21 Distinguishing Systems Leadership in the Literature
Systems leadership describes the habits of hand, mind and heart that enable leaders to tackle complex challenges in interconnected systems. As such it has elements that distinguish it from other theories in the leadership literature, and has roots in complexity science, systems thinking, and adaptive leadership. This chapter will first summarise the key themes that characterise the systems leadership literature, before providing more detailed comparison with other core leadership theories.
Key Systems Leadership Themes
Navigating complex contexts. As Senge, Hamilton, and Kania (2019) articulate, systems leadership transcends conventional organisational boundaries to address issues that no single entity can solve alone. In contrast, much traditional leadership theory speaks only to the single team or organisation.
Consider the kind of leadership that is required to find a way forward for issues such as the improving the health of the Murray Darling Basin. This is one of the world’s most complex water management systems, spanning multiple Australian states and supporting diverse stakeholders, from agriculture and industry to Indigenous communities and environmental conservation efforts. It serves as a prime example of a complex or ‘grand world problem’ (Savage, 1954) due to the interconnected social, ecological, economic, and political challenges involved in its governance. Traditional leadership theories struggle to speak to the complexities of these contexts.
Facilitating collaboration. Given complex contexts and diverging interests, the purpose of the systems leader is to foster trust and work with stakeholders to find accommodation and a path forward (Heifetz, Grashow and Linsky, 2009).
Surface and Shift Structures, Rules and Mental Models. Many ‘grand world problems‘ require systems leaders not merely to improve existing systems but to find new ways forward by challenging entrenched beliefs and assumptions to reframe problems and open new pathways for solutions (Jackson, 2019; Meadows, 2001). For example, given the challenges in the healthcare system, could a leader surface the existing purpose of the system (to provide streams of revenue for providers and insurers) and find ways to put the welfare of the patient and community at the centre? Or shift from cure to prevention?
And then what? Long Term Vision. Systems leaders balance immediate needs with sustainable, long-term outcomes, ensuring interventions go beyond crisis responses to making outcomes durable.
Relationship to Established Leadership Theories
Several distinctions emerge when comparing systems leadership to established theories. This is best understood by direct analytical comparison with the table below.
| Core Leadership Theory | Focus | Systems Leadership |
| Trait and Behavioural Theories (e.g. Judge, Bono, Ilies & Gerhardt, 2002) | Individual characteristics or actions of a leader, often emphasising hierarchical authority and charisma. | Shifts the focus to relational dynamics and shared agency, deemphasising the hero-leader archetype. |
| Transformational Leadership (e.g. Bass & Avolio, 1994) | Inspiring and motivating followers to achieve extraordinary outcomes. | Also transformative, but targets systemic changes and collective capacity-building rather than leader-follower dynamics |
| Servant Leadership (e.g. Greenleaf, 1977) | Serving the needs of individuals and teams | Scales up this ethos to include the health and functioning of entire systems, prioritising systemic over individual interests. |
| Transactional Leadership (e.g. Bass, 1985) | Structured and contingent rewards and punishments directed at individuals to achieve performance. | Interventions targeted at elements on systems rather than individually focussed. |
| Adaptive Leadership (e.g. Heifetz, Grashow & Linsky, 2009) | Systems leadership overlaps significantly with adaptive leadership but places greater emphasis on leveraging systems thinking tools and frameworks to navigate complexity. | |
| Distributed Leadership (e.g. Spillane, 2006) | Sharing responsibility across teams | Integrates distributed approaches with a focus on systemic outcomes and coherence across networks. |
Table 5: Distinguishing Systems Leadership in the literature
Adaptive Leadership and Systems Leadership
The overlap between adaptive leadership and systems leadership is significant because both frameworks are designed to address complexity and uncertainty, focusing on the need for flexibility, collaboration, and iterative learning. As such, there is integration between this unit in systems thinking and your final leadership unit in your E/MBA studies.
The key distinction is that adaptive leadership is primarily behavioural and relational. Systems leadership has a stronger emphasis on addressing structural and systemic barriers, whereas adaptive leadership often focuses on mobilising people to change their behaviours within existing structures. Together, they form a complementary toolkit for leading in complexity.
Examples
Systems Leadership in Practice: The Indigenous Rangers Program and Environmental Stewardship
Across Australia’s vast and diverse landscapes, a powerful example of systems leadership is unfolding through the Indigenous Rangers program (Maclean, Robinson & Natcher, 2015; Mackie & Meacheam, 2016). Launched in 2007 as part of the Working on Country initiative, this program demonstrates how leadership that embraces complexity can drive real change—addressing environmental challenges while strengthening cultural heritage and creating economic opportunities.
The story of the Indigenous Rangers program begins with a recognition of deep and interconnected challenges. Australia’s environment was under increasing pressure from biodiversity loss, land degradation, and climate change. At the same time, many Indigenous communities were facing unemployment and the erosion of traditional knowledge. Instead of tackling these issues separately, Indigenous leaders and advocates, including Patrick O’Leary from Country Needs People, saw the opportunity to create a more integrated and lasting solution.
At its core, the program embodies systems leadership in action. From the outset, Traditional Owners and policymakers understood that caring for the land couldn’t be separated from cultural preservation, economic empowerment, or social wellbeing. They didn’t just design another conservation initiative; they built a model that weaves these elements together—creating a ripple effect of benefits across multiple domains.
One of the program’s defining features is its ability to break down traditional silos. It has fostered unprecedented collaboration between Indigenous communities, government agencies, research institutions, and environmental organisations. Indigenous ecological knowledge is working alongside Western science, bringing new and more effective approaches to managing the land. This blending of knowledge has been particularly valuable in tackling modern challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss.
The leadership behind the program stands apart from conventional top-down management models. Rather than imposing solutions from above, leaders created space for local decision-making, recognising that Traditional Owners hold the deepest understanding of their land and ecosystems. This distributed leadership approach allows Indigenous communities to shape and adapt the program to their needs, ensuring that it remains responsive and effective in diverse local contexts.
The program’s impact speaks for itself. Indigenous Rangers have successfully managed threatened species, reduced the impact of wildfires through traditional burning practices, and improved marine and coastal conservation efforts. But the program’s significance goes far beyond environmental outcomes. It has revitalised cultural knowledge, strengthened community resilience, and created economic opportunities through Indigenous-led enterprises and environmental service markets.
Of course, the journey hasn’t been without challenges. Leaders have had to navigate complex governance arrangements—balancing cultural traditions with government funding requirements and environmental accountability measures. Building trust across different worldviews required patience, transparency, and a commitment to mutual respect. The success of the program is a testament to the ability of its leaders to hold space for diverse perspectives while keeping momentum towards shared goals.
Today, the Indigenous Rangers program stands as a global model of Indigenous-led conservation. From its modest beginnings, it has grown into a national movement, employing over 1,900 Indigenous Rangers who collectively manage around 500,000 square kilometres of land and sea country. Beyond its scale, the program’s influence has expanded, gaining international recognition as an example of how Indigenous knowledge and systems leadership can drive meaningful change.
The program’s success is built on key principles of systems leadership: a focus on long-term transformation while delivering tangible short-term wins, respect for traditional governance and decision-making processes, and a commitment to continuous adaptation in response to evolving challenges.
Looking ahead, new challenges will emerge—climate change will intensify, and social conditions will shift—but the foundations of the program remain strong. The next generation of Indigenous leaders is stepping up, blending traditional wisdom with fresh perspectives to carry the program forward.
The Indigenous Rangers program offers a compelling lesson in systems leadership. It shows that lasting, systemic change happens when leadership is patient, inclusive, and adaptable—bringing together diverse stakeholders around shared goals while respecting different ways of knowing and working. In a world where complex challenges often defy simple solutions, this program stands as a powerful example of how systems leadership, when applied with cultural sensitivity and vision, can create transformative and lasting change.
Key Takeaways
-
Systems Leadership Expands Beyond Organisational Boundaries
Unlike traditional leadership theories that focus on individual leaders or teams, systems leadership is designed to tackle complex, interconnected challenges that no single entity can address alone. It is particularly relevant for large-scale, systemic issues, such as water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, where leadership must navigate multiple stakeholders, competing interests, and uncertain conditions. -
The Role of Systems Leaders is to Facilitate Collaboration and Shift Mental Models
Systems leaders do not impose top-down solutions but instead facilitate trust, alignment, and collective action among diverse stakeholders. They challenge entrenched assumptions, reframe problems, and surface structural barriers that limit change. This goes beyond traditional transformational or servant leadership by focusing on systemic shifts rather than individual or team dynamics. -
Systems Leadership in Practice Requires a Blended Approach
The Indigenous Rangers program exemplifies systems leadership by integrating Indigenous ecological knowledge with Western science, creating an innovative model for conservation, cultural preservation, and economic opportunity. This case highlights key principles of systems leadership: long-term vision, distributed governance, respect for diverse ways of knowing, and continuous adaptation in response to emerging challenges.
References
- Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
- Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. SAGE Publications.
- Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
- Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
- Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical Systems Thinking and the Management of Complexity. Wiley
- Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780.
- Mackie, K., & Meacheam, D. (2016). Working on country: a case study of unusual environmental program success. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 23(2), 157-174.
- Maclean, K., Robinson, C. J., & Natcher, D. C. (2015). Consensus Building or Constructive Conflict? Aboriginal Discursive Strategies to Enhance Participation in Natural Resource Management in Australia and Canada. Society & Natural Resources, 28(2), 197-211.
- Meadows, D.H. (2001) Dancing with Systems. Whole Earth Review. Winter
- Savage, L. J. (1954). The Foundations of Statistics. John Wiley & Sons.
- Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2019). The dawn of system leadership. Policy & Practice of Public Human Services, 77(1), 12-
- Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
The challenge of decision-making under uncertainty, where all possible states, outcomes, and probabilities are unknown or unknowable. It contrasts with Savage’s Small World, where decision-makers have well-defined probabilities and choices. The Grand World problem highlights the limits of rational decision theory in complex, real-world
