Transformational learning for sustainability leadership – essential components in synergy

1.1 Education to promote sustainable futures

A number of approaches to develop the above-mentioned qualities have emerged in the ESD context (Rieckmann, 2012; Wiek et al., 2011). Pedagogies have moved from transmissive “knowledge retention” and “acquisition” toward emancipatory education that shift students “perspective” (Papenfuss et al., 2019). More recent considerations within the field of ESD are focusing on the “inner work” or personal development needed Ives et al. (2020) as evidenced by the inclusion of an “intrapersonal competence” Konrad et al. (2020) in the well-cited competence framework proposed by Wiek et al. (2011). This includes a call for the development of internal values and commitments as a base for sustainability action Glasser (2016) and ESD approaches that promote shifting consciousness (Wamsler, 2020). Sustainability leadership programs that integrate personal development, such as the one in this study, are increasing in number as the demand for the next generation of sustainability leaders grows (MacDonald and Shriberg, 2016). However, their educational processes and efficacy require further investigation.

1.2 Transformational learning and education for sustainable development

Transformative (or transformational) learning (TL) is an approach that encourages the development of personal aspects and outcomes. Built upon the constructivist theories of Habermas, Kuhn and Freire, TL uses the notion of pairing a disorientating dilemma that alters one's worldview with a cycle of learning and reflection in which a new perspective is created and adopted in the individual (Calleja, 2014). By using TL education, “habits of mind” are transformed as the process of experience (Mezirow, 1997), reflection and reformation occurs, allowing adults to “acquire [a] more developmentally advanced meaning perspective” (Mezirow, 1991, pp. 198-199). This is required in leadership education if it is to overcome models of leadership that contribute to the sustainability crisis (Bendell et al., 2017). The TL theory suffers from a number of unresolved issues such as: how to evaluate the perspective transformation of adults (Hoggan, 2016; Romano, 2017) and its movement from a distinctly psychocritical approach that focused on individual development toward a theory that considers a social emancipatory perspective that includes context and social change as a part of the transformative experience (Taylor, 2007). Even so, engaging students with TL approaches have found consensus in its ability to provoke the transformation of current worldviews, paradigms, values and habits that perpetuate unsustainability toward ones in alignment with sustainable futures (Papenfuss et al., 2019). It does this by encouraging individuals to reconsider their assumptions and relationships to others and the world, resulting in social action and the adoption of new behaviors (Hoggan, 2016). All of these are desired outcomes of ESD if it is to serve as a leverage point for individual change to affect a wider social system shift toward sustainability.

1.3 Transformational learning for sustainability leadership – understanding the components that support transformation

There is a fair consensus regarding the importance of TL within the ESD field, but the question of “how” and under what conditions TL for sustainability occurs remains a vibrant academic discussion. Different academics use different terms. For example, Mezirow (1991) calls for the establishment of “ideal learning conditions” in which students engage with accurate information, are free from coercion and self-deception, can weigh evidence, evaluate arguments, be critically reflective and have access to alternative perspectives. Rodríguez and Barth (2020) conducted a systematic literature review of TL in ESD and unearthed “learning conditions,” which support TL for sustainability; MacDonald and Shriberg (2016) conducted an analysis of sustainability leadership programs and identified “best practice methods” for developing sustainability leaders; and Burns and Schneider (2019) identify “elements” within programs that support the development and impact of sustainability leadership. In this paper the word component is used to refer to such conditions, methods, elements, etc., and the components identified by the above-mentioned authors as supporting TL of sustainability leaders and change agents are summarized in Table 1.

This study examined an international sustainability leadership master’s program in Sweden that over 16 years has been described by students as life-changing, empowering and transformational. The program uses many of the components in Table 1 and some more. The aim of the study was to see whether this anecdotal evidence could be more solidly supported, to identify which components in the learning environment contribute significantly to the transformational experience and to develop a model that maps and describes how these components are influential to the transformational experience of the studied program. The intention of doing so is to provide a case study contribution to the study of TL environments within the context of sustainability.

2.1 Research question

This research aims to understand the components of the MSLS learning environment that contribute to TL. The research question guiding this work is thus:

3.1 Participant invitation and survey design

The program has a strongly connected alumni network, which regularly interacts through a social media group, a listserv and email, which were used to communicate the survey. The researchers created a 2-min video explaining the purpose of the research and sent written invitations. The survey was open from October 21 to November 18 2019. Of about 700 alumni, 215 responded. Of these, 45 did not complete all the relevant questions; 170 responded to the majority of questions. Respondents could choose whether to remain anonymous or share their names with the researchers. The primary open-ended questions used for this data analysis included:

3.2 Coding mechanism and structures

The results were imported into Atlas.ti and surveys were read through by respondents. The study used a thematic analysis of the 215 responses (with 170–180 for each question as some were not answered). The initial coding structure was created by two researchers inductively from a sample of 50 responses (Savin-Baden and Major, 2013). A third researcher then used this initial structure to analyze the full data set. Modifications and further iterations to the original structure were discussed within the group. This set-up was intentionally chosen to minimize bias. Alumni were also asked general questions about the content (e.g. “What content pieces were least useful for you in your work post MSLS?”) and the pedagogy (e.g. “The part of my MSLS experience that was most important for my learning and development was…?”). If the respondent answered that the experience had been transformational, their answers from these general categories were included for further coding and analysis.

3.3 Limitation of the research

There are several possible limitations of the research. These include potential bias as all authors are alumni and/or core staff of the program. The analysis and presentation of results may be influenced by the researchers’ own experiences and pre-understandings. In addition, some of the responses were extensive and some were brief – a few words – so judgment and inference were used in the sense-making of the data based on the respondent’s overall answers. The survey participants may also reflect a certain bias, as people with a strongly positive or strongly negative experience may have been more likely to respond. Also, as a small interconnected community, respondents may not feel like negative answers were truly anonymous. Thus, they may not be a complete representation of the student experience. To address these possible biases, the survey asked questions about both the positive and negative aspects of the learning environment and asked respondents to provide a critique of what did not work for them. A large number of responses from alumni allows for repetition and saturation of certain themes, which emerged as key findings to help address possible researcher bias and provide more confidence in the findings.

Similar TL research has suffered from a number of limitations. Taylor’s (2007) argument that TL research is reliant on methodology in which participants are interviewed retrospectively using thematic inductive analysis remains valid and requires acknowledgment as a similar method was used in this study. However, as the MSLS program has been widely “known” as a transformational program without a determined empirical evaluation of that phenomena, this study aims to address that question and to outline the unique contributing components through empirical evidence provided by program participants. We believe that this provides justification for the research and a contribution to the field as mapping processes and efficacy of TL programs for sustainability leadership is an important piece as ESD tries to scale up its response to increasing global challenges.

4.1 Key components

The components and their subcomponents are defined and summarized in Tables 2 and 3 together with the number of respondents who identified them as important for their transformation.

The importance of integration and synergy, here named the “integrated whole” was a major finding in the data. This “integrated whole” along with two further components, “hope & agency” and “disorientation”, which permeate the program, were also seen to influence. Table 3 illustrates the number of respondents who mentioned these further components.

The findings presented in Tables 2 and 3 are visualized in Figure 1. It displays each component and subcomponent with the number of respondents who identified them as integral to their transformation. Individually and seen as categories, these components may not appear as new or unique offerings as many have been discussed before in sustainability education literature (Pisters et al., 2019; Rodríguez and Barth, 2020; Taylor, 2007). The contribution of these findings is seen in the description of the particular and unique way these components frame the learning environment and the synergy and interaction of these. Each component is mapped and placed in relation to the others visualizing the significant finding that it is the components operating in synergy that provides the transformative effect. This synergy is discussed in Section 5 below.

4.2 Results and discussion of components

In this section the components of community, place, pedagogy and concepts and content; and their sub-components are discussed and the components of disorientation and hope and agency. The synergistic component of Integrated Whole is further discussed in Section 5. Direct quotes from the survey participants will be in italics.

5.1 The integrated whole– synergy, context and living in community

A main outcome of this research is that it is the “whole package” working together that enables transformation. Previous studies identify various conditions or components to support the design of programs (Rodríguez and Barth, 2020) or highlight the synergy or integration of learning conditions such as the integration of pedagogy design and intent of the facilitator (Sterling et al., 2018). The findings of this study support the need for educators to focus attention on the integration of components of programs beyond specific content and pedagogies. This includes synergizing components such as community, place and hope and agency. In the participants’ words:

“I can’t isolate just one thing that was most important unless I can call it a synergy of things. What made the program so special was a mix of people, place, constraints, freedom, and an overall sense of respect and care” and, “[…] has been designed as a whole to help becoming an inspirational person capable of taking leadership.”

The design of the whole program can be described as a living system that relies on the components as living parts of it, nourishing and interacting with each other. From the “place” which provides an arena for students connecting them to the natural environment, a key theme of their learning, to the promotion of individual growth and personal relationships, small-town living and the Swedish winter; all creating the possibility of transformation. Supported by the quality of a unique and intentional community these connections cultivate a fertile ground in which transformation occurs. Bolstering this, the distinct and deliberate use of pedagogy and content, hosted by skilled staff, takes advantage of the scene set by the components of place and community. The gentle provocation of disorientation is done with structures and scaffolds of support provided formally (by the staff) and informally (by the students) to determine a “safe” change and is combined with a proactive approach to sustainability which provides inspiration and hope. It is these unique components working together that most prominently seems to make the MSLS experience transformational.

The legacy of hand-me-down students’ homes passed between cohorts, the physical presence of students in a place and the physicality of the learning environment all play a part. The living system also extends beyond the immediate MSLS cohort. Most program staff are alumni, meaning they have a shared experience with students and many students come through alumni recommendations. The handing down of narratives before students arrive is influential as these stories draw them to the program and define expectations before they arrive and create their own experience.

5.2 Challenges of the Master’s in Strategic Leadership toward Sustainability experience

The MSLS environment is not supportive for everyone’s TL. A number of critiques were offered. For some, it was particular components and for others, it may be the program as a whole that was not seen as supportive. The intensity of the program surfaced in the critiques, as 13 people spoke of the intensity and time pressure limiting their capacity to integrate the learnings:

“I couldn’t assimilate all the high-quality knowledge and lectures because the time pressure and intensity. All energy had to focus in surviving”. And: “For me, the pace of the program was the most challenging. In the end I didn’t have the energy left to really invest in the work and get the most of it.

The relationship between the intensity, time pressure and potential transformative nature of this is captured in the following quote: Most of the learning process work for me. The challenge was the speed of things, but I think that it was part of the process. The intensity of the program is an outcome of the content and learning process, but also the community aspect with the small cohort, tight boundary and small town where everyone does most assignments in groups and many of the students live together Doing everything in a group setting. I tend to be somewhat introverted and didn’t always come across as I would have like in groups. The same conditions that create beneficial grounds to change for some can create challenges for others. Certain intensity remains integral by design as pressure creates challenges and thus opportunity for transformation. Some of the intensity is due to (over)ambition of the staff and the students; for one, because the sustainability challenge is huge and both staff and students have a burning urge to address it. There are many opportunities in the MSLS space for both staff and students to squeeze in too much. In addition, there can be a mismatch of expectation and actual requirements, as well as differing priorities. This means it is a constant balancing act of enough pressure for transformation, but not too much.

5.3 Readiness for change

Many who come to MSLS have a “desire to change” both the world and themselves. This is an important consideration of TL – it can and should only happen voluntarily (Illeris, 2014), but the individual change requires a fertile context to begin (Rodríguez and Barth, 2020). Simply put, the student needs to be “open” to change when beginning their learning journey. Within the MSLS community, this “readiness” seems to be one of the reasons for students to attend the program. As the program is advertised as transformational, the staff assumes that students begin with a recognition of the process as a “potentially transformational one” and select their attendance based on this. Statements such as That’s why we came, to evolve and grow, at its best, that’s what MSLS does highlight the expectation of students and the overall narrative of the program.

5.4 Transitioning back to the “real world” post Master’s in Strategic Leadership toward Sustainability

A shadow side of this integrated community and place-based learning experience is that for many, leaving the “MSLS bubble” can be quite a challenging experience. It can be challenging emotionally after having experienced a transformation, a different way of being, and then maintaining that when going “back to reality.” The transition post-MSLS can in fact be extremely difficult as captured in these particular quotes:

I miss a more close relationship after the masters. As it talks about the bizarre state of the world and it is very hard for anyone to take. I felt really depressed coming out of the bubble and into the real world. I felt like breaking lots of times and simply […] the years after the master were not easy.

In addition, 12 people identified the challenge of transferability of the knowledge, concepts or ability:

How to describe this education and new skillset on a CV or resume because when we go into the real world people are not familiar with these terms.

This challenge in connecting sustainability graduates to jobs occurs as sustainability graduates are being equipped for jobs that world does not know it needs (Thomas et al., 2020; Wiek et al., 2011). The problem is larger than any one individual, program or institution. ESD is often presented as a win–win proposal, yet the reality of power struggles at implementing sustainability in real-world contexts is often not addressed in the classroom (Boström et al., 2018). Sustainability graduates are often required to create and design the jobs they believe have impact while living within the system (Bryant and Thomson, 2020). The difficulties of these post transformational experiences highlight an ongoing challenge faced by the program in the form of a post-transformation “crash.” This is also found in another recent study of a sustainability leadership program by Burns and Schneider (2019) and begs the question of whether the transformations last and how to support graduated in their new “states of being.”

5.5 Limitations and future research

This study is focused on one specific program and the components that students who have taken that program identified as part of their TL experience. Many of the components are present in other programs but mapping the unique details and the synergistic way the components work together in the MSLS program are the key contributions of this paper. The generalizability to other programs cannot be claimed beyond programs of similar design, yet the authors hope that the details provided give educators and sustainability leadership program designers a guide as to how effective TL environments for sustainability can be constructed. A further question is how the application of any of these findings related to other sustainability leadership programs and courses, academic and non-academic, in person and in online environments. Which components that we have presented here are key to TL experiences also in other places and in what ways? What other components might be there? And what other synergies are out there to create such TL experiences for sustainability?

Further questions and future research regarding the “outcomes” of the transformation for the participants of the program and the lasting impacts and effects their education has as they move back into their other professional and community contexts remains relevant. This question of outcomes, of “what transforms,” for the students is the subject of a further paper by these authors. Furthermore, an examination of the resources requirements of TL environments would arguably also be valuable for learning designers within the ESD field.