Jürgen Frentz
Florian Frenz
Petros Pashiardis4†
Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz- 1Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lüneburg, Germany
- 2University College of Teacher Education Burgenland, Eisenstadt, Austria
- 3Europa Universität Flensburg, Flensburg, Germany
- 4Open University of Cyprus, Latsia, Cyprus
- 5Alpen-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
Global megatrends such as climate change, demographic shifts, and technological disruption increasingly compel K-12 school leaders to innovate within complex and uncertain environments. Entrepreneurial School Leadership (ESL), encompassing opportunity recognition, initiative, and strategic resource management in a bureaucratic setting, offers a framework for adaptive and future-oriented K-12 leadership. This conceptual paper examines ESL in German-speaking countries, where educational traditions that prioritize humanistic Bildung over market-oriented models, interact with pressures for efficiency and accountability. A document analysis of normative school leadership profiles from Austria and Germany highlights the formal integration of entrepreneurial content knowledge and competencies, including innovation, networking, and strategic planning, while revealing persistent tensions between pedagogical and economic rationalities. The analysis underscores that ESL operates at the intersection of individual dispositions, institutional conditions, and national-cultural contexts. Future research should investigate how ESL is enacted in practice, including its potential for fostering social value, transformative innovation, and sustainable school development, while critically attending to unintended consequences and context-specific constraints.
1 Introduction
Current megatrends such as climate change, demographic shifts, and artificial intelligence compel school leaders (SLs) to rethink school development strategies (Arar, 2020; Chiu, 2023; Pietsch et al., 2023a). These dynamics place SLs in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA-) environment shaped by societal, technological, and ecological demands (Ainscow, 2020; Iberer and Warwas, 2024; Koch et al., 2015; Schleicher, 2018). Schools are expected to foster knowledge, skills, and values that enable students to navigate these conditions, including critical thinking, global citizenship, and sustainable development (Goren and Yemini, 2017; Pietsch et al., 2023a; Vare and Scott, 2007).
Against this backdrop, schooling is shifting from standardized instruction toward individualized learning within flexible organizational structures. Teachers increasingly act as facilitators, curating resources and designing practice-oriented projects, supported by digital technologies and adaptive learning software that promote equity. Realizing these changes requires educational leadership that leverages institutional autonomy, encourages innovation, and cultivates external partnerships. Future-oriented K-12 leadership (so-called Leadership 5.0) integrates scientific and technological advancements, employs participatory formats, and embraces diversity, transforming schools into adaptive learning organizations responsive to a hybrid, complex, creative, and digital world (Interview with Isabell Welpe and Esther Ostmeier, In Kuhn, 2021).
Innovation is therefore central to contemporary educational leadership, offering SLs strategies to manage uncertainty and drive improvement to challenging demands (Kasim, 2021; Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013). It encompasses both incremental and transformative shifts in processes, institutional structures, and leadership practices (Sánchez and Gutiérrez-Esteban, 2023). Obstacles such as technological disruption, societal expectations, the integration of sustainable development goals, and resistance to change persist, hindering strategic progress (Aldridge and McLure, 2024; Maritzen, 2015; Schleicher, 2018). Consequently, innovation for SLs entails continuously redesigning teaching, learning, and organizational frameworks to enable flexible, inclusive, and sustainable responses to current and emerging challenges.
Entrepreneurship complements innovation by enabling the identification of opportunities, the assumption of initiative, and the implementation of novel solutions under conditions of uncertainty (Hörnqvist and Leffler, 2014; Samson and Gloet, 2016). Entrepreneurial School Leadership (ESL) emphasizes how SLs can develop competencies to manage complexity, lead adaptive and inclusive schools, and address both pedagogical and structural challenges (Demirbilek, 2022; Hebert et al., 2012; Pashiardis and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, 2022). In this view, SLs act not merely as policy implementers but as strategic actors who translate policy into practice and align organizational structures with innovation-oriented goals (Bonsen, 2003; Yemini et al., 2015). Empirical studies further demonstrate how SLs engage in entrepreneurial practices, operationalizing theoretical concepts into strategies for school improvement and sustained innovation (Ariyani et al., 2021; Hebert et al., 2012; Kafa et al., 2025; Syafrudin et al., 2023).
SLs do not develop these entrepreneurial competencies in isolation, as their actions are influenced by broader governance reforms. In particular, public sector modernization through New Public Management (NPM) emphasizes performance, efficiency, and accountability within decentralized, results-oriented frameworks (Brauckmann et al., 2015, 2019a; Follmer, 2015; Grimm and Bock, 2022; Keddie et al., 2018). While NPM and governance reforms shape the institutional context for entrepreneurial thinking and action, its implementation is also mediated by cultural-national traditions.
Entrepreneurship has gained traction in educational leadership research, yet remains conceptually ambiguous and culturally sensitive (Frentz et al., 2025). In German-speaking countries, introducing economic principles faces skepticism rooted in the humanistic tradition of Bildung (Böttcher, 2001; Krautz, 2020; Wagner, 2006), whereas Anglo-Saxon and Nordic systems frame SLs pragmatically as change agents linking creativity to measurable improvement, supported by robust local governance (Bates, 2006; Brauckmann et al., 2015; Mincu, 2022; Moos et al., 2004; Mintrop, 2015). Consequently, strategies successful in one context may not transfer automatically, requiring SLs to adapt international lessons to local pedagogical and cultural settings (Mincu, 2022). These cross-cultural insights underscore the importance of balancing efficiency and innovation with pedagogical initiatives that promote inclusion, equity, and student wellbeing (Ainscow, 2020; Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022; Wilkins et al., 2021).
On this basis, the central research question is: How can entrepreneurial thinking and action contribute to innovative school leadership in German-speaking countries while navigating tensions between economic pressures and pedagogical goals? This conceptual paper analyzes the integration of entrepreneurial approaches in K-12 leadership and investigates how economic and pedagogical rationalities intersect in the German-speaking context.
The paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 discusses the contextual nature of educational leadership and its interplay with national and cultural environments. Section 3 introduces entrepreneurship and its relevance for school leadership. Section 4 explores debates on the economization of education in German-speaking countries and presents a document analysis of normative school leadership profiles from Austria and Germany. Section 5 discusses how entrepreneurial thinking supports contextually grounded school improvement, followed by Section 6 with an outlook and reflection on limitations.
2 Educational leadership and the consideration of context
Educational leadership in K-12 settings is increasingly understood as an interactional process shaped by social and institutional environments (Blose, 2024; Pietsch et al., 2023b). This perspective acknowledges that the daily work of SLs is highly context-dependent, encompassing curriculum and instruction while also cultivating a positive school culture (Daniëls et al., 2019). Context is not merely a backdrop. It both enables and constrains leadership practice, shaping how SLs enact their roles. Consequently, assumptions of universally effective leadership must be reconsidered in favor of adaptive, context-aware approaches (Brauckmann et al., 2016; Mincu, 2022; Pont et al., 2008).
Educational leadership operates across multiple layers of context, from individual experiences to institutional and national-cultural systems (Hallinger, 2018; Torres, 2022). Historically, K-12 leadership was shaped by technocratic and bureaucratic logics that prioritized efficiency and administration over pedagogical concerns (Bates, 2006). Since the 1990s, research has increasingly highlighted the importance of national culture, societal values, and organizational structures in shaping effective leadership practices (Hallinger, 2018). Cross-national studies show that cultural dimensions, such as hierarchy, collectivism, and stakeholder relationships affect collaboration, decision-making, and leadership enactment (e.g., Blose, 2024; Lee and Hallinger, 2012; Oplatka and Arar, 2017; Pietsch et al., 2025).
Empirical evidence also suggests that educational leadership varies significantly depending on the degree of system centralization or decentralization at the institutional level. SLs in centralized systems experience limited autonomy, whereas those in decentralized systems report greater flexibility and instructional involvement (Balasi et al., 2023; Kemethofer et al., 2023). These findings emphasize the importance of leadership development that is sensitive to local contexts, integrating formal training with experience-based learning to foster adaptive practices (Brauckmann et al., 2023; Hallinger, 2018).
By outlining the contextual framework, this section lays the foundation for understanding how entrepreneurial thinking and action can be effectively applied by SLs across diverse educational environments. Context shapes not only the opportunities and constraints encountered by SLs but also the manner in which entrepreneurial strategies can be meaningfully operationalized.
3 Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial thinking and acting among school leaders
Entrepreneurship originates in economics (Bacigalupo et al., 2016; Kirzner, 1973; Schumpeter, 1997). In contrast to popular associations with start-ups, entrepreneurship refers to a complex process involving innovation, creativity, risk engagement, and opportunity recognition and exploitation (Ricketts, 2008; Shane and Venkataraman, 2000). Entrepreneurial thinking and acting is increasingly recognized as essential for SLs to navigate rapid societal and organizational change (Frentz et al., 2025; Kafa et al., 2025). An entrepreneurial mindset enables them to move beyond reactive problem-solving and proactively shape educational environments through innovation and strategic resource management (Balasi et al., 2023; Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022).
Building on this, entrepreneurial leadership, in general, denotes a leadership role focused on influencing organizational emergence and driving development (Frentz et al., 2025; Kearney, 2020; Leitch et al., 2013). With a focus on the K-12 public sector, entrepreneurial SLs must navigate political priorities, institutional norms, and bureaucratic procedures that can both enable and constrain innovation (Vivona et al., 2025), while balancing diverse stakeholder expectations and accountability requirements, creating inherent tensions between innovation and administrative compliance (Currie et al., 2008). The development of competencies such as proactivity or opportunity recognition is thus closely shaped by organizational structures, which can both discourage risk-taking and support networking (Gandhi et al., 2021; Vargas-Halabí et al., 2017).
In educational leadership research, this understanding has led to several interconnected approaches of entrepreneurship (Frentz et al., 2025): Intrapreneurship and corporate entrepreneurship (Covin and Slevin, 1991; Pinchot, 1985) highlight how SLs drive innovation within existing organizational constraints (Eyal and Kark, 2004; Follmer, 2015; Hall et al., 2023; Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013) while managing organizational tendencies toward risk avoidance (Geradts and Alt, 2022). Such intrapreneurial action fosters internal change by leveraging opportunities from within, supporting decentralization, autonomy, and distributed decision-making (Elert and Stenkula, 2022). Complementary forms include social entrepreneurship, which prioritizes the creation of social value over profit and seeks collaborative, community-oriented solutions to systemic challenges (Sagie et al., 2016; Yemini et al., 2015), or edupreneurship, merging business-oriented, educational, and instructional elements to encourage independence and meaningful stakeholder engagement (Pashiardis and Brauckmann, 2019). Together, these approaches illustrate that ESL represents a spectrum of practices combining innovation, adaptability, and value creation across diverse institutional settings, which is why, in the following, the encompassing terms entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial will continue to be used.
ESL synthesizes these principles by emphasizing value creation, opportunity recognition, and innovation within educational settings (Frentz et al., 2025; Gupta et al., 2004; Renko et al., 2015; Vivona et al., 2025). Although rooted in economics, applying entrepreneurial thinking in schools requires careful adaptation. Accordingly, this study conceptualizes ESL as a hybrid model combining strategic competencies with pedagogical aims, including innovative school development, student-centered learning, and inclusive culture-building (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022; Kafa et al., 2025), positioning ESL as a flexible leadership approach capable of navigating uncertainty while maintaining educational purpose (Ariyani et al., 2021; Frentz et al., 2025; Kasim, 2021).
Entrepreneurial SLs act as visionaries who motivate staff, encourage professional experimentation, foster collegial, future-oriented cultures, and build external partnerships to support school development (Brauckmann et al., 2023; Da'as, 2023; Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013; Mamabolo, 2020). Core ESL competencies include risk-taking, personal initiative, innovativeness, and value-based decision-making (Frentz et al., 2025; Ghazali et al., 2022; Syafrudin et al., 2023). Entrepreneurial SLs also mobilize staff creativity, engage stakeholders, secure resources, and exploit opportunities to advance strategic goals (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022; Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013). Empirical evidence shows that such leadership contributes to school effectiveness and dynamic learning environments (Ayub and Othman, 2013; Kasim, 2021; Pihie et al., 2014), achieving sustainable impact even under resource constraints (Ghazali et al., 2022; Mas et al., 2021; Pashiardis and Brauckmann, 2008).
Despite these demonstrated benefits, the approach is not uncontroversial. Critics caution that the pursuit of innovation and entrepreneurial risk-taking may conflict with humanistic and democratic values, as it presupposes considerable autonomy and discretionary authority for SLs, whereas accountability regimes emphasize standardized procedures and compliance. In particular, the prioritization of market-oriented accountability over broader administrative and pedagogical oversight may lead schools to emphasize short-term performance indicators at the expense of students' holistic development and safety, thereby risking the erosion of the fundamental humanistic values that underpin public education (Maranto, 2015; Mockler et al., 2023).
A conceptual summary of context, educational leadership, and ESL is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Entrepreneurial school leadership: a conceptual model considering context and educational leadership.
The next section will explore how ESL practices intersect with economic pressures and debates on the economization of education in German-speaking countries, highlighting both opportunities and tensions for innovative school leadership.
4 School education and economization—exploring the debate in Austria and Germany through entrepreneurial school leadership
Building on the discussion of the interplay between pedagogical objectives and economic pressures, Section 4.1 examines this debate in the German-speaking contexts, while Section 4.2 presents a document analysis of school leadership profiles from Austria and Germany, illustrating how these dynamics are reflected in normative documents.
4.1 Balancing pedagogical goals and economic demands in the German-speaking K-12 educational context
The discussion surrounding the economization of school education is not new. Oplatka and Hemsely-Brown (2007), for instance, emphasize that within schools, market orientation (MO) should prioritize the interests of current and prospective customers, such as parents and students. By focusing on customer needs, MO heightens awareness of competitors and promotes cross-departmental collaboration, securing a competitive edge in dynamic environments. Hence, MO should be integrated into school culture.
This understanding of MO provides a foundation for examining how similar economic principles have shaped education systems in specific cultural contexts, particularly in German-speaking countries. To elucidate the complex debate surrounding the economization of education and ESL in this region, this paper predominantly draws on German-language sources. This deliberate focus reflects region-specific concerns, challenges, and scholarly perspectives central to the ongoing discourse.
The concept of economization describes a process in which individuals and organizations increasingly prioritize economic criteria, shaped by the overarching framework of capitalist development (Höhne, 2022). Within education, this shift has generated substantial controversy. Bildung traditionally seeks the holistic development of individuals, enabling autonomy and freedom (Menze, 1980; Wagner, 2006). Rooted in the humanist thought of Friedrich Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835), Bildung aims at the harmonious cultivation of all human capacities, ensuring that no single ability is overemphasized or neglected (Ungern-Sternberg, 2005). Defined as the structured and active acquisition of knowledge and skills for self-determined growth, Bildung fosters reflective lifestyles and critical engagement with the world (Raithel et al., 2009). Schools thus play a crucial role in empowering students to act independently, make informed decisions, and assume social responsibility (Krautz, 2007).
The process of economization, however, contrasts sharply with these traditional aims by emphasizing rationality and cost-efficiency, modeled on the concept of homo oeconomicus—individuals motivated by benefit-maximizing behavior (Mockler et al., 2023). This shift toward economic rationalization introduces a logic of control and regulation into Bildung, raising the question of how educational ideals can coexist with ESL practices that also emphasize autonomy, innovation, and accountability. Originally confined to spheres of production and labor (Höhne, 2022), economization has increasingly permeated educational systems through reforms granting schools greater autonomy. Yet such reforms also expose schools to economic pressures, embedding principles of resource efficiency, output-oriented instruction, evidence-based decision-making, and decentralized governance that mirror business management models (Altrichter and Rürup, 2010; Böttcher, 2002; Krautz, 2020; Pietsch and Leist, 2019). Moreover, economic control and incentive mechanisms for teachers or SLs—still controversial in German-speaking countries—manifest through performance metrics and competitive strains (Böttcher, 2001; Engartner, 2020; Heller and Hany, 2014; Pietsch and Leist, 2019).
Although economic and pedagogical paradigms are not inherently irreconcilable (Wagner, 2006), their convergence often shifts emphasis away from Bildung's traditional role, focusing instead on producing individuals equipped to enhance regional human capital (Lederer, 2014). This reconciliation is visible in policy frameworks and school practices. Some educational policies explicitly integrate ESL models that incorporate Bildung's core values, such as autonomy, critical thinking, and reflection, into curricula and governance structures. This can manifest in shared or distributed decision-making and network communication (Bush and Glover, 2014; Harris and DeFlaminis, 2016; Mintrop, 2015). In these contexts, Bildung is frequently reframed as a means to an end—namely, increasing economic competitiveness (Pietsch and Leist, 2019). Such reorientation risks sidelining Bildung's broader cultural and societal dimensions and raises questions about the long-term costs and benefits of educational investment (Weiß, 2001).
In practice, some schools attempt to balance entrepreneurial activities, such as fundraising or community partnerships, with pedagogical priorities. These models illustrate that economic demands and educational values can coexist when leadership intentionally aligns them. Schools that involve teachers, students, and parents in designing fundraising initiatives, for instance, often ensure that these efforts support a broader educational mission rather than undermine it (Blake and Mestry, 2014). Such tensions are especially pronounced in contexts shaped by austerity policies and increasing reliance on private funding to meet institutional goals (Ghazali et al., 2022), a dynamic less prevalent in German-speaking systems. As schools are increasingly viewed as service providers, with students and parents positioned as clients or consumers, the burden of responsibility often shifts to educators, who must manage both instructional and economic tasks to enhance institutional performance and appeal (Altrichter and Maag Merki, 2010; Engartner, 2020; Weiß, 2001).
Quality management systems frequently assess success through cost-benefit analyses, aligning institutional goals with economic efficiency (Bonsen, 2003; Böttcher, 2002; Höhne, 2022). Simultaneously, self-directed learning models align with neoliberal ideologies by transferring responsibility for success from educators to students. While such approaches expand traditional individualized pedagogy, they also reinforce economic rationality and perpetuate the logic of personal accountability (Krautz, 2020).
This growing emphasis on economic rationality within education underscores the interpretive role of Bildung in ESL. By linking Bildung's philosophical ideals with entrepreneurial values such as innovation, initiative, and proactive action (Hörnqvist and Leffler, 2014; Samson and Gloet, 2016), SLs can navigate economic pressures while preserving pedagogical integrity. This synthesis invites reflection in the German-speaking context on whether ESL can reconcile these economic pressures with the educational mandate rooted in the tradition of Bildung.
4.2 Document analysis on school leadership profiles from Austria and Germany
To explore how tensions between economic demands and pedagogical goals manifest in practice, this study analyzes normative school leadership frameworks from Austria and Germany through a systematic document selection process. These two countries were selected for their shared language and cultural proximity, which allow for controlled comparison. Other German-speaking countries, such as Switzerland or Belgium, were excluded due to more pronounced systemic and cultural differences. To interpret how national contexts may influence leadership expectations and the emphasis on economic vs. pedagogical priorities, Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions provide a useful lens. Austria and Germany share low Power Distance (Austria: 11; Germany: 35) and high Individualism (Austria: 77; Germany: 79), supporting autonomy and decentralized leadership, but high Uncertainty Avoidance (Austria: 70; Germany: 65) favors structured procedures. Differences in Achievement Orientation and Indulgence suggest nuanced variations in leadership conceptualizations (Hofstede, 1980; The Culture Factor Group, 2025).
4.2.1 Data basis, analysis, and category development
Building on the contextual understanding outlined above, the analysis focuses on school leadership documents that exemplify these cultural characteristics. Documents were purposefully selected based on their recency, public accessibility, and sufficient level of detail to ensure analytical validity. In Germany, the federal education system does not provide a fully standardized, nationwide profile for school leadership. At the national level, the non-binding Guiding Framework for the Qualification of School Leaders [Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2024] was considered, while at the state level [Länder], leadership profiles from Baden-Württemberg (KM-BW, 2023) and Lower Saxony (KM-NI, 2022) were included to enable systematic comparison. These documents outline specific competencies and responsibilities expected of SLs within their respective jurisdictions. In Austria, the centralized education system provides a single, comprehensive leadership profile (BMBWF, 2019) applicable to all schools, aligning with national educational standards (Kanape-Willingshofer et al., 2016).
The comparative analysis of these school leadership profiles followed an abductive approach (Timmermans and Tavory, 2012), combining inductive theme development from the documents with theoretically informed category refinement. The analysis was guided by Bowen's (2009) qualitative framework, integrating structured skimming, close reading, and thematic interpretation. Using inductive coding (Bingham, 2023), two researchers independently analyzed the documents, resolving discrepancies through discussion. Member checking with an educational leadership expert further supported interpretive validity.
Grounded in the theoretical framework outlined in Section 3, the coding distinguished between content knowledge and competencies as two analytically relevant dimensions, a well-established distinction in leadership research (Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Pashiardis, 2022; Demirbilek, 2022; Mas et al., 2021) that is particularly pertinent to ESL. Viewing these dimensions as interconnected highlights their complementary role in effective leadership and underscores that strengthening entrepreneurial competencies supports innovation and conducive learning environments (Ariyani et al., 2021; Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013), indicating that entrepreneurial knowledge and competencies form essential components of leadership processes directly shaping school outcomes (Hussain and Li, 2022).
Building on this distinction, the abductive approach was applied to identify relevant categories from material-proximate terms. By comparing theoretical concepts of entrepreneurship (Section 3) with empirical material from normative guidelines [BMBWF, 2019; Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2024; KM-BW, 2023; KM-NI, 2022], the coding was structured along these analytically relevant dimensions, ensuring that the analysis remained closely aligned with both theoretical constructs and empirical evidence:
a. Entrepreneurial/Economic content knowledge of SLs: This refers to SLs' understanding of fundamental entrepreneurial/economic concepts and principles relevant to ESL.
b. Entrepreneurial competencies of SLs: This denotes the skills and dispositions SL require to identify opportunities, take initiative, manage risk, and innovate within the school context to drive innovation and improvement.
4.2.2 Results
The Guiding Framework for the Qualification of SLs [Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2024] emphasizes the role of innovation in school development and leadership, highlighting the importance of both technology-driven innovations and the contextual conditions of each school. It explicitly addresses change processes (p. 5) and quality management (p. 6). Among the competencies associated with ESL are proactive change management, resource mobilization, partnership building, organizational flexibility, and networking. For example, the framework specifies that SLs contribute to the opening and shaping of the school through targeted network building (p. 10), illustrating how entrepreneurial principles can be enacted within institutional constraints to leverage contextual opportunities for school development (Hall et al., 2023).
The two Länder frameworks define specific competencies expected of SLs, including self-competence, social competence, and professional expertise. In the profile of Baden-Württemberg (KM-BW, 2023), innovative practices are attributed to social competence and aligned with change management. This is explicitly reflected in references to project and process management, financial and material resource management, as well as quality management and assurance (p. 6). In the leadership profile of Lower Saxony (KM-NI, 2022), innovation is not explicitly mentioned. However, the competence to initiate, support, and sustain change can be linked to entrepreneurial principles. The framework emphasizes an evaluation culture whose results lead to change processes, as well as cooperation with external partners and the use of networks (pp. 10–12). Both profiles also delineate distinct areas of responsibility for school leadership, emphasizing on ensuring quality through clear accountability, while also addressing key responsibilities such as coordinating instruction, managing finances, overseeing projects and processes, and enforcing regulatory compliance. Another key responsibility identified in both frameworks is a network-oriented mindset and the coordination of external partnerships. These observations also align with intrapreneurial actions in the K-12 setting, reflecting how SLs navigate complex systemic expectations (Lope Pihie and Bagheri, 2013).
In the Austrian school leadership framework (BMBWF, 2019), the focus is placed on various leadership levels: leading the organization, leading people, and leading oneself. Terms commonly associated with the private sector, such as leadership and management (pp. 3–4), quality management (p. 7), human resource management (pp. 10–14), and internal and external communication (p. 15), are emphasized. These concepts reflect an increasing alignment with content knowledge and skills from business management practices. Furthermore, a clear link to ESL emerges through core competencies mentioned such as strategic orientation (p. 7), change management (p. 9), networking (p. 13), adaptability and visionary thinking (p. 18), operationalize ESL principles even within Austria's more centralized system. While centralized structures may limit certain degrees of autonomy (Balasi et al., 2023), the framework demonstrates that entrepreneurial enactment is possible through these competencies, illustrating the adaptive application of ESL in prescriptive institutional contexts.
4.2.3 Synthesis of empirical findings and ESL principles
The examined leadership profiles reveal that knowledge areas and action domains shaped by entrepreneurial considerations, such as change management, innovation, and strategic collaboration (Frentz et al., 2025; Yemini et al., 2015; Section 3), are present across the analyzed frameworks. While terminology and emphasis vary, all documents reflect the growing expectations for SLs in increasingly complex educational environments (Ainscow, 2020; Section 1).
In some frameworks [Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2024; KM-BW, 2023] innovation is explicitly mentioned as a leadership expectation, whereas in others (KM-NI, 2022; BMBWF, 2019) it is not. Nevertheless, competencies related to initiating, supporting, and sustaining change are documented in all cases, indicating that the principles of ESL are enacted in practice, even when terminology differs. This pattern strongly corresponds to the concept of intrapreneurial action (Follmer, 2015; Hall et al., 2023; Section 3), where entrepreneurial activity occurs incrementally within organizational constraints rather than as disruptive innovation.
Overall, these observations reveal not only the distribution of competencies across national frameworks but also the mechanisms through which ESL principles are translated into practice. They indicate that ESL is realized differently depending on the context (Blose, 2024; Mincu, 2022; Section 2) and design of each framework. By linking the documented knowledge and competency areas to the theoretical distinction between understanding and action, this analysis provides a concrete illustration of how ESL principles are embedded in school leadership expectations within national contexts especially characterized by low power distance, high individualism, and strong uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980). These insights establish a foundation for the following discussion.
Table 1 summarizes the analyzed documents, including title, issuing body, publication year, and main leadership domains covered.
Table 1. Summary of findings from the document analysis.
5 Discussion
In this conceptual paper, the role of entrepreneurial thinking and action in shaping educational leadership practices in K-12 settings has been examined in relation to the economization debate in Germany and Austria. While ESL offers opportunities for innovation and adaptability, these potentials must be critically evaluated within the deeply embedded pedagogical traditions and institutional constraints of German-speaking education systems (Altrichter and Maag Merki, 2010; Bonsen, 2003; Huber, 2003; Warwas, 2012). Economic considerations remain a source of tension, reflecting not only historical skepticism toward market-oriented logic but also the risk of prioritizing efficiency over holistic educational aims (Section 4.1).
Contemporary SLs operate in highly complex, volatile, and technology-driven environments (Pietsch et al., 2023a), as captured by the concept of Leadership 5.0, which emphasizes adaptive, future-oriented, and participatory K-12 leadership that integrates societal, technological, and ecological considerations (Kuhn, 2021; Section 1). Schools are not market-oriented enterprises, as they pursue educational objectives centered on student development and human flourishing, in line with the principles of Bildung. Nevertheless, SLs have to adopt a forward-looking mindset to remain resilient in the face of EdTech companies (Kuhn, 2021) which provide innovative educational programs as commercial products. ESL aligns with Leadership 5.0, promoting proactive problem-solving, strategic resource management, and collaborative innovation (Balasi et al., 2023; Kafa et al., 2025; Frentz et al., 2025). However, the extent to which German-speaking K-12 contexts, characterized by high uncertainty avoidance, strong institutional structures, and deeply rooted humanistic educational traditions (Section 4) can fully realize the transformative potential of ESL, remains limited.
Although international research highlights the positive influence of ESL on adaptive and innovative school environments (Anderson and White, 2011; Frentz et al., 2025; Hörnqvist and Leffler, 2014; Yemini et al., 2015), the transferability of these findings to German-speaking contexts is not straightforward. In practice, innovation often remains narrowly defined as incremental improvement (Rürup, 2011) rather than transformative change (OECD, 2009; Vare and Scott, 2007), raising questions about whether ESL can substantively alter educational practice or whether it primarily serves as a rhetorical alignment with policy discourses.
The document analysis of normative leadership profiles from Germany [Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK), 2024; KM-BW, 2023; KM-NI, 2022] and Austria (BMBWF, 2019) confirms the formal integration of entrepreneurial and economic content knowledge and competencies into school leadership expectations. While these documents emphasize strategic planning, networking, and innovation, it is unclear whether these expectations translate into meaningful pedagogical change or the full enactment of ESL principles.
The tension between entrepreneurial aspirations and educational values requires careful scrutiny. While ESL encourages proactive problem-solving, opportunity recognition, and collaborative innovation, it may simultaneously generate unintended consequences, such as increased workload for teachers and SLs, reinforcement of inequities, or overemphasis on performance metrics at the expense of student-centered learning (Maranto, 2015; Mockler et al., 2023). Moreover, the alignment of leadership practices with economic rationalities may risk instrumentalizing Bildung, reducing its holistic and humanistic dimensions to functional outputs aimed at efficiency or competitiveness (Lederer, 2014; Pietsch and Leist, 2019).
Practical implications therefore involve deliberate fostering of entrepreneurial competencies within school teams through initiative, creativity, and collaborative problem-solving, while remaining mindful of the structural constraints known in the public sector (Currie et al., 2008; Vivona et al., 2025; Section 3). Leadership development should therefore incorporate resource mobilization, strategic planning, and adaptive decision-making to bridge pedagogical and economic objectives. Fostering ESL requires a careful balance between autonomy, innovation, and accountability. In line with NPM principles, governance structures and frameworks should additionally establish structures and frameworks that enable entrepreneurial practices within bureaucratic environments (Ariyani et al., 2021) without compromising educational integrity. Nevertheless, current arrangements, particularly centralized systems or strict evaluation regimes, can constrain the practical enactment of entrepreneurial practices, generating systemic tensions that limit the transformative potential of ESL. The variation observed across the analyzed school leadership frameworks, where, for instance, innovation is explicitly mentioned in some documents but absent in others, further highlights the context-dependency and uneven operationalization of ESL principles.
While ESL offers strategies aligned with the future-oriented vision of Leadership 5.0, its practical application in German-speaking contexts is contingent, constrained, and potentially double-edged. Schools may simultaneously benefit from enhanced innovation and risk over-prioritization of efficiency, resulting in tensions with core pedagogical aims.
6 Limitations and outlook
This conceptual paper is limited by its focus on normative documents and literature from German-speaking countries, highlighting the need for empirical research to investigate how ESL is enacted in practice, including its challenges and unintended consequences. While these documents illuminate formal expectations and policy intentions, they do not capture how ESL is implemented in day-to-day K-12 leadership practice, revealing a potential gap between prescribed frameworks and lived realities. Although German is also an official language in Switzerland and parts of Belgium and Italy, these regions were excluded due to their distinct multilingual and cultural contexts. Moreover, the analysis relies primarily on normative and secondary sources, lacking empirical validation regarding the effective implementation of these frameworks. The persistent tension between pedagogical and economic priorities is therefore acknowledged but remains unresolved.
In the ongoing debate on the economization of German-speaking educational systems (Section 4.1), a contextualized and multidimensional understanding of ESL is essential. Drawing on the preceding discussion, this study emphasizes the need to examine how entrepreneurial practices can simultaneously foster innovation and reproduce economic pressures, particularly where they intersect with traditional pedagogical values. If entrepreneurial practices in educational leadership become vehicles for neoliberal agendas that prioritize economic stability over educational purposes (Maranto, 2015; Mockler et al., 2023), they risk reinforcing economization trends unlikely to gain acceptance in German-speaking contexts. Conversely, when leadership promotes autonomy, reflection, and empowerment among students, teachers, and communities, it may support sustainable school development, although its empirical impact and long-term viability remain insufficiently explored (Frentz et al., 2025).
Future research should consider the broader contextual diversity of education systems to refine the conceptualization of ESL and clarify what entrepreneurship in education genuinely entails (Frentz et al., 2025; Kafa et al., 2025). A comprehensive understanding of ESL requires attention to instructional and community dimensions (Hallinger, 2018) as well as to the individual dispositions of SLs. This raises a central question regarding whether an entrepreneurial mindset exists among SLs at all. Although the present study primarily examines cultural and institutional levels and acknowledges differences in German-speaking governance structures (e.g., centralistic vs. decentralistic, normative expectations), future research must engage more thoroughly with individual-level dispositions to capture contextual variations fully. Even in settings where broader institutional or cultural conditions are not conducive to innovation, SLs with strongly developed entrepreneurial dispositions, such as high self-efficacy (Mavi et al., 2023) or risk-taking (Balasi et al., 2023), may nonetheless act innovatively.
Beyond individual dispositions, organizational conditions also shape entrepreneurial opportunities and constraints. Future research should examine differences between ESL in public vs. private schools (Frentz et al., 2025) and consider the leadership of multiple schools simultaneously (Brauckmann et al., 2019b), as such organizational contexts, embedded within broader institutional frameworks, may significantly influence the scope for innovative action.
To highlight the challenges of implementing innovative practices within established organizations, the theoretical framework of intrapreneurship was employed (Balasi et al., 2023; Follmer, 2015; Section 3). This framework emphasizes that ESL should be understood as the product of complex interactions among individual dispositions, organizational structures, and cultural contexts. However, to explicitly address the broader objectives of schooling, namely, equity, wellbeing, and educational justice for all members of the school community (Ainscow, 2020; Wilkins et al., 2021; Section 1), the social dimension of entrepreneurial thinking and acting in established structures merits closer consideration (Sagie et al., 2016). The notion of social intrapreneurship becomes particularly relevant here. It provides a theoretical and practical lens for strengthening SLs' capacity to respond innovatively, ethically, and systemically to the challenges outlined above. Social intrapreneurship denotes entrepreneurial thinking and action within existing organizations that prioritizes social value creation over economic gain (Geradts and Alt, 2022). These considerations underscore the importance of further examining SLs as social intrapreneurs in the public sector.
Author contributions
JF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FF: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PP: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SB-S: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. Open access funding provided by University of Klagenfurt.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ainscow, M. (2020). Inclusion and equity in education: making sense of global challenges. Prospects 49, 123–134. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w
Aldridge, J. M., and McLure, F. I. (2024). Preparing schools for educational change: barriers and supports - a systematic literature review. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 23, 486–511. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2023.2171439
Altrichter, H., and Maag Merki, K. (2010). “Steuerung der Entwicklung des Schulwesens [Governance of the development of the school system],” in Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem, eds. H. Altrichter and K. Maag Merki (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), 15–40. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-92245-4_1
Altrichter, H., and Rürup, M. (2010). “Schulautonomie und die Folgen [School autonomy and its consequences],” in Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem, eds. H. Altrichter and K. Maag Merki (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften), 111–143. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-92245-4_5
Anderson, M., and White, S. (2011). Resourcing change in small schools. Aust. J. Educ. 55, 50–61. doi: 10.1177/000494411105500106
Arar, K. (2020). “School leadership for refugees' education,” in Social Justice Leadership for Immigrant, Migrants and Refugees (Routledge). doi: 10.4324/9780429021770
Ariyani, D., Suyatno, S., and Zuhaery, M. (2021). Principal's innovation and entrepreneurial leadership to establish a positive learning environment. Euro. J. Educ. Res. 10, 63–74. doi: 10.12973/eu-jer.10.1.63
Ayub, D., and Othman, N. (2013). Entrepreneurship management practices in creating effective schools. ASS 9, 69–78. doi: 10.5539/ass.v9n12p69
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., and van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Balasi, A., Iordanidis, G., and Tsakiridou, E. (2023). Entrepreneurial leadership behavior of primary school principals across Europe: a comparative study. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 37, 1067–1087. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-04-2023-0208
Bates, R. (2006). Culture and leadership in educational administration: a historical study of what was and what might have been. J. Educ. Adm. Hist. 38, 155–168. doi: 10.1080/00220620600583065
Bingham, A. J. (2023). A five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. Int. J. Qual. Methods 22, 1–11. doi: 10.1177/16094069231183620
Blake, B., and Mestry, R. (2014). The changing dimensions of the finances on urban schools: an entrepreneurial approach for principals. Educ. Change 18, 163–178. doi: 10.1080/16823206.2013.847017
Blose, S. (2024). Influence of School Contexts on Leadership Practices: Putting Deputy Principals Under the Microscope. SAGE Open. doi: 10.1177/21582440241237875
BMBWF (2019). Schulleitungsprofil: Eine praxisbezogene Orientierung für effektives Schulleitungshandeln [School Leadership Profile: A Practice-Oriented Guide for Effective School Leadership]. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. Available online at: https://pubshop.bmbwf.gv.at/index.php?rex_media_type=pubshop_downloadandrex_media_file=190923_schulleitungsprofil.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2025).
Bonsen, M. (2003). Schule, Führung, Organisation: Eine empirische Studie zum Organisations- und Führungsverständnis von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern [School, Leadership, and Organization: An Empirical Study on Principals' Understanding of Organization and Leadership]. Münster: Waxmann.
Böttcher, W. (2001). Ist ein Dialog zwischen Pädagogik und Ökonomie möglich? Eine Diskussion am Beispiel von Anreizsystemen und Schulentwicklung [Is a dialogue between pedagogy and economics possible? A discussion using incentive systems and school development as an example]. Zeitschrift Pädagogik 47, 893–911. doi: 10.25656/01:4324
Böttcher, W. (2002). Kann eine ökonomische Schule auch eine pädagogische sein? Schulentwicklung zwischen neuer Steuerung, Organisation, Leistungsevaluation und Bildung [Can an Economic School Also Be a Pedagogical One? School Development Between New Governance, Organization, Performance Evaluation, and Education]. Weinheim: Juventa.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual. Res. J. 9, 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brauckmann, S., Geißler, G., Feldhoff, T., and Pashiardis, P. (2016). Instructional leadership in Germany: an evolutionary perspective. Int. Stud. Educ. Admin. 44, 5–20.
Brauckmann, S., Lassnigg, L., Altrichter, H., Juranek, M., and Tegge, D. (2019b). Zur Einführung von Schulclustern im österreichischen Bildungssystem - theoretische und praktische Implikationen [On the introduction of school clusters in the Austrian education system: theoretical and practical implications]. Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2018, 363–402. doi: 10.17888/nbb2018-2-9
Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., and Ärlestig, H. (2023). Bringing context and educational leadership together: fostering the professional development of school principals. Profess. Dev. Educ. 49, 4–15. doi: 10.1080/19415257.2020.1747105
Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., and Kafa, A. (2019a). School leadership approaches and practices under paradigm of new public management: an entrepreneurial perspective. RicercAzione 11, 137–155. doi: 10.32076/RA11107
Brauckmann, S., Thiel, F., Kuper, H., and Tarkian, J. (2015). Guest editorial. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 29. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-06-2015-0076
Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., and Pashiardis, P. (2022). Entrepreneurial leadership in schools: linking creativity with accountability. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 25, 787–801. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2020.1804624
Bush, T., and Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? Sch. Leadersh. Manage. 34, 553–571. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Chiu, T. K. F. (2023). The impact of generative AI (GenAI) on practices, policies and research direction in education: a case of ChatGPT and Midjourney. Interactive Learn. Environ. 32, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2023.2253861
Covin, J. G., and Slevin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory Prac. 16, 7–25. doi: 10.1177/104225879101600102
Currie, G., Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D., and McManus, S. (2008). Entrepreneurial leadership in the English public sector: paradox or possibility? Public Admin. 86, 987–1008. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00736.x
Da'as, R. (2023). The missing link: principals' ambidexterity and teacher creativity. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 22, 119–140. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2021.1917621
Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., and Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educ. Res. Rev. 27, 110–125. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003
Demirbilek, M. (2022). An examination of the relationships between school principals' entrepreneurial competencies, sustainable management behaviours and generative leadership. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 44, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2022.2084034
Elert, N., and Stenkula, M. (2022). Intrapreneurship: productive and non-productive. Entrepreneurship Theory Prac. 46, 1423–1439. doi: 10.1177/1042258720964181
Engartner, T. (2020). Ökonomisierung schulischer Bildung: Analysen und Alternativen [The Economization of School Education: Analyses and Alternatives]. Berlin: Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung.
Eyal, O., and Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 3, 211–235. doi: 10.1080/15700760490503715
Follmer, N. (2015). Der Schulleiter als Intrapreneur: Überlegungen zu einer innovationsfördernden Führung in Schule [The School Principal as Intrapreneur: Reflections on Innovation-Oriented Leadership in Schools]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978-3-653-05502-3
Frentz, J., Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., Bellibas, M., Pashiardis, P., and Pietsch, M. (2025). Reveiling entrepreneurial acting and thinking among school leaders in the K12-setting – a scoping review. Leadersh. Policy Sch. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2025.2471373
Gandhi, S. J., Robb, C. C., and Lee, A. (2021). The entrepreneurial intrapreneur: a managerial approach to building entrepreneurial competencies. Int. J. Entrepreneurship Innov. Manage. 25, 211–232. doi: 10.1504/IJEIM.2021.115049
Geradts, T. H. J., and Alt, E. (2022). Social entrepreneurial action in established organizations: developing the concept of social intrapreneurship. J. Bus. Res. 151, 197–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.047
Ghazali, S. S., Kadir, A. A., Krauss, S. E., and Asimiran, S. (2022). The entrepreneurial leadership practices of Malaysian secondary school principals in fundraising. Educ. Manage. Admin. Leadersh. 50, 851–870. doi: 10.1177/1741143220949542
Goren, H., and Yemini, M. (2017). Global citizenship education redefined – a systematic review of empirical studies on global citizenship education. Int. J. Educ. Res. 82, 170–183. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.02.004
Grimm, H. M., and Bock, C. L. (2022). Entrepreneurship in public administration and public policy programs in Germany and the United States. Teach. Public Admin. 40, 322–353. doi: 10.1177/01447394211021636
Gupta, V., McMillan, I., and Surie, G. (2004). Entrepreneurial leadership: developing and measuring a cross-cultural construct. J. Business Ventur. 19, 241–260. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00040-5
Hall, J. B., Gunnulfsen, A. E., and Jensen, R. (2023). Organisational arrangements, resources and tensions in the enactment of a renewed state curriculum: the entrepreneurial role of principals and superintendents. J. Educ. Adm. Hist. 56, 202–219. doi: 10.1080/00220620.2023.2175801
Hallinger, P. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of school leadership. Educ. Manage. Admin. Leadersh. 46, 5–24. doi: 10.1177/1741143216670652
Harris, A., and DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Manage. Educ. 30, 141–146. doi: 10.1177/0892020616656734
Hebert, K., Bendickson, J., Liguori, E. W., Weaver, K. M., and Teddlie, C. (2012). “Chapter 8 re-designing lessons, re-envisioning principals: developing entrepreneurial school leadership,” in Successful School Leadership Preparation and Development, Vol. 17, eds. K. Sanzo, S. Myran, and A. H. Normore (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited), 153–163. doi: 10.1108/S1479-3660(2012)0000017011
Heller, K. A., and Hany, E. A. (2014). “Standardisierte Schulleistungsmessungen [Standardized school performance assessments],” in Leistungsmessungen in Schulen, 3rd Edn., ed. F. E. Weinert (Weinheim; Basel: Verlag), 87–102.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation leadership and organization: do American theories apply abroad? Organ. Dyn. 9, 42–63. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(80)90013-3
Höhne, T. (2022). “Ökonomisierung von Bildung [The economization of education],” in Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie, eds. U. Bauer, U. H. Bittlingmayer, and A. Scherr (Wiesbaden: Springer VS), 1051–1069. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-30903-9_58
Hörnqvist, M.-L., and Leffler, E. (2014). Fostering an entrepreneurial attitude – challenging in principal leadership. Educ. Train. 56, 551–561. doi: 10.1108/ET-05-2013-0064
Huber, S. G. (2003). Qualifizierung von Schulleiterinnen und Schulleitern im internationalen Vergleich: Eine Untersuchung in 15 Ländern zur Professionalisierung von pädagogischen Führungskräften für Schulen [Training and Professionalization of School Principals in an International Comparison: A Study in 15 Countries on the Professionalization of Educational Leaders]. Kronach: Carl Link.
Hussain, N., and Li, B. (2022). Entrepreneurial leadership and entrepreneurial success: the role of knowledge management processes and knowledge entrepreneurship. Front. Psychol. 13:829959. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.829959
Iberer, U., and Warwas, J. (2024). Die Kunst des Entscheidens: Modelle und Methoden für Führungskräfte in pädagogischen Organisationen [The art of decision-making: models and methods for leaders in educational organizations]. Zeitschrift für ökonomische Bildung 13, 336–367. doi: 10.7808/zfoeb.2024.13.101
Kafa, A., Pashiardis, P., and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2025). When successful school leaders go entrepreneurial: empirical insights from Cyprus. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. doi: 10.1080/13603124.2025.2541358
Kanape-Willingshofer, A., Altrichter, H., and Kemethofer, D. (2016). “Accountability policies and school leadership in Austria: increasing competition and little accountability,” in Educational Accountability, eds. J. Easley I, and P. Tulowitzki (Routledge), 142–154.
Kasim, N. M. (2021). The influence of entrepreneurial leadership and sustainability leadership on high-performing school leaders: mediated by empowerment. Leadersh. Educ. Personal Interdiscipl. J. 3, 101–115. doi: 10.1365/s42681-022-00031-2
Kearney, C. (2020). “Entrepreneurial leadership and its impact on the emergence of entrepreneurial ventures,” in Organizational Mindset of Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Co-creation Pathways of Structural Change and Innovation, eds. V. Ramadani, R. Palalić, L.-P. Dana, N. Krueger, and A. Caputo (New York, NY: Springer), 9–24. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36951-4_2
Keddie, A., Gobby, B., and Wilkins, C. (2018). School autonomy reform in Queensland: governance, freedom and the entrepreneurial leader. Sch. Leadersh. Manage. 38, 378–394. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2017.1411901
Kemethofer, D., Weber, C., Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S., and Pashiardis, P. (2023). Examining the trident: how data from the PISA study can be used to identify associations among context, school leadership and student outcomes. J. Educ. Admin. 61, 162–177. doi: 10.1108/JEA-02-2022-0030
KM-BW (2023). Anforderungsprofil Schulleiterinnen und Schulleiter [Competency Profile for School Principals]. Available online at: https://km.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-km/intern/PDF/Dateien/Schulleitungen/Anforderungsprofil_Schulleiterinnen_und_Schulleiter_M%C3%A4rz_2023.pdf (Accessed August 9, 2025).
KM-NI (2022). Berufsbild Schulleitung [The Professional Role of School Leadership]. Available online at: https://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/startseite/schule/unsere_schulen/schulleitung/berufsbild-schulleitung-213884.html (Accessed August 9, 2025).
Koch, A. R., Binnewies, C., and Dormann, C. (2015). Motivating innovation in schools: school principals' work engagement as a motivator for schools' innovation. Euro. J. Work Org. Psychol. 24, 505–517. doi: 10.1080/1359432X.2014.958471
Krautz, J. (2007). Pädagogik unter dem Druck der Ökonomisierung: Zum Hintergrund von Standards, Kompetenzen und Modulen [Pedagogy Under the pressure of economization: on the background of standards, competencies, and modules]. Pädagogische Rundschau 1, 81–93.
Krautz, J. (2020). “Ökonomisierung als Steuerung von Schule, Bildung und Demokratie: Phänomene, Systematik, Alternativen [Economization as governance of schooling, education, and democracy: phenomena, systematics, and alternatives],” in Ökonomisierung und Digitalisierung: “Sargnägel” der Bildungsreform?!, eds. G. Scheidl and H. Schopf (Wien: Löcker), 9–41.
Kuhn, A. (2021). Schule der Zukunft. Sind Schulen Unternehmen? [Schools of the Future: Are Schools Enterprises?]. https://deutsches-schulportal.de/diskussion/schule-5-0-isabel-welpe-sind-schulen-unternehmen/ (Accessed March 11, 2025).
Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) (2024). Orientierungsrahmen zur Qualifizierung von Schulleitungen [Guiding Framework for the Qualification of School Leaders]. Berlin: Sekretariat der Kultusministerkonferenz.
Lee, M., and Hallinger, P. (2012). National contexts influencing principals' time use and allocation: economic development, societal culture, and educational system. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 23, 461–482. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2012.678862
Leitch, C. M., McMullan, C., and Harrison, R. T. (2013). The development of entrepreneurial leadership: the role of human, social and institutional capital. Br. J. Manage. 24, 347–366. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00808.x
Lope Pihie, Z. A., and Bagheri, A. (2013). The impact of principals' entrepreneurial leadership behaviour on school organizational innovativeness. Life Sci. J. 10, 1033–1041.
Mamabolo, A. (2020). The influence of school principals as potential entrepreneurial leaders on the emergence of entrepreneurial activities for school funding. South Afr. J. Educ. 40, 1–15. doi: 10.15700/saje.v40n4a2040
Maranto, R. (2015). Did the teachers destroy the school? Public entrepreneurship as creation and adaptation. J. Sch. Leadersh. 25, 69–101. doi: 10.1177/105268461502500104
Maritzen, N. (2015). “Schulinspektion – Aspekte der Transformation von Governance-Strukturen [School inspection: aspects of the transformation of governance structures],” in Schulinspektion in Hamburg. Der erste Zyklus 2007–2013: Grundlagen, Befunde und Perspektiven, eds. M. Pietsch, B. Scholand, and K. Schulte (Münster: Waxmann), 13–37.
Mas, S. R., Masaong, A. K., and Suking, A. (2021). School principal entrepreneurial competency development model to optimize generating production unit income. J. Educ. Sci. Res. 11:109. doi: 10.36941/jesr-2021-0110
Mavi, D., Tuti, G., and Özdemir, M. (2023). The effect of principal self-efficacy on innovative work behavior: the mediating role of principal entrepreneurship. Curr. Psychol. 43, 5020–5031. doi: 10.1007/s12144-023-04663-5
Menze, C. (1980). “Leibniz und die neuhumanistische Theorie der Bildung des Menschen [Leibniz and the neo-humanist theory of human education],” in Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vorträge G 246 (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag). doi: 10.1007/978-3-322-90049-4
Mincu, M. (2022). Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts. Prospects 52, 231–242. doi: 10.1007/s11125-022-09625-6
Mintrop, R. (2015). Public management reform without managers: the case of German public schools. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 29, 790–795. doi: 10.1108/IJEM-06-2015-0082
Mockler, N., Thompson, G., and Hogan, A. (2023). ‘If you can't beat them, join them': utility, markets and the absent entrepreneur. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 44., 467–484. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2023.2167701
Moos, L., Möller, J., and Johansson, O. (2004). A Scandinavian perspective on educational leadership. Educ. Forum 68, 193–208. doi: 10.1080/00131720408984632
OECD (2009). Innovation in Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264056213-en
Oplatka, I., and Arar, K. (2017). The research on educational leadership and management in the Arab world since the 1990s: a systematic review. Rev. Educ. 5, 267–307. doi: 10.1002/rev3.3095
Oplatka, I., and Hemsely-Brown, J. (2007). The incorporation of market orientation in the school culture. An essential aspect of school marketing. Int. J. Educ. Manage. 21, 292–305. doi: 10.1108/09513540710749519
Pashiardis, P., and Brauckmann, S. (2008). “Introduction to the LISA framework from a social system's perspective,” in Paper Presented During the LISA Conference, November 13–15, 2008 (Budapest).
Pashiardis, P., and Brauckmann, S. (2019). New public management in education: a call for the edupreneurial leader? Leadersh. Policy Sch. 18, 485–499. doi: 10.1080/15700763.2018.1475575
Pashiardis, P., and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2022). “The rise of the edupreneur. Exploring school leadership through an evolutionary perspective,” in School Leadership in the 21st Century: Challenges and Coping Strategies, ed. A. E. Nir (New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers), 47–68.
Pietsch, M., Aydin, B., and Gümüş, S. (2023b). Putting the instructional leadership–student achievement relation in context: a meta-analytical big data study across cultures and time. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 47, 29–64. doi: 10.3102/01623737231197434
Pietsch, M., and Leist, S. (2019). The effects of competition in local schooling markets on leadership for learning. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 9, 109–134. doi: 10.1007/s35834-018-0224-9
Pietsch, M., Rohl, S., Syvertsen, I. M., and Cramer, C. (2025). Opening the black box of teacher leader development: an investigation of teachers' motivation to lead. Int. J. Educ. Res. 132:102632. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102632
Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., and Cramer, P. (2023a). Innovating teaching and instruction in turbulent times: the dynamics of principals' exploration and exploitation activities. J. Educ. Change 24, 549–581. doi: 10.1007/s10833-022-09458-2
Pihie, Z. A. L., Bagheri, A., and Asimiran, S. (2014). Entrepreneurial leadership practices and school innovativeness. South Afr. J. Educ. 34, 1–11. doi: 10.15700/201412120955
Pinchot, G. (1985). Intrapreneuring: Why You Don't Have to Leave the Corporation to Become an Entrepreneur. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Pont, B., Nusche, D., and Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Vol. 1: Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Raithel, J., Dollinger, B., and Hörmann, G. (2009). Einführung Pädagogik: Begriffe – Strömungen – Klassiker – Fachrichtungen [Introduction to Education: Concepts – Movements – Classics – Sub-Disciplines]. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Renko, M., Tarabishy, A., Carsrud, A. L., and Brännback, M. (2015). Understanding and measuring entrepreneurial leadership style. J. Small Business Manage. 53, 54–74. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12086
Ricketts, M. (2008). “Theories of entrepreneurship: historical development and critical assessment,” in The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, ed. A. Basu (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 33–58. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199546992.003.0002
Rürup, M. (2011). Innovationen im Bildungswesen: Begriffliche Annäherungen an das Neue [Innovations in education: conceptual approaches to the new]. Die Deutsche Schule 103, 9–23. doi: 10.25656/01:25683
Sagie, N., Yemini, M., and Bauer, U. (2016). School-NGO interaction: case studies of Israel and Germany. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 36. 469–490. doi: 10.1108/IJSSP-11-2015-0123
Samson, D., and Gloet, M. (2016). Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Creating New Value. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Sánchez, V. V., and Gutiérrez-Esteban, P. (2023). Challenges and enablers in the advancement of educational innovation: the forces at work in the transformation of education. Teach. Teach. Educ. 135:104359. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2023.104359
Schleicher, A. (2018). World Class: How to Build a 21st-Century School System. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264300002-en
Schumpeter, J. (1997). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus [Theory of Economic Development: An Investigation of Entrepreneurial Profit, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle], 9th Edn., reprint of 4th Edn. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot. doi: 10.3790/978-3-428-07725-0
Shane, S., and Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manage. Rev. 25, 217–226. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
Syafrudin, S., Sudadio, S., and Hidayat, S. (2023). The effect of managerial competence on entrepreneurship leadership of elementary school principals: a case study in Serang City, Indonesia. Int. J. Adv. Appl. Sci. 10, 63–70. doi: 10.21833/ijaas.2023.06.008
The Culture Factor Group (2025). Country Comparison Tool. Available online at: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=austria%2Cgermany (Accessed October 20, 2025).
Timmermans, S., and Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociol. Theory 30, 167–186. doi: 10.1177/0735275112457914
Torres, L. L. (2022). School organizational culture and leadership: theoretical trends and new analytical proposals. Educ. Sci. 12, 254. doi: 10.3390/educsci12040254
Ungern-Sternberg, J. v. (2005). Wilhelm von Humboldts Bildungsideen: Von der freien Entfaltung des Individuums zum Schulmodell [Wilhelm von Humboldt's educational ideas: from the free development of the individual to a school model]. Archiv Kulturgeschichte 87, 127–148. doi: 10.7788/akg.2005.87.1.127
Vare, P., and Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a change: exploring the relationship between education and sustainable development. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 1, 191–198. doi: 10.1177/097340820700100209
Vargas-Halabí, T., Mora-Esquivel, R., and Siles, B. (2017). Intrapreneurial competencies: development and validation of a measurement scale. Euro. J. Manage. Business Econ. 26, 86–111. doi: 10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-006
Vivona, R., Clausen, T. H., Gullmark, P., Cinar, E., and Demircioglu, M. A. (2025). Public sector entrepreneurship: an integrative review. Small Business Econ. 64, 1791–1815. doi: 10.1007/s11187-024-00965-5
Wagner, G. G. (2006). Ökonomie(sierung) und Bildung: Plädoyer für ein entspannteres Verhältnis [Economy(ization) and Education: Advocating a More Relaxed Relationship]. Zeitschrift Pädagogik 52, 43–51. doi: 10.25656/01:4443
Warwas, J. (2012). Berufliches Selbstverständnis, Beanspruchung und Bewältigung in der Schulleitung [Professional Identity, Strain, and Coping in School Leadership]. Wiesbaden: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-531-19300-7
Weiß, M. (2001). “Quasi-Märkte im Schulbereich. Eine ökonomische Analyse [Quasi-markets in the school sector: an economic analysis],” in Zukunftsfragen der Bildung, ed. J. Oelkers (Weinheim: Beltz), 69–85.
Wilkins, C., Gobby, B., and Keddie, A. (2021). The neo-performative teacher: school reform, entrepreneurialism and the pursuit of educational equity. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 69, 27–45. doi: 10.1080/00071005.2020.1739621
Keywords: educational leadership, entrepreneurial school leadership, context, entrepreneurship, innovation, K-12, K-12 leadership
Citation: Frentz J, Frenz F, Pashiardis P and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz S (2025) Contextualizing entrepreneurial leadership in the K-12 school setting—lessons from Austria and Germany. Front. Educ. 10:1671056. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2025.1671056
Received: 22 July 2025; Revised: 09 November 2025;
Accepted: 18 November 2025; Published: 10 December 2025.
Edited by:
Sereyrath Em, University of Cambodia, CambodiaReviewed by:
Carolina Ruminot, University of Ottawa, CanadaAude Ducroquet, Université d'Angers, France
Copyright © 2025 Frentz, Frenz, Pashiardis and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, c3RlZmFuLmJyYXVja21hbm5AYWF1LmF0
†ORCID: Jürgen Frentz orcid.org/0009-0003-0224-0470
Florian Frenz orcid.org/0000-0001-6368-1876
Petros Pashiardis orcid.org/0000-0003-4263-8304
Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz orcid.org/0000-0002-3849-3088