend or week away from the workplace.
It also means exposing leaders to different ways of organising. In my own research, I have been looking at organisations that combine environmental awareness with alternative ownership models, such as B Corps, or those that are employee-owned. These structures encourage shared responsibility and long-term thinking. They show that leadership can be distributed across an organisation, and that doing so can strengthen both performance and purpose.
Perhaps most importantly, we need to talk more honestly about power. Leadership is inseparable from power: who holds it, how they use it, and who gets to speak. Too many organisations remain hierarchical by default, and that makes it harder to build the collective responsibility that sustainability demands. Recognising limits to individual power is not weakness. It is a more accurate picture of how leadership works in practice, and of how change really happens.
These are the themes we will explore at the conference: how power and politics shape leadership, and how leadership development can respond to both. My aim is to encourage deeper, more honest conversations about what sustainable leadership means in practice, beyond simple definitions or quick fixes.
For anyone leading today, the implications are clear. Ask whose voices are missing when you make decisions and question whether your targets reward short-term success at the expense of long-term resilience. And when you invest in leadership development, think about how to sustain the learning afterwards, because the most challenging work begins when the programme ends.
I am optimistic, though cautiously so. I meet leaders who want to act differently and understand that sustainability is not a side issue but a central test of leadership. If we can help them develop in ways that reflect complexity, encourage genuine connection and accountability, and stay grounded in the realities of leadership, then it may become a genuine force for change.
Leadership has always involved judgement under pressure. The difference now is that the stakes are higher, the timelines shorter, and the consequences shared by everyone. If leadership for sustainability means anything, it is that none of us can do this alone.