Conference Agenda

This symposium explores the expanding field of Edupreneurship (Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2019). By elucidating three distinct studies (comprising a scoping review, a study with a European perspective, and a Cypriot study), our aim is to shed some more light into the leadership behaviors and actions that could be undertaken for schools to survive in today’s turbulent environments and unprecedented changes they are confronted with (Pietsch et al. 2022). As the educational landscape is undergoing a transformative shift to challenge several megatrends, conventional educational leadership frameworks struggle to adapt to these challenges, prompting the need for a novel approach. The emergence of Edupreneurs (Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2019) – entrepreneurial leaders in the field of education – becomes pivotal in navigating these complexities, necessitating a deeper examination of their role in shaping the future of education.

According to Pashiardis and Brauckmann (2019) edupreneurial leadership emerges as a hybrid as it combines the entrepreneurial with the instructional/pedagogical leadership style, which are two of the five leadership styles that make up their leadership framework (for a more detailed description of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, please see Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008; Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2011). The call for entrepreneurial activities in the school context aligns with the search of originality as well as strategic alliances outside the school environment. Breakthrough innovations stem from a unique knowledge search. They highlight the importance of fostering original ideas in schools for entrepreneurial relationships. Therefore, promoting originality enhances a school principal's entrepreneurial leadership (Jung & Lee 2016; Pashiardis & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz 2021). To adapt to the evolving edupreneurial leadership style, schools must embrace flexibility and accommodation. School leaders, guided by innovative thinking, should incorporate risk-taking behavior, leadership training, and experience. They need to assess the education landscape, considering autonomy, accountability patterns, and personnel readiness, to formulate effective strategies (Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2019).

Recent studies highlight the multifaceted nature of Edupreneurship. They emphasize its dynamic potential within educational institutions and explore the school principal’s entrepreneurial mindset, competencies, resources, and motives as well as the relationship between entrepreneurship and educational leadership. Yemini, Addi-Raccah and Katarivas (2015) characterize school leaders as change agents. Their study investigates school principals as institutional entrepreneurs, exploring the meaning of entrepreneurship in schools. Examining 10 identified entrepreneurial principals in Israel, it delves into their motives and resources driving entrepreneurial activities in diverse educational streams. Another study by Eyal and Kark (2004) emphasizes leadership for its impact on simplifying and reinforcing realities, while entrepreneurial activities introduce new products, services, or ideas. The study establishes a (yet) complex existing link between leadership and entrepreneurship, noting a stronger correlation of transformational leadership with proactive behavior than innovativeness. Another study by Hörnqvist and Leffler (2014) delves into the entrepreneurial mindset of school leaders, highlighting the internal and external responsibilities associated with leadership in an entrepreneurial school setting.

While existing research has made valuable contributions, a notable gap exists in comprehending how the concept of edupreneurship is understood, contextualized, or theorized, in relation to school leadership. It is also not yet clarified which long-term implications of edupreneurial initiatives by school leaders do exist. Future research should focus on unraveling the sustainability of edupreneurial practices, providing perspectives that are crucial for informing evidence-based educational policies and practices. Therefore, the symposium addresses the following research questions:

• What is known about edupreneurial acting and thinking among school leaders?
• What is the long-term impact of edupreneurial initiatives on the organizational sustainability of schools?

*This term was introduced by Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Petros Pashiardis.

Entrepreneurship is conceptualized as a dynamic process of creative destruction, acting as a catalyst for economic development by disrupting established patterns and fostering the emergence of innovative products and services. This perspective is designed to identify, evaluate, and leverage entrepreneurial opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Within the domain of educational leadership in schools, entrepreneurship represents an emerging field of academic research (Herbert et al., 2012; Pihie et al., 2014). Given the multifaceted contemporary challenges, including ecological, societal, and economic complexities, school leaders encounter challenges that surpass conventional managerial responsibilities. Consequently, their roles encompass the perpetual upkeep and enhancement of the existing status quo while remaining vigilant and prepared for unforeseen circumstances. To navigate these challenges successfully, SL must not only exhibit innovative thinking beyond conventional parameters but also demonstrate the adaptability to dynamic circumstances (Pietsch et al., 2020). The primary aim of this scoping review is to deliver a contemporary and comprehensive analysis of existing research, thereby contributing substantially to the progression of knowledge regarding the entrepreneurial actions and thinking of school leaders in the K-12 setting and its impacts on educational institutions. Preliminary findings from the review indicate that the subject has gained increasing significance within the academic discourse over the last 15 years. Notably, in most publications there is a predominant focus on elucidating the meaning of entrepreneurial actions and thinking within school leadership, both theoretically and empirically. This has led to the identification of a, hitherto, vague use of the term entrepreneurship within the context of school leadership: In addition to entrepreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship, there is also an exploration of concepts such as social entrepreneurship (Melinkova, 2020), social intrapreneurship (Yemini et al., 2015), and edupreneurship (Pashiardis & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, 2021). Regarding the impact of entrepreneurial thinking, actors, and actions on educational institutions, there are currently limited indications of their impact on students' learning outcomes and school development, except, of course, parental involvement, which is always a strong positive indicator of student achievement. This paper is a work-in-progress and will be finalized in time to present results at the ECER conference in August 2024.

Melinkova, J. (2020). Leading complementary schools as non-profit social entrepreneurship: Cases from Lithuania, Management in Education, 34(4), 149-156. Herbert, K., Bendickson, J., Liguori, E.W., Weaver, K. M., & Teddlie, C. (2012). Re-desingning lessons, re-envisioning principals: developing entrepreneurial school leadership, In Sanzo, K., Myran, S., & Nomore, A.H. (Hg.). Successful School Leadership Preparation and Development. Advances in Educational Administration, 17, Bingley: Emerald, 153-163. Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2021). The rise of the Edupreneur. Exploring School leadership through an evolutionary perspective, In Nir, A. E. (Ed.). School Leadership in the 21st Century, New York: Nova Science, 47-68. Pihie Z.A.L.; Bagheri A.; Asimiran S. (2014). Entrepreneurial leadership practices and school innovativeness, South African Journal of Education, 34(1), 1-11, DOI: 10.15700/201412120955. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, P. (2020). Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 574-592, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945705. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research, The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259271. Yemini M., Addi-Raccah A., & Katarivas K. (2015). I have a dream: School principals as entrepreneurs, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 526-540, DOI: 10.1177/1741143214523018.

To improve school organisational performance and innovativeness, and meet diverse student needs, school leaders should be innovative/creative pioneers, risk-takers, and proactive, thus applying entrepreneurial practices/strategies and market mechanisms (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz & Pashiardis, 2022; Eyal & Kark, 2004; Pihie et al., 2014). This study investigated, from a schoolteacher’s perspective, the degree of entrepreneurial leadership behaviour (ELB) applied by school principals in European primary schools. Given that school autonomy is an important predictor of leaders’ entrepreneurship (Eyal & Kark, 2004); this study investigates the impact of educational macro (autonomy and accountability) and micro (demographics) contexts on ELB by comparing centralised and decentralised European school systems with the highly centralised Greek school system. This comparative study was conducted in Greece (630 participants) and in 14 European countries (972 participants). Thornberry’s (2006) Entrepreneurial Leadership Questionnaire was used, comprising general entrepreneurial leader, miner, accelerator, explorer, and integrator behaviours. The results revealed that ELB is a multi-dimensional concept, and that participating teachers perceive ELB application moderately, with more focus on the internal (than external) school environment. Furthermore, the dual-directional macro-contextual influence found in applying ELB indicates that high school autonomy and accountability activate ELB owing to the school’s freedom to engage in entrepreneurial ventures, while low autonomy/accountability still activates ELB, but only for organisational survival within hierarchical-bureaucratic school environments. This feature differentiates ‘intrapreneur/intrepreneur’ from ‘entrepreneur’ school principals (Hentschke, 2010). The school micro-context was found to influence ELB in European decentralised school systems. However, ELB was not majorly influenced by school-level variables in centralised school systems owing to the uniformity resulting from educational macro- and micro-level centralisation. Our findings suggest optimism regarding the pedagogical added value of applying ELB in schools, thus arising implications for school leadership research and practice.

Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2022). Entrepreneurial leadership in schools: linking creativity with accountability. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(5), 787–801. Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organisations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 211–235. Hentschke, G.C. (2010). Developing entrepreneurial leaders. In B. Davies & M. Brundrett (eds.), Developing Successful Leadership, Studies in Educational Leadership 11, 115–132. Berlin: Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Pihie, Z.A.L., Bagheri, A., & Asimiran, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial leadership behaviour among school principals: perspectives from Malaysian secondary school teachers. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 22(3), 825-843. Thornberry, N. (2006). Lead like an entrepreneur. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill.

Entrepreneurship in education, as discussed by Hisrich and Drnovsek (2002), is a central theme, interpreted as an initiative by school leaders to establish additional support networks (Pashiardis, 2014). In fact, in school organizations, the involvement of external stakeholders, especially parents, is emphasized as crucial in enhancing educational achievements, as supported by existing research (Balasi et al., 2023; Castro et al., 2015; Fox & Olsen, 2014; Van Voorhis et al., 2013). Despite the fact that recent changes worldwide are aiming to improve the quality of teaching and learning by strengthening the independence of individual schools, it remains to be seen whether, how, and to what extent the successful exercise of more entrepreneurially motivated leadership can succeed in the social reality of school organizations. Therefore, to better understand how successful school leaders promote entrepreneurship within their school organizations, this paper maps out the external leadership dimension and entrepreneurialism exhibited by successful school leaders in Cyprus, using case studies from a decade-long research study. The study intends to provide prospective pathways for successful external school leadership, considering the contextual perspective within which school leaders operate. The centralized education system in Cyprus, governed by the Ministry of Education, imposes directives, policies, and oversight on school organizations, limiting autonomy and disregarding unique characteristics. This paper argues that the contextually dependent nature of centralization influences the external practices of school leaders, urging them to navigate challenges related to resource acquisition and external support. In fact, the lack of decentralization hinders critical inquiry, emphasizing the pivotal role of school leaders in fostering improvement despite the prevailing conditions. Therefore, inspired school leaders in Cyprus promote external strategies for engaging external stakeholders beyond parents to address challenges and improve school organizations. Having said that, this paper contends that school leaders should explore diverse approaches for engaging external stakeholders, and that their capacity to regulate interactions depends, also, on personal values and circumstances.

Balasi, A., Iordanidis, G. & Tsakiridou, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial leadership behaviour of primary school principals across Europe: a comparative study. International Journal of Educational Management, 37 (5), 1067-1087. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2023-0208 Castro, M., Expósito-Casas, E., López-Martín, E., Lizasoain, L., Navarro-Asencio, E. & Gaviria, J. L. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002 Fox, S. & Olsen, A. (2014). Education capital: Our evidence base. Defining parental engagement. Canberra: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. Hisrich, R.D. & Drovsek, M. (2002) Entrepreneurship and small business research – a European perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 9 (2), 172 – 222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000210427348 Pashiardis, P. (2014) (Eds.). Modeling School Leadership Across Europe: In Search of New Frontiers. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Van Voorhis, F.L., Maier, M.F., Epstein, J.L., & Lloyd, C.M. (2013). The impact of family involvement on the education of children ages 3 to 8: A focus on literacy and math achievement outcomes and social-emotional skills. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/The_Impact_of_Family_Involvement_FR.pdf