Entrepreneurial School Leadership - Ec4slt · Entrepreneurial School Leadership: ... Networkers ......
Transcript of Entrepreneurial School Leadership - Ec4slt · Entrepreneurial School Leadership: ... Networkers ......
Newcastle University
Entrepreneurial School Leadership Literature Review
Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University, UK 1.3.2015
1
Entrepreneurial School Leadership: the State of Play
The aim of this summary report is to provide an overview of the literature and policy
directives which reflect, critique and are shaping current understandings of
entrepreneurial school leadership and training. The starting point for the overview
was a search of two key data bases for relevant journal articles, using the search terms
outlined below:
Search terms\databases Timeframe: 2000-2015
Web of Knowledge Scopus
Educational AND entrepreneurialism
21 74
The edupreneur 0 0
Entrepreneurial AND school AND leadership
24 31
Characteristic AND entrepreneurial AND school AND leaders
0 0
Entrepreneurial AND school AND leaders
19 14
Entrepreneurial leadership AND training
1 31
Entrepreneurial leadership AND teaching
15 19
Entrepreneurial leadership AND practice AND schools
15 44
[Examination of the abstracts revealed that many of the journal articles identified in this
initial search were not relevant to the field of SCHOOL leadership. These were filtered
out.]
Citations within these articles were followed up and further journal articles, books,
policy directives and projects identified. All of the sources were analysed by two
Research Associates from P1. The analysis involved the identification of themes and
sub-themes across the texts and these have in turn provided the structure and content
of this summary. Where applicable the themes/sub-themes have been further
categorised according to the four key areas of Entrepreneurial Competence: Strategic
Thinking & Visioning; Team Building, Personnel Management & Development;
Communication & Negotiation Skills and Financial Resources Mobilization &
Optimization.
This summary is structured as follows:
1. Entrepreneurial School Leadership : Definitions
2. Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Drivers
2
3. Characteristics/behaviours of Entrepreneurial School Leaders
4. The challenges/constraints facing entrepreneurial school leaders
5. Training: provision and methodologies
Limitations:
We acknowledge that the sources underpinning this summary were only those
accessible in English. The partners will be asked to identify key literature which has
been published in their own home languages which could feed into this summary at a
later date. In addition the results of the audit of provision will add detail regarding
current entrepreneurial leadership training programmes in the partner countries.
Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Definitions
Entrepreneurship mainly fits contexts which are new and cannot be dealt with by
means of experience or routine. Entrepreneurship is leadership in exceptional
circumstances
(Czariawska-Joerges and Wolff, 1991)
Entrepreneurship: an individual's ability to turn ideas into action, to be innovative, take the initiative, take risks, plan and manage projects with a view to achieving objectives.
Lisbon Treaty: Promoting entrepreneurship in schools and universities 2006
[…..] the predisposition to and practice of achieving valued ends by creating, taking
or pursuing opportunities for change and innovation and finding new resources or
utilising in new ways existing resources ( financial, material and human).
(Woods et al, 2007p. 237)
Any discussion regarding the concept of entrepreneurial leadership rests on an
assumption that it can in some way be ‘differentiated from other forms of leadership’
(Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007 p.146). The terminology which appears across the
literature as defining this type of leadership is:
Visionary (Hentschke and Caldwell 2007; Borasi and Finnigan 2010; Roomi and
Harrison, 2011; Pihie 2014)
Innovative (Gupta et al 2004; Currie at al 2008; Xaba and Malindi 2010)
Risk-taking (Gupta et al 2004; Hentschke and Caldwell 2007; Borassi and
Finnigan 2010)
Problem-solving (Currie at al 2008; Borasi and Finnigan 2010)
Creative (Currie at al 2008; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011; Pihie 2014a)
Networkers (Smith 2003 ; Borasi and Finnigan 2010; Scott and Webber 2015
3
Resourceful (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010)
Having a local-global perspective (Smith 2003; Scott and Webber 2013)
Woods et al (2007, 2009), in their study of the Academy Schools Programme in England
have identified four distinct types of entrepreneurialism:
Business entrepreneurialism: achieving competitive advantage and success as defined in
business culture- innovation with a competitive mission
Social entrepreneurialism: reducing disadvantage, deprivation and social exclusion-
innovation with a social mission.
Public entrepreneurialism: sustaining and advancing the presence, values and aims of a
public ethos, including community welfare, social justice and democratic participation
and accountability- innovation with a democratic and community-oriented mission
Cultural entrepreneurialism: advancing ideas and values that give purpose to individual
and social action- innovation with a mission to bring meaning.
This typology provides a useful foundation for considering the multiplicity of roles that
an entrepreneurial school leader may have to enact and the tensions that may be faced
as a result of having to reconcile different ‘missions’. However, a key underlying feature
of all of the ‘types’ identified above, is the outward-looking perspective required, a need
for entrepreneurial school leaders to utilise what Pashiardis and Savvide (2011) refer to
as ‘the creative use of external networks and resources in order to aid the
implementation of the school mission’ (p. 415). After examining leadership styles within
primary schools in Cyprus, they identified two ‘domains of practice for successful school
leadership’: Instructional and Entrepreneurial. (p.424). The domain of practice for
entrepreneurial leadership stresses the need for leaders to develop relationships and
networks with the wider school community.
Pashiardis and Savvide (2011) p. 424
This view is supported by the findings from the EU funded project ‘Leadership
Improvement for student achievement’ (LISA). Through collaborative research
undertaken with leaders in six EU countries, the project concluded that the
entrepreneurial style of leadership involved: ‘
encouraging relations between the school and the community and parents,
promoting cooperation with other organisations and businesses, discussing
school goals with relevant stakeholders, utilizing appropriate and effective
4
techniques for community and parental involvement, promoting two-way
communication between the school and the community, projecting a positive image
to the community, building trust within the local community, communicating the
school vision to the external community (LISA 2009 p. 11 and 12)
Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Drivers
As Hentschke and Caldwell (2007) state: ‘conditions of compulsory schooling have
changed in ways that are encouraging more entrepreneurs to enter the field and to
behave entrepreneurially’ (p. 146). The literature identifies a range of reasons to
explain the necessity for school leaders to develop entrepreneurial leadership skills:
A rapidly changing world
We live in an ‘era of complexity’ where ‘the only stable factor is constant change’ and
where ‘paradox, ambiguity, and uncertainty are becoming the norm’ (LISA 2009, p.9).
School leaders need to be able to manage crisis, uncertainty and complexity (Pihie et al,
2014a, p. 4).
Increasing accountability
There is an ‘increasing global emphasis on accountability’ (Walker et al, 2013, p. 407),
manifested at both national and international levels.
At the national level school leaders are becoming increasingly accountable to their
‘stakeholders’ – the students, the parents, governing bodies, the community, their
governments (Levin, 2003; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011; Scott and Webber, 2013,).
Some countries, for example the UK (England), also publish national league tables which
compare schools on their exam performance.
At the international level, it is the results of the OECD’s Pisa test (the Programme for
International Student Assessment) which Governments use as a means to identify
underperformance and hold school leaders accountable.
The Pisa tests - the Programme for International Student Assessment –have
become the most influential rankings in international education, based on tests
taken by more than 500,000 secondary school pupils (BBC News, 2015)
At the same time Germany was in a Pisa shock
(LISA 2009 p 4)
The impact of the performativity and accountability measures has led to what Currie et
al (2008) refer to as ‘a quasi-market framed by performance indicators’ (p.988). Schools
are often in competition with one another, with parents able to make choices over
where to send their child.
5
Decentralisation
Increasingly regional and national governments are devolving decision-making powers
with respect to budgets, curriculum, staffing etc. to school leaders, recognising that
individual context is important and that leaders need to make decisions based on the
needs of their stakeholders.
The logic of decentralization assumes that changes in governance are key to
improved performance of schools; that local bodies are in the best position to define
and make necessary changes; and that parents especially have important
knowledge about how the educational enterprise should best be carried out
(Levin, 2003, p. 170-171)
The impact of this policy shift has led to an increase in expectations with regard to what
it means to be a school leader (Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011, p. 414). It requires
‘increased sophistication’ (Fromm et al, 2003 p. 302) as educators will be required to
understand ‘the ‘business model’ as well as the ‘education model’ of any organization’
(ibid).
Improved performance in teaching and learning
One of the key drivers towards a need for a more entrepreneurial style of leadership is
that the quality of teaching and learning needs to be such that it creates a ‘citizenry with
a capacity to compete successfully in the global village’ (Scott and Webber, 2013, p.113).
The EU Commission report ‘Improving competences for the 21st Century: An Agenda for
European Cooperation on Schools’ (2008) identifies the need for students to be equipped
with ‘the competences and motivation to make learning a lifelong activity’ (p.3); and for
schools to be able to ‘respond to each pupil's individual learning needs’ through changes
to curricula, school organisation and the roles of teachers (p.5). The overarching aim is
for school systems to ‘contribute to supporting long-term sustainable economic growth
in Europe’ and to be able to ‘respond to the need to promote equity, to respond to
cultural diversity and to reduce early school leaving’ (p.4).
This view is supported by the Thematic Working Group on Entrepreneurial Education
who state in their final report (2014) that ‘For Europe to compete globally, we need
future generations to have the mind-set and skills to be entrepreneurial in society.
Europe needs citizens who are creative, socially responsible, can spot opportunities,
understand and take risks, and can work in teams and solve problems. (p.7).
In short, school leaders need to equip their students for a complex and uncertain the
future.
6
Entrepreneurial School leaders: Characteristics and Behaviours
In acknowledging that entrepreneurial leadership is a distinct and therefore identifiable
style of leadership, it must also hold true that it can be recognised in terms of
characteristics and behaviours. Whilst some argue that entrepreneurial leaders should
be defined in terms of their ‘opposition to “managerial” leaders and not in terms of a set
of skills that can be learnt or taught’ (Roomi and Harrison, 2011, p.5); others (Gupta et
al, 2004) ‘look at entrepreneurial leadership not as a collection of traits (i.e. who one is),
but as a set of behaviours (i.e. what one does) (Roomi and Harrison, 2011, p. 5). The following section explores the characteristics and behaviours of entrepreneurial
school leaders that have been identified in the literature. These have been categorised
according to the four key areas of Entrepreneurial Competence: Strategic Thinking &
Visioning; Team Building, Personnel Management & Development; Communication &
Negotiation Skills and Financial Resources Mobilization & Optimization.
Strategic Thinking & Visioning
Driven by a vision (Smith, 2003;Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007; Borasi and
Finnigan, 2010, Pihie et al 2014a)
Outward –looking (Smith, 2003, p.318; LISA, 2009,Pashiardis and Savvide 2011).
Within the global context entrepreneurs seek ongoing access to information
from their own contexts and also from around the world’ (Scott and Webber
2013, p. 129)
Risk-takers (Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007 Pihie et al 2014a, Gupta et al 2004,
Woods et al 2009; Xaba and Malindi, 2010).
However it is acknowledged that risk-taking in public sector organisations needs
to be ‘well-calculated and prudent’ (Pihie et al 2014a, p.3) and ‘qualified’ (Currie
at al, 2008, p. 1002). The reason for this is that the acceptance of failure which is
typically associated with entrepreneurial behaviour, is not tolerated by the
public (ibid) with respect to public service. Risk-taking therefore needs to be
‘balanced’ (ibid).
‘innovative’- (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010;
Good time- management skills (Scott and Webber, 2013, p.117)
Creative and able to recognise opportunities (Pihie et al, 2014a) rather than
problems (Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007) – particularly with respect to
overcoming bureaucratic structures (Currie at al, 2008, p1002)
A good understanding of the social and political landscape (Scott and Webber,
2015)
These characteristics can be summarised in terms of Gupta et al’s concept of
‘scenario enactment’ (2004) - the ability to envision the future and create a scenario
of innovative possibilities, to develop ‘various entrepreneurial opportunities and
take the risks to enact the vision (Pihie et al, 2014a, p.3-4).
7
Team Building, Personnel Management & Development
The ability to create a culture which fosters entrepreneurial activity amongst
staff. In a study by Currie et al, 2008, they found that this could be achieved
through acting as ‘change agents’ (p.1001) and ensuring distributed leadership
The ability to appoint key people and build a team that is committed to enacting
the vision -what Gupta et al, 2004 refer to as ‘cast enactment’.
The ability to ‘bring people on board’ (Currie et al, 2008, p.1003) – and this
refers to all stakeholders. ‘They build coalitions that knit together public and
private interests’ (Currie et al, 2008, p.098)
The ability to resolve conflict and build relationships(Scott and Webber, 2013,
p.117)
Communication & Negotiation Skills
masters at creative networking- locally, nationally and internationally
(Pashiardis and Savvide,2011)
They clearly articulate their vision (Woods et al, 2009)
Financial Resources Mobilization & Optimization.
Not constrained by resources (Borasi and Finnigan 2010)
The creative use of resources in order to aid the implementation of the school
mission’ (Pashiardis and Savvide,2011, p. 415)
Ready to seize opportunities (Borasi and Finnigan 2010)
The challenges/constraints facing entrepreneurial school leaders
It is important to highlight the particular challenges and constraints facing
entrepreneurial leaders working within the education sector. These have been
identified within the literature as having a potentially limiting effect on the ability of
leaders to act ‘entrepreneurially’.
The individualism of entrepreneurialism versus the democratic governance of
schools
The bureaucracy inherent in the public sector
Being answerable to a range of stakeholders- students, parents, governors,
sponsors, governments etc. This has the potential to impose incompatible
demands on school leaders.(Currie et al, 2008)
Performativity and accountability agendas- targets, inspections, league tables
Working within education systems around the world where Head Teachers have
limited autonomy over resources, staffing, curriculum
8
Training: Provision and Methodologies
Overview
As the preparation and training of effective school leaders is increasingly placed high on
many educational reform agendas (Bryant et al., 2013), the development of high-quality
school leadership programmes is attracting increasing attention (Barber et al., 2010).
However, the literature notes a dearth of research investigating best practices in the
provision of entrepreneurial leadership training (Roomi and Harrison, 2011). Although
educators are increasingly expected to become ‘agents for change’, they generally
receive little formal preparation or training to help them effectively initiate change
(Borasi and Finnigan, 2010). In their report on how different school systems build
leadership capacity, Barber et al. (2010: 9) note three types of approaches used by
schools to unlock and develop leadership talent:
1. Self-identification by potential leaders and informal mechanisms by which
potential leaders are coached and given opportunities to develop within schools.
2. Providing opportunities for potential leaders to take courses or join programmes
to build their capacity and interest in leadership.
3. Proactively guiding the careers of potential leaders so that they gain
progressively greater leadership experience through new roles taken on within
their schools with guidance and support.
A key theme in the literature is the diverse range of understandings of the concept of
‘entrepreneurial leadership’. For example, a survey of 131 UK higher education
institutions by Hannon (2007) revealed a high degree of variability across the country
in conceptualising ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘leadership’, and a similar variability in terms
of design of development/training programmes. A number of authors highlight:
a. The paucity of literature on entrepreneurial leadership in general (e.g. Bagheri
and Pihie, 2010)
b. A lack of investigations into how best to teach it
For example, Roomi and Harrison (2011: 9) note that “…very little attention is paid to
how entrepreneurial leadership behaviours are learnt, whether they can be taught, and
how this might be done.” Similarly, on a European level, the Thematic Working Group
on Entrepreneurship Education (2014: 4) concluded in its final report that,
Educators and education leaders in Europe are not sufficiently trained in
entrepreneurship education, which negatively impacts on the potential for
entrepreneurship to become embedded in education systems.
Although there is an increasing body of research on entrepreneurship education in
general (e.g. Galloway and Kelly, 2009; Hannon, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006; Wilson et al.,
2007), only few studies within this work focus specially on the leadership dimension.
While some studies do touch on the central role of leadership in entrepreneurship (e.g.
Chell et al., 2007; Muzychenko and Zalan, 2008), there is little elaboration on how to
9
actually teach/learn the competency of entrepreneurial leadership (cf. Roomi and
Harrison, 2011). Some argue that this might be because research is yet to establish
which leadership patterns are specific to entrepreneurship (Vecchio, 2003).
Where investigations into the teaching/training of entrepreneurial leadership
competencies have been conducted, these remain largely limited to ‘western’ contexts.
This body of research points to a strong convergence across different locations in terms
of the content of leadership training programmes (Walker et al., 2013), although
national and local circumstances (e.g. national agendas, school culture etc.) may impact
on the operation of leadership training programmes (see Bryant et al., 2013; Leithwood
and Levin, 2008).
For example, in a comparative study of leadership preparation programmes in Canada,
the USA, and England, Bush and Jackson (2002), found a shared emphasis on finance,
curriculum, and external relations. Research also suggests that an increasingly common
feature across leadership training programmes are university-school partnerships
which support action-oriented enquiry, and provide mentoring/support structures (e.g.
Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2011; Piggot-Irvine, 2011). Partnerships of
this kind are increasingly recognised as key to the success and effectiveness of
leadership training programmes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010), allowing participants
to link theory and practice (Sanzo et al., 2011). In sum, recent research strongly
suggests a swing towards the involvement of academics in developing and delivering
leadership training programmes (Bryant et al., 2012; Huber, 2004; MacBeath, 2011).
Content and Delivery Methods
A number of recent studies have documented features/characteristics of high-quality
leadership training programmes more generally (e.g. Darling-Hammond et al., 2010;
Huber and West, 2002; Peterson, 2002; Pounder, 2011). A focus on entrepreneurial
leadership aspects in this literature is less common. However, in a recent study on
preparing change-agents in education, Borasi and Finnigan (2010) raise two key
questions for entrepreneurial leadership training provision:
1. What should educators learn about entrepreneurship?
2. How can these learning goals be best achieved?
They propose two key elements for the design of entrepreneurial leadership training for
educators:
1. Support educators to appreciate the value of entrepreneurship in terms of
making them ‘agents for change’
2. Develop an understanding in educators of entrepreneurial concepts and
practices
In relation to these core elements, they put forward several possible
methodologies/training approaches:
10
Introducing conceptualisations of entrepreneurship, and examples of practice, to
educators to enable them to realise the application of entrepreneurship to
education. This could include:
o Focusing on specific areas of practice (i.e. visioning, decision-making,
problem-solving, dealing with resources, risk-taking, networking, dealing
with growth, initiating innovation)
o Getting participants to identify micro and macro-level factors in their
contexts which could impact upon entrepreneurial activity
o Considering characteristics/traits of entrepreneurial educators
Introducing concrete examples of how entrepreneurial skills have made
educators successful. Examples of methodologies can include:
o The use of in-depth portraits, stories, profiles (cf. Fisher and Koch, 2004;
Leisey and Lavaroni, 2000), i.e. ‘entrepreneurship-in-action’
o Inviting entrepreneurial educators as guest speakers
o Getting participants to interview entrepreneurial educators of their
choice
Further methodologies for training suggested in the literature include:
The use of entrepreneurial leaders’ autobiographies, critical incidents, and
structured group activities (Taliadorou and Pashiardis, 2015)
Workshops and skill development activities that focus on particular skills such as
the ability to recognise entrepreneurial opportunities i.e. ‘entrepreneurial
alertness’ (Roomi and Harrison, 2011)
Critical reflection (Densten and Gray, 2001)
Active and experiential learning (Kempster and Cope, 2010)
Simulations and case studies (Walker et al., 2013)
The use of models and typologies (Walker et al., 2013). Examples include Eyal
and Inbar’s (2003) Multidimensional Model for School Entrepreneurship,
Leithwood and Levin’s (2008) Leadership Development Typology, Sergiovanni’s
(1984) Five Forces of Leadership, and Gardner’s (2008) Five Minds for the Future
In a recent study, Roomi and Harrison (2011: 20-27) put forward a number of possible
design elements for entrepreneurial leadership training programmes, including (a) the
entrepreneurial mind-set, (b) influencing strategies such as coalition forming and
assertiveness, (c) the ability to communicate a shared vision, (d) interpersonal and
teamworking skills, (e) the ability to deal with adversity and disappointment, (f) ethics,
and (g) the ability to empower and motivate an entrepreneurial team. While this is not
exclusively focused on training provision for school leaders, it might well provide a
useful template.
Example of leadership training provision for school leaders focusing on
entrepreneurial leadership:
Columba 1400 Head Teacher Leadership Academy: Developing Enterprise Culture
11
For head teachers and deputy head teachers from primary and secondary schools in
Scotland: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/03/20533/50078
A study by Deakins et al. (2005) reported changes in head teachers who had taken part
in the Leadership Academy, including an increased willingness to develop links with
local businesses and the local community, and the inclusion of enterprise activities in
school development plans.
Final thoughts
In a meta-analysis of the published articles from the International Study of the
Preparation of Principals Programme (ISPP) – a collaborative programme made up of
14 participating countries – the authors conclude that whilst there are ‘similarities in
the learning needs for educational leaders across cultures’ there are important
differences in how these are manifested. (Scott and Webber, 2015, p.126). As a
consequence, entrepreneurial leadership training must allow for ‘the unique features of
each context’ and shared experiences and common terminologies must not ‘mask
significant contextual differences.’ (ibid, p.132)
References
Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. (2010). Entrepreneurial Leadership Learning: In Search of Missing Links. Procedia, 7, 470-479.
Barber M., Whelan F., & Clark M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: How the
world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future. Report of
McKinsey and Company. Available at:
http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/schoolleadership_final.
BBC News (December 2013) Pisa tests: UK stagnates as Shanghai tops league
tablehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997 [accessed on 26/2/2015]
Borasi, R and Finnigan, K. (2010) Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Behaviors that Can
Help Prepare Successful Change-Agents in Education The New Educator Vol 6 No. 1
Bryant DA, Walker A, & Lee M (2013). The impact of international, national, and local
forces on the enactment of quality leadership preparation programmes. In: Brundrett. M
(ed.) Principles of School Leadership. London: SAGE, 279-308.
Bush T., & Jackson D. (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international
perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 30(4): 417–429.
Chell, E., Karata-Özkan, M., & Nicolopoulou, K. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship
Education: Policy, Core Themes and Developmental Competencies”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 5: 143-162.
12
Currie, G., Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D. and McManus, S (2008) Entrepreneurial
Leadership in the English Public Sector: Paradox or Possibility? Public Administration
Vol 86 No. 4
Czariawska-Joerges, B., and Wolff, R ( 1991) Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and
off the organizational stage Organization Studies Vol 12, No. 4
Darling-Hammond L., Meyerson D., LaPointe M. et al (2010). Preparing Principals for a
Changing World: Lessons From Effective School Leadership Programmes. San Fransisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I., & Wyper, J. (2005). Enterprise Education: The Role of
Head Teachers. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 241-263.
Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. (2001), “Leadership development and reflection: what is the
connection?, The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3): 119-124.
Eyal, O., & Inbar, D. (2003). Developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory: Theoretical conceptualization and empirical examination. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 9(6), 221-244.
EU Commission (2008) Improving competences for the 21st Century:
An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008SC2177&from=EN [accessed on 26/2/2015]
Fisher, J. L. & Koch, J. V. (2004). The entrepreneurial college president. Westport, CN: Praeger.
Galloway, L. & Kelly, S. (2009). Identifying entrepreneurial potential? An investigation of
the identifiers and features of entrepreneurship. International Review of
Entrepreneurship, 7(4):1-24.
Gardner H (2008). 5 Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Gupta, V., MacMillan, I.C. and Surie, G. (2004) Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developing
and Measuring a cross-cultural construct Journal of Business Venturing Vol 19
Hannon, P. D. (2006). Teaching Pigeons to Dance: sense and meaning in
entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 48(5): 296-308.
Hannon, P. D. (2007). Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across
England's HEIs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2): 183-210.
Hentschke, G.C. and Caldwell, B.J. (2007) Entrepreneurial leadership in Davies, B. (Ed)
The Essentials of School Leadership Paul Chapman Publishing
Huber SG (ed.) (2004). Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International
Comparison of Development Programmes in 15 Countries. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Huber SG, & West M (2002). Developing school leaders: A critical review of current
practices, approaches and issues, and some directions for the future. In: Leithwood K,
13
Hallinger P (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1017–1002.
Johnson, D., Craig, J. B. L. & Hildebrand, R. (2006). Entrepreneurship Education:
Towards a discipline-based framework. Journal of Management Development, 25(1): 40-
54.
Kempster, S. and Cope, J. (2010). Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1): 5 - 34.
Leisey, D., & Lavaroni, C. (2000). The educational entrepreneur: Making a difference. San
Rafael, CA: Edupreneur Press.
Leithwood K, & Levin B (2008) Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership
development. In: Lumby J, Crow G, Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the
Preparation and Development of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 280–300.
Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P et al. (2006) Successful School Leadership: What it Is
and How it Influences Pupil Learning. Nottingham: National College for School
Leadership.
Levin, B. ( 2003) Educational Policy: Commonalities and Differences in Handbook of
Educational Leadership Davies, B. and West-Burnham J. ( Eds) Pearson Longman
MacBeath J (2011). No lack of principles: leadership development in England and
Scotland. School Leadership and Management, 31(2): 105–121
Muzychenko, O. and Zalan, T. (2008). Developing Competencies for International
Entrepreneurship: The Role of a Global Mindset. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 6(4): 217-240.
Pashiardis, P. and Savvides, V. (2011) The Interplay between Instructional and
Entrepreneurial Leadership Styles in Cyprus Rural Primary Schools Leadership and
Policy in Schools Vol 10
Perez LG, Uline CL, Johnson JF, Jr, et al (2011). Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership
preparation: the transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational
Administration Quarterly 47(1): 217–257.
Peterson K (2002) The professional development of principals: innovations and
opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2): 213–232.
Piggot-Irving E. (2011) Principal development: self-directed project efficacy.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(3): 283–295.
Pihie, Z.A.L., Asimiran, and S Bagheri,A. (2014a) Entrepreneurial leadership practices
and school innovativeness South African Journal of Education Vol 34 no 1
Pihie, z.A.L., Bagheri,A. and Asimiran, S (2014b) Entrepreneurial leadership behaviour
among school principals: perspectives from Malaysian Secondary School Teachers
Social sciences and Humanities Vol 22 No.3
14
Pounder DG(2011) Leader preparation special issue: implications for policy, practice
and research. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 258–267.
Roomi, M .A. and Harrison P. (2011) Entrepreneurial Leadership: What Is It and How
Should It Be Taught? International Review of Entrepreneurship Vol 9 No. 3.
Sanzo KL, Myran S, Clayton JK (2010-2011) Building bridges between knowledge and
practice. Journal of Educational Administration 49(3): 292–312.
Scott, S. and Webber, C.F. (2015) Entrepreneurialism for Canadian Principals:
Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow Journal of Research on Leadership Education Vol 8 No.
1
Sergiovanni TJ (1984) Handbook for Effective Department Leadership: Concepts and
Practices in Today’s Secondary Schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, K. (2003) Educational entrepreneurs and the capital gap in Handbook of
Educational Leadership Davies, B. and West-Burnham J. ( Eds) Pearson Longman
Taliadorou, N., & Pahiardis, P. (2015). Emotional intelligence and political skill really
matter in educational leadership in K. Beycioglu and P. Pashiardis (Eds.),
Multidimensional perspectives on principal leadership effectiveness (pp. 228-257).
Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Thematic Working group on Entrepreneurial Education: Final report November 2014
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDo
c&id=17016&no=1
Walker, A., Brynat, D and Moosung L. (20130 International Patterns in Principal
Preparation: Commonalities and Variations in Pre-service programmes Educational
Management Administration and Leadership Vol 41 No. 4
Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577-598.
Woods, P.A, Woods, G.J and Gunter, H. (2007) Academy Schools and Entrepreneurialism
in Education Journal of Education Policy Vol 22, No. 2
Woods, P.A, and Woods, G.J. (2009) Testing a typology of entrepreneurialism
Management in Education Vol 23 No 3
Vecchio, R. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 303-327
Xaba, M. and Malindi, M (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation and practice: three case
examples of historically disadvantaged primary schools South African Journal of
Education Vol 30
15
Additional sources of information:
1) Information and articles provided on the OECD Improving School Leadership
web page:http://www.oecd.org/education/school/improvingschoolleadership-
home.htm
2) Information and articles provided on Leadership Improvement on Student
Achievement (LISA) web page
http://www.leadership-in-education.eu/index.php?id=235
3) EUROPA Summaries of EU legislation Education, training, youth, sport
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_lear
ning/c11090_en.htm
4) International Study of the Preparation of Principals (ISPP)
http://ucalgary.ca/ispp/
5) National College for Teaching and Leadership
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-college-for-teaching-
and-leadership