Article

Irene Ruckdeschel Wruck; Vera Lucia Chaves Alonso

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602292

Article derived from a Final Course Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the Revista E&S with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The integration of different leadership models has proven to be a relevant path for educational institutions seeking to innovate and achieve excellence in their educational practices. However, empirical research investigating the application of Theory U in school management associated with Transformational and Servant approaches has been scarce, creating a gap in the literature. This study sought to understand how educational managers perceived and applied the principles of Theory U — generative listening, presencing, and co-creation — in dialogue with the theoretical approaches of Transformational Leadership and Servant Leadership in their management practices. The research, qualitative and exploratory in nature, was conducted in a private educational institution located in the city of São Paulo, encompassing levels from Basic Education to Postgraduate Studies. Data were collected through a semi-structured interview guide applied to seven educational managers and analyzed based on Bardin’s Content Analysis. The results showed approximations between the observed practices and the theoretical assumptions of the studied models, with listening standing out as the competence that best articulated the three approaches in the investigated context. Some tensions between the theoretical frameworks and the daily management routine were also identified. The study contributed to a critical reflection on the possibilities and limitations of integrating these different leadership models in school environments, broadening the debate and offering relevant subsidies for strengthening the field of educational management.

Keywords: Content Analysis; Generative Listening; Case Study; School Management; Leadership.

1. Introduction

Leadership, understood as the ability to influence and motivate individuals towards the achievement of organizational goals, has evolved significantly throughout history. Initially focused on individual characteristics, such as the Trait Theory proposed by Stogdill (1948) in the 1930s and 1940s, the concept expanded to include behavioral, contingency, and situational theories. More recently, contemporary and relational approaches have emerged, such as Transformational Leadership (1980), Servant Leadership (1990), and Theory U (2000), reflecting a progression from a focus on the individual to the context, and finally, to relationships.

In the current scenario, leadership is a field of study of great relevance, especially in the educational context. Traditional management models prove insufficient to face the complexity, volatility, and challenges of the 21st century. In school environments, the manager’s performance requires the articulation of pedagogical, administrative, and human dimensions, demanding not only technical competence but also relational, reflective, and transformative capabilities, as pointed out by Pinheiro et al. (2025).

Faced with this reality, leadership approaches that prioritize listening, personal development, and the collective construction of solutions gain prominence. Transformational Leadership, developed by Burns (1978) and Bass and Riggio (2006), and Servant Leadership, introduced by Greenleaf (1977), are examples of models that have come to dialogue with Theory U. Proposed by Otto Scharmer (2010), Theory U represents an innovative approach that invites leaders to cultivate new forms of listening, presence, and co-creation in the educational environment.

The U Theory proposes a process of inner and collective transformation that goes beyond superficial problem-solving. Scharmer (2010) structures this approach into three fundamental elements: generative listening, which allows the leader to perceive beyond the immediate and connect to potential futures; presencing, which integrates presence and sensing for full awareness; and co-creation, which emerges from group collaboration to abandon obsolete patterns and build innovative solutions. These dimensions of the U Theory align with studies on school leadership that emphasize the need for strategic and humanized management models, which impact student development and team cohesion (Marques Duarte, Marques Duarte and Fossati, 2025; Cetina and Kinik, 2015).

Transformational Leadership, according to Rocha Júnior, Alves, and Dandolini (2020), inspires teams through idealized influence and intellectual stimulation, being effective in innovation contexts. Servant Leadership, as per Greenleaf (1977) and Hunter (2004), focuses on serving others and the growth of the led, through empathy and care. Lück (2017) and Day et al. (2011) corroborate the view that school management and leadership must integrate strategic vision, democratic participation, and ethical commitment. Scharmer (2010) offers conceptual tools that dialogue with these demands, bringing generative listening and presencing closer to the principles of Servant Leadership, and co-creation to Transformational Leadership.

However, Theory U proposes a profound transformation of mental models, which does not always find resonance in school environments still marked by hierarchical structures and traditional management methods. This gap between what the theory proposes and institutional practice reveals a gap in the literature: there is little empirical research investigating the application of Theory U in school management, especially when articulated with transformational and servant approaches.

The central problem of this research lies in the distance between the theoretical assumptions and the actual practices of managers. The question arises as to how the competencies of generative listening, presencing, and co-creation dialogue with the principles of transformational and servant leadership in an institution that spans from Elementary to Higher Education, and how these competencies manifest in the practices of its managers. This study is justified by the need for management models that respond to educational complexity, overcoming centralizing structures. Investigating this integration in a private educational institution located in São Paulo allows us to understand how leadership dynamics manifest in practice, offering a critical reflection on the viability of integrated school management. The objective of this work is to investigate how educational managers perceive and apply the principles of Theory U in their leadership practice, analyzing the convergences and tensions with transformational and servant leadership, in order to identify implications for the training and development of school leaders.

2. Material and Methods

The study was guided by a qualitative approach, of a descriptive, empirical, and exploratory nature, characterized as a single case study. Basic descriptive statistics were used to assist in the sociodemographic characterization of the participants.

The research focused on understanding the perceptions, experiences, and leadership practices of educational managers, considering the assumptions of Theory U, Transformational Leadership, and Servant Leadership. The choice of this methodological approach was based on the need to capture subjective and contextual nuances of the investigated phenomenon.

The bibliographic search on the foundations of Theory U, Transformational Leadership, and Servant Leadership was conducted from March 2025 to March 2026, in academic databases such as SciELO, CAPES Periodicals Portal, Google Scholar, and the Presencing Institute website, in addition to works by reference authors. The empirical research was conducted between February and March 2026.

The theoretical frameworks were used as analytical lenses for data interpretation, seeking to identify convergences, approximations, differences, and tensions between the literature concepts and the leadership practices reported by the participants. The dimensions considered were: generative listening, presencing, and co-creation (Theory U); idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Transformational Leadership); and active listening/empathy, stewardship, and empowerment of autonomy (Servant Leadership).

The private educational institution, located in São Paulo, was selected as a unique case because it is typical and revealing, gathering common characteristics of large private educational institutions that operate at multiple levels of education, and for offering access to a management context little explored in the literature on Theory U applied to basic and higher education in an integrated manner. The selection was based on consistent institutional indicators.

Seven educational managers (three principals and four pedagogical coordinators), working in Basic Education and Higher Education, participated in the study. The selection was intentional, with criteria of holding a formal leadership position, having at least one year of experience in the role, and agreeing to participate voluntarily by signing the Free and Informed Consent Term (TCLE).

Data collection occurred in two stages. Firstly, an online sociodemographic questionnaire, created in Google Forms and filled out anonymously, was applied, with the access link sent via email. Subsequently, the central data were collected through a semi-structured script with open-ended questions, answered asynchronously by the seven managers. This format was guided by the approval schedule of the Research Ethics Committee (CAAE n° 95648225.1.0000.9927). The instrument sought to identify managers’ perceptions of educational leadership, integrating the principles of Theory U with the characteristics of transformational and servant leadership.

For the treatment and interpretation of the data, the content analysis technique was employed, based on the guidelines of Bardin (2011). The analysis process was operationalized in three phases: 1) Pre-analysis, which consisted of organizing the material and floating reading of the interviews; 2) Material Exploration, involving coding, decomposition into Units of Record (UR) and a posteriori thematic categorization, guided by the theoretical axes of the research; and 3) Treatment of Results, Inference and Interpretation, which included basic statistical operations (frequency of category appearance) and qualitative analysis, confronting the categorized data with the theoretical framework of the three approaches.

3. Results and Discussion

The content analysis of the seven interviews revealed a convergence of practices and perceptions among managers, showing that listening and personal example are the main leadership values in the institution. It was observed that the integration of theoretical models tends to occur naturally in the daily practice of managers, resulting in an environment perceived as more collaborative, although limited by bureaucratic and hierarchical barriers. The results are presented and discussed in an integrated manner, starting with a descriptive systematization of the frequency of categories and then deepening the qualitative analysis of each thematic category, with representative examples from the interviewees’ statements.

The group of participants in this research was composed of seven school managers with experience in education, working in a private educational institution in the city of São Paulo. The sample included professionals who hold strategic and pedagogical positions, including roles of Rectory, Directorate, and Coordination. To ensure strict anonymity, participants were identified by the acronyms E1 to E7.

The general characteristics of the group of participating managers, covering age range, academic background, and professional experience, are consolidated in Table 1. It is observed that the majority of managers (57.1%) are between 45 and 54 years old, indicating career maturity. The high level of academic qualification, with 4 postgraduate degrees, 1 master’s degree, and 2 doctorates, suggests a solid theoretical foundation. Regarding professional experience, 85.7% of respondents have been in educational management for over a decade, and 57.1% of managers have accumulated more than 10 years at their current institution.

Table 1. Sociodemographic Profile of Participating Managers

Source: Elaborated by the researcher (2026).

Frequency of Thematic Categories

For the treatment of the collected data, Content Analysis based on Bardin (2011) was employed, focusing on the identification of thematic categories aligned with Theory U, Transformational Leadership, and Servant Leadership. Table 2 summarizes the presence of these key concepts in each of the seven interviews, highlighting theoretical convergences, limitations, and practical challenges experienced by managers in their daily school activities. The data from Table 2 are visualized in Figure 1.

Table 2. Frequency of Presence and Limitation by Leadership Category (n=7)

Source: Elaborated by the researcher (2026).

Figure 1. Frequency of Presence and Limitation by Leadership Category

Source: Elaborated by the researcher.

According to Table 2 and Figure 1, the categories Idealized Influence and Individual Consideration (Transformational Leadership), and Active Listening / Empathy (Servant Leadership) were identified as present in 100% of the respondents, with no limitations reported. This suggests that these are solid pillars in the institution’s leadership culture. On the other hand, categories such as Generative Listening, Presencing, Co-creation, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, Service Primacy, and Autonomy Promotion showed a balance between presence and limitations, indicating areas where managers recognize the value of the concept but face challenges in its daily application.

Theory U in School Leadership Practice

The U Theory, proposed by Otto Scharmer (2010), emphasizes the importance of generative listening and opening the mind, heart, and will to access an emerging future. In the practice of the interviewed managers, listening emerged as a central competence. E1 exemplified the application of listening by describing the creation of a multiparty committee that, through meetings and focus groups based on active listening, allowed for the redefinition of routines and the resolution of pending demands, resulting in reduced costs and increased satisfaction. This account demonstrates how generative listening enables the co-creation of solutions that meet the community’s real needs, transforming management into a participatory process. E2 described listening as a “daily exercise of listening without already formulating the answer,” while E4 emphasized the importance of “stopping what you are doing, looking into someone’s eyes, and trying to truly understand what is behind the words.” For E7, listening requires “putting yourself in the shoes of the other person, who did not have the same training, the same principles, or the same values that we had.”

The transition from downloading, the pattern of repeating past behaviors described by Scharmer (2010), to presencing, a state of full presence that precedes the emergence of the new, proved to be a daily challenge of change, with 3 out of 7 managers pointing out limitations. E4 reported the need for extreme dedication to “overcome the logic of immediate response,” and E2 highlighted the team’s emotional resistance to “detachment from the old Operating System.” E1 corroborates this perception by advising patience in the teaching-learning process, which “requires repetition and constancy.” This difficulty in abandoning patterns aligns with Senge’s (2014) systemic perspective, which proposes questioning mental models. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged as a catalyzing crisis, forcing the abandonment of limiting beliefs and the prototyping of the new, as reported by E1, who described the team’s training for remote teaching in seventy-two hours, generating genuine collaboration and a sense of shared mission. This movement approaches Heifetz’s (2014) adaptive leadership.

Co-creation was a unanimous practice among 4 of the 7 managers, with 3 pointing out limitations. E7 stated that “I never bring a finished project. I bring the problem, the challenge. And I ask: ‘So, team, how are we going to solve this?’ It’s incredible how the most creative solutions come from the grassroots.” E3 described the creation of an “innovation committee with representatives from all sectors,” where the leader provides support and removes obstacles. E5 synthesized shared leadership: “We make decisions together; either everyone gets it right or everyone gets it wrong and fixes the mistake. There’s no ‘I ordered it.’ The responsibility belongs to everyone.” However, E7 pointed out that “institutional hierarchy sometimes limits openness to the new,” and E3 complemented that “the fear of making mistakes is still very great,” evidencing that full co-creation still faces structural resistance.

Transformational Leadership in the Practice of School Leadership

Transformational Leadership, according to Bass (1985), is characterized by the leader’s ability to inspire and motivate their followers to transcend their individual interests for the collective good. In the institution, Idealized Influence and Individual Consideration were present in 100% of the managers. E1 highlighted that inspiration stems from credibility and example, seeking to communicate the institutional mission and celebrate achievements. E2 emphasized transparency as the basis of leadership: “There is no secret: do what you say. Be the first to arrive, the last to leave. Be transparent, admit your mistakes.” E4 corroborated, stating that “the director is the mirror of the school”. These foundations are anchored in the studies of Burns (1978), Bass (1985), Northouse (2018), Gumus et al. (2018), and Chiavenato (2020).

Inspiring Motivation, although present in 5 out of 7 managers, faces limitations. E2 described the difficulty of keeping the team motivated in the face of tight deadlines and limited resources, highlighting the need for creativity to inspire. E3 added that “people don’t always buy into the idea right away,” requiring a lot of conversation. E1 uses technology to provide positive feedback and connect achievements to institutional pillars, corroborating Cunha et al. (2016).

Intellectual Stimulation, present in 4 out of 7 managers, also has limitations. E6 reported the importance of encouraging the team to question the “why” of things to form innovators, not repeaters, but acknowledged that “there isn’t always room for error”. E3 added that “the fear of making mistakes is still very great”. E7 seeks to create an environment of psychological safety, stating: “Making mistakes is part of the process. The important thing is to learn from mistakes and not repeat them”. These practices dialogue with the construct of Intellectual Stimulation by Bass and Riggio (2006).

Individual Consideration, present in 100% of managers, demonstrates concern for the development and well-being of each team member. E5 expressed: “I try to know each person on my team, their aspirations, their difficulties. We are not robots. Each one has a story, a life outside of school.” E1 reinforced that “the leader has to be a companion, a motivator, a counselor. They have to be close, especially to those who need it most. It’s not just about demanding, it’s about caring”. This attention approaches the emotional intelligence described by Goleman (2015).

Servant Leadership in School Leadership Practice

Servant Leadership, according to Greenleaf (1977), prioritizes service to the led, personal development, and community building. Within the institution, Active Listening / Empathy is a strong point, present in 100% of managers. E3 expressed: “We practice active listening all the time. It is our way of understanding the needs of students, families, and the team. It is the basis for any decision.” E4 added: “empathy is what drives us”. E1 uses listening as a filter for strategic decisions, ensuring that service comes first. This approach is manifested through empathy, healing, and awareness, elements that are reflected in the observed listening culture, according to Hunter (2004), Spears (2010), and Lopes and Gomes (2023).

However, the Primacy of Service, although present in 4 out of 7 managers, faces limitations. E5 reported emotional exhaustion: “Serving is our calling, but sometimes it is exhausting. We give so much of ourselves that we forget about ourselves. And the demand for results is real. It is a constant conflict between ‘serving’ and ‘demanding’. ” E2 complemented that “serving conflicts with the need to demand results and goals”. E4 seeks to reconcile these aspects, stating that “demanding results is part of service, because our ultimate goal is excellence in education”. This balance between serving and demanding results dialogues with Dubois and Fleury (2015).

The Promotion of Autonomy, present in 4 out of 7 managers, also presents limitations. E7 pointed to centralization in critical decisions: “We try to give autonomy to the team, so they feel like owners of the process. But in very important decisions, or when a lot of bureaucracy is involved, the final word is still with management.” E3 added that “when we don’t trust, there’s no way to give autonomy, the risk is great”. E1 has a clear philosophy: “I hire good people to do the job. My role is not to micromanage. My role is to provide the vision, the purpose, the resources, and get out of the way.” This willingness to delegate and trust converges with Silva’s (2024) observation.

Convergences and Tensions in School Leadership

The qualitative analysis revealed that, although leadership models (Theory U, Transformational, and Servant) are present in the institution’s culture, their application faces challenges that reflect the complexity of the educational environment. Identified limitations include operational urgency, which permeates daily school life, as E4 described: “It’s crazy. We arrive in the morning and there’s already a list of urgent things to solve. Putting out fires. And more attentive listening, strategic planning, end up being postponed.” E1, however, offers a strategy: “I learned that not everything is for yesterday. If someone brings me an urgent problem, I listen, I take notes, and I say: ‘Let’s talk about it tomorrow, calmly.’”

Another significant limitation is the leader’s emotional exhaustion and loneliness. E7 expressed: “It’s very lonely being a leader. We have to be strong all the time, inspire, motivate, solve problems. But who takes care of us?” E2 pointed to the need for self-care: “We need to learn to say ‘no’ sometimes, to delegate, to ask for help.” Resistance to change also emerged as an important limitation. E3 described the fear of the new: “People prefer to follow what is already established rather than risk a new idea, even if it is for the good of the school.” E7 reinforced that “institutional hierarchy sometimes limits openness to the new,” highlighting structural resistances to full co-creation.

The in-depth analysis of the reports reveals a convergence between the theoretical models of Theory U, Transformational Leadership, and Servant Leadership. This convergence does not occur linearly, but in a complex dynamic where each model complements and strengthens the others, approaching what Scharmer (2010) describes as a social technology approach focused on innovation and systemic change. This integration manifests as a set of practices that favor leadership and the emergence of collective solutions, as synthesized in Table 3. This convergence is supported by Day et al. (2011), Rocha Júnior, Alves, and Dandolini (2020), and Lück (2017).

Table 3. Synthesis of the Convergence between Leadership Models and Managers’ Practice

Leadership Model	Key Concept Identified	Evidence in Managerial Practice	Impact on the Institution
Theory U	Generative Listening	Suspension of judgments for understanding complex conflicts and emergence of innovative solutions.	Improvement in organizational climate, openness to innovation, and development of new teaching methodologies.
	Presencing (Presence)	Deep connection with the present moment for strategic decision-making and adaptation to crisis scenarios.	Institutional resilience, rapid response capacity, and transformation of challenges into opportunities.
	Co-creation	Team involvement in building solutions and decision-making, valuing collective intelligence.	Strengthening of employees’ sense of belonging, engagement, and protagonism.
Transformational Leadership	Idealized Influence	The leader as a role model for conduct and values, inspiring the team by example.	Generation of trust, respect, and alignment with institutional culture and purpose.
	Inspiring Motivation	Ability to articulate a future vision and motivate the team to transcend individual interests.	Strengthening of the sense of purpose, elevation of morale, and stimulation of high performance.
	Intellectual Stimulation	Incentive to critical thinking, experimentation, and the search for innovative solutions.	Development of the team’s autonomy, creativity, and problem-solving skills.
	Individual Consideration	Genuine concern for the development and well-being of each team member.	Building trusting relationships, reducing turnover, and promoting a healthy work environment.
Servant Leadership	Active Listening / Empathy	Deep understanding of the needs and perspectives of the led for humanized decision-making.	Strengthening of bonds, conflict resolution, and promotion of an environment of mutual support.
	Primacy of Service	Prioritization of the well-being and development of subordinates and the school community.	Humanization of management, increased team satisfaction, and focus on the student as the center of the process.
	Promotion of Autonomy	Delegation of responsibilities and team empowerment for decision-making.	Development of new leadership, increased proactivity and sense of collective responsibility.

Source: Elaborated by the researcher (2026).

However, the same analysis that revealed points of convergence also highlighted tensions between the theoretical assumptions and the reality experienced by managers in their institutional daily lives. If, on the one hand, the models meet and mutually reinforce each other, on the other hand, their application encounters obstacles of a structural, cultural, and operational nature. Understanding these divergences is as relevant as recognizing the convergences, because it is precisely in this space between the ideal and the possible that the growth potential of leadership resides. Table 4 presents a synthesis of these tensions identified in the managers’ practice.

Table 4. Synthesis of the Divergence between Leadership Models and Managers’ Practice

Leadership Model	Key Concept Identified	Evidence in Managerial Practice	Impact on the Institution
Theory U	Generative Listening	Difficulty in sustaining full listening in the face of the logic of immediate response and operational overload.	Reactive decisions, loss of innovative solutions, and weakening of dialogue as a strategic tool.
	Presencing (Presence)	Team’s emotional resistance to abandoning known patterns, hindering access to a state of full presence.	Predominance of downloading (repetition of patterns), limiting the emergence of innovative pedagogical practices.
	Co-creation	The institutional hierarchy restricts team participation in the collective construction of solutions.	Reduction of employee protagonism and weakening of the sense of collective co-responsibility.
Transformational Leadership	Inspiring Motivation	Fatigue and pressure to meet goals reduce the leader’s ability to engage the team around a future vision.	Difficulty in sustaining engagement and risk of distancing between discourse and practice.
	Intellectual Stimulation	The fear of taking risks limits creativity and the willingness to propose new pedagogical approaches.	Tendency to reproduce what is already known, with low investment in new ways of teaching and managing.
	Individual Consideration	The demands of institutional daily life do not always allow the manager to dedicate personalized attention to each team member.	When individual care takes a backseat, the team may feel less valued, affecting their motivation.
Servant Leadership	Primacy of Service	There is a continuous effort to reconcile care for people with the achievement of organizational goals.	This balance is not always easy to maintain and may require additional effort from the manager on a daily basis.
	Promotion of Autonomy	The established institutional processes do not always favor the distribution of decisions among the team.	Participatory culture is under construction, gradually advancing within the limits of the institutional context.

Source: Elaborated by the researcher (2026).

The data reveal an institution in motion, with an organizational culture that, even in the face of challenges, demonstrates resilience, reflective capacity, and a genuine willingness to grow. The identified tensions do not diminish the quality of the observed leadership, but reveal a self-honest management that recognizes its limits and remains open to learning and renewal. This stance resonates with what Scharmer (2010) describes in the “U” movement: letting go, the openness to release what no longer serves, as a natural path to letting come, the welcoming of the future that emerges when leaders and teams walk together towards the new.

In summary, the results indicated that school managers perceive and apply the principles of Theory U in conjunction with Transformational Leadership and Servant Leadership in an integrated manner in their daily management. Listening stood out as the transversal element to the three theoretical references, manifesting itself in the generative listening of Theory U, in the individual consideration of Transformational Leadership, and in the empathy of Servant Leadership. The pandemic was a context in which this integration manifested with greater intensity, driving the rupture with consolidated practices in favor of emerging solutions. Although not all theoretical assumptions found full correspondence in practice, especially in promoting autonomy, the identified tensions do not invalidate the models, but reveal the complexity of the continuous exercise of leadership in educational environments.

4. Conclusion

This study investigated how educational managers perceived and applied the principles of Theory U in their leadership practice, analyzing the convergences and tensions with transformational and servant leadership. It was found that these three leadership models did not present themselves as competing approaches, but as complementary perspectives that manifested in an integrated manner in the daily school management. Listening emerged as the central competence that articulated the generative listening of Theory U, the individual consideration of Transformational Leadership, and the empathy of Servant Leadership. It was observed that the COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst, driving managers to break away from established practices in favor of emerging and co-created solutions. This integration of models contributed to critical reflection on the possibilities of more humanized and strategic school management, offering subsidies for strengthening the field of educational management.

However, tensions and limitations were identified in the full application of these theoretical assumptions. The operational urgency of daily school life, the emotional wear and tear and loneliness of the leader, as well as resistance to change by the teams, were pointed out as significant challenges. The promotion of autonomy, in particular, proved to be a dimension where the distance between the theoretical ideal and institutional practice was most evident, with critical decisions remaining centralized in management. These conclusions derive from a single case study in a private educational institution in São Paulo, which limits the generalization of the findings. For future research, it is suggested to broaden the investigative scope to public networks and other regions of the country, in order to verify the sustainability of these convergences and divergences in different institutional realities.

Bibliographic References

Bass, B.M.; Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformational Leadership. 2ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, EUA.

Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row, New York, NY, EUA.

Greenleaf, R.K. (1977). Servant Leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press, New York, NY, EUA.

Marques Duarte, J.M.; Marques Duarte, J.L.; Fossatti, P. (2025). Liderança Escolar e Inclusão na Educação Básica: Impactos dos estilos de gestão. Telos: Revista de Estudios Interdisciplinarios en Ciencias Sociales, Vol. 27(2): 7

Pinheiro, G.; Alves, J.M.; Serra, L. (2025). School leadership and organization in times of complexity: paths to a collaborative and regenerative school. Frontiers in Education, v. 10, art. 1657742.

Scharmer, O.C. (2010). Teoria U: como liderar pela percepção e realização do futuro que emerge. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership; a survey of the literature. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 25, 35-71.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in School Management of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform