Agility 1.0 - Agile Educational Leadership

Lesezeit: 42 Minuten

Note (15.02.2024): Last updated on 23.09.2021 (changelog). This page has been replaced by a current version and is available here as an archive for the AEL book version 1.0 until further notice.

“The agile university will become unavoidable as the digital transformation of society progresses.” (translated with DeeplPro)

(Dirk Baecker, 2017, S. 26)¹

If the path is rocky and has many obstacles and bends that you can’t see, then I move forwards consciously and purposefully, step by step. When it is dark and not everything is brightly lit and clearly visible, I move forwards with heightened senses, also feeling, hearing or even smelling, in order to increase my perception of my immediate surroundings through stimuli, impulses or general resonance and to be able to react more quickly.

Something similar is also meant when it is repeatedly stated in this book that I see Agile Educational Leadership as an invitation and an opportunity, alongside other options, to get started today and courageously and directly begin, step by step, to develop and sustainably shape our own educational sector with a firm focus on the future of education with its learners in all its diverse facets and needs.

This means starting now and taking action without knowing what the right solution for everyone and the supposed master plan for every educational institution looks like, without knowing how the framework conditions and offers for lifelong learning will develop in the coming years under the conditions of digitalization and digitality or what traces the digital transformation will leave behind in structures and responsibilities.

These seemingly abstract and complex challenges for the design of education at all levels in the course of dynamic social changes can be experienced and emotionally grasped very concretely using the example of the current pandemic, when the big question, at least in schools and universities, is how things should continue after the summer break with online teaching or teaching, in presence, hybrid or in alternating models or mixed or blended learning variants that are still to be developed, or when companies and authorities ask themselves which forms of work between online and presence, from home and on site in the office should – or can – continue. After all, we don’t currently know how the general conditions will change in the coming weeks and months. How will the pandemic develop? How will the climate develop? How will forms of employment and labour markets develop? How will the political climate in the world develop? And what will this do to us and our everyday lives? What will the so-called “new normal” look like?

It is currently unclear which paths will prove to be the most sensible in this unmanageable environment, which paths will be taken and which will be avoided and whether the solutions developed could have been planned or seen in this way today. At the same time, it is already obvious today that standing still and even persisting in non-movement until the already known solutions and movement patterns could take effect again will not help us to make progress in time.

My assumption is that an examination of the importance of agility and the role of agile values, methods and basic ideas for the (higher) education sector at all levels and between individuals and organizations could be very concrete and effective in the short term in solving complex challenges that are now the order of the day and already need to be solved today.

Based on this assumption, speed is an important element when testing solutions and I have therefore decided to publish my thoughts so far, knowing that this is only a first iteration of further ones to follow – and also knowing that Agile Educational Leadership
Agile Educational Leadership can be deepened much better by a cross-functional team. Even though it is so easy to write here in the original agile sense, promptly and transparently providing a possible, first (only implicitly commissioned) product of the
Agile Educational Leadership approach in the form of an MVP for feedback from stakeholders, it is an unusual practice in the academic field. And yes, this ambivalence is sometimes more and sometimes less easy to deal with. And yet this change in practice can also be a possible response to the so-called VUCA world from a science of today that is now also more focused on transfer.

In addition to VUCA as a context, the following chapter will also look at the role of agility and the importance of being agile in the form of values and principles and doing agile in the form of practices and methods in equal measure. At the same time, it will critically scrutinise when agility makes sense and when it does not. Last but not least, we will discuss why solutions to complex problems, such as those we are increasingly encountering in the education sector, are more likely to be found in dialectical rather than dual models.

Licence²

[Note: If the media file is not displayed correctly in your browser, all podcast chapters of the AEL book version 1.0 can also be listened to directly here.(german version)]

Agility as both a demand and a challenge
Agility as the answer to complexity
Agility in the education sector

Agility as both a demand and a challenge

This chapter is entitled Agility. And in the meantime, I have asked myself whether I should leave it at that. Because the term “agile” currently seems to be perceived and used in very different ways, somewhere between very reactive action and very proactive activities.

On the one hand, “agile” as a synonym can be taken to mean that there is no need to present a fixed plan or structure and that one can merely rely on a reactive “on-sight” approach, sometimes even justifying a “laissez-faire” approach to process progression and management, coupled with the promise of salvation that “with agile” everything will be better than with the tried-and-tested milestone plan, because one is now more flexible and open to any impulses. And on the other hand, “agile” as a dazzling term for miracles of change in organizations and project management processes seems to be met with just as much frustration or disillusionment, and is sometimes even feared, when after a euphoric, comprehensive roll-out of Scrum, for example, for the agile transformation of the organization, helplessness sets in – or, metaphorically speaking, after the dazzling “change party”, no one is left to help clean up so that a suitable everyday life can return.

Meaning and role of agility
On closer inspection, the term agile or agility is not a current hype and certainly not new, but rather it and the many ideas and convictions that go with it are already decades old and perhaps that is why a reference to agility is already outdated – perhaps that is why it is no longer up to date? Or is this one of those cases where a product or topic was too far ahead of its time to be widely accepted? In the case of agility, it would be the removal from its original context of origin in information technology and the more product-related software development to a complementary perspective on the iterative development of service offerings in other development areas. In addition to product-related processes, this also includes social development processes in organizations and interaction structures — as is also the case with agility in an educational context.

To answer the question of what agility means (see Rahn 2018 for a more detailed discussion of the term agility)³, today, in addition to referring to the direct meaning or synonyms such as skilful, agile or nimble in the context of New Work and agile perspectives on organisations and corresponding leadership, reference is usually made to its origin in the context of software development or, more precisely, in finding a new form of value-driven project management for a better software product from the customer’s point of view. The development of agile software development methods, especially in the 1990s, was closely linked in its beginnings to a corresponding agile movement, because it was completely different from what had been customary until then (see Gloger, 2016, p. 19ff. for more details on the history of agile software development in close connection with the emergence of the Scrum framework, among others)((Gloger, B. (2016). Scrum – Produkte zuverlässig und schnell entwickeln. Carl Hanser: München.)).

The Agile Manifesto
Even though there were different activities at the time (see for example on clean agile Martin, 2019)⁴, the most concise was the one that resulted in the Agile Manifesto in 2001. It defines four central values for joint action, on which 12 principles are based. The manifesto with its first signatories is documented in many languages and is still a central reference today⁵.

In order to better understand the basic idea of the current discussion about agility and what has developed up to now and is currently being developed further, it seems useful to quote the Agile Manifesto at this point:

“We are uncovering better ways of developing
software by doing it and helping others do it.
Through this work we have come to value:

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan

That is, while there is value in the items on
the right, we value the items on the left more.“⁶

In the presentation of the pairs of values in the middle section of the manifesto, it is easy to see that agile and traditional values are placed in relation to each other and, despite the emphasis on the left-hand side, the right-hand side is considered less, but still with different weighting in the sense of a both/and, and not completely rejected. This is a fundamental approach, particularly in the context of considering how agility and existing structures can come together, for example in the form of organizational ambidexterity. For such a change in perspective and the associated shift in inner values, it is fundamental to become aware of the new, which is what the agile manifesto wanted to express over 20 years ago with the core values, when individuals and interactions are prioritized over linear formalization for the quality of results. There is a shift in focus from formal hierarchies, stable structures, functional responsibilities and high-performance processes to a more people-orientated and value-based culture that aims to combine the interests of employees and the respective stakeholders with a view to the company’s product or offering and their interests. With Frederic Laloux (2015)⁷ with regard to the organizational level, agility can also tend to be classified for a development from a conformist to a performance-oriented form of organization to a postmodern, pluralistic organization. Instead of just stability and a focus on performance, networks and empowerment and therefore people and their cooperation within the organization are becoming more important. Agility is no less about good performance or a good product for the respective target group – but the path is fundamentally different.

The core idea of agility is still value-based today – and does not primarily focus on specific methods or tools; it therefore also has a lot to do with how people want to develop, position themselves or interact with each other while creating a product or a (service) offering, however contextualized, for a specific target group. Accordingly, in addition to its direct translation, the term agility is also associated with attributes such as proactive, proactive, small-step and flexible.

Example Scrum
Agile approaches and considerations always work with a goal-supporting structure that frames the joint work progress, such as the Scrum framework (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020⁸ ). Wie eine mögliche rahmende Struktur für Agilität in der Zusammenarbeit aussehen kann, lässt sich gut in Grundzügen entlang des Scrum Rahmenwerks illustrieren (siehe dazu eine exemplarische Visualisierung⁹): Ein Scrumteam besteht aus nicht mehr als 11 Personen und beinhaltet drei zentrale Rollen: ein Scrummaster bzw. eine Srummaestra, eine bzw. einen Product Owner_in sowie ein Entwicklungsteam. Das Entwicklungsteam ist mit Blick auf die zu bewältigende Aufgabenstellung bewusst in seinen Kompetenzen crossfunktional zusammengesetzt und unterstützt sich gegenseitig beim Erwerb zusätzlich notwendiger Kompetenzen. Idealerweise sind die Teammitglieder auf der Kompetenzebene Spezialist_innen in einem Bereich und bringen Überblickswissen in verwandten Bereichen mit, verfügen bzw. entwickeln ein sogenanntes T‑shaped-Profil als generalisierende Spezialist_innen. Es liegt also ein starker Personenfokus vor, der neben der Kompetenzbetrachtung auch eine gute, diversitätssensible Zusammenarbeit in den Vordergrund stellt, die durch den Scrummaster bzw. die Scrummaestra begleitet wird. Im Fokus steht das gemeinsame Produkt, dessen Anforderungen über den bzw. die Product Owner_in im Kontakt mit den Stakeholder_innen oder der Zielgruppe erfasst und für das Entwicklungsteam aufbereitet werden.

Put simply – and this is where the Scrum process begins – this role collects and prioritises all requirements in a product backlog so that they can be processed in the so-called sprints. Individual team sprints can last from one week to a maximum of four weeks. At the beginning of a sprint, the development team draws the tasks from the comprehensive product backlog in a team event, the sprint planning, which combine a self-chosen sprint goal and create added product value for the customer. These are transferred to a sprint backlog. Throughout the entire sprint, the development team concentrates on this sprint backlog and works undisturbed on the tasks agreed for this manageable period of time according to the competences available in the team. This team collaboration on individual tasks always requires regular coordination with each other with a view to the result or product. To this end, the Scrum team openly and trustingly exchanges information, ideally for a maximum of 15 minutes every day in another team event, the Daily Scrum, about what has been worked on since the last meeting, where hurdles have arisen or questions remain unanswered and what is next on the agenda. This meeting makes it possible for the entire team to have an overview of the joint product at all times and for each person to be able to assess their own contribution to the whole. Possible hurdles can be identified at an early stage and cleared out of the way by the Scrum master or Scrum maestra so that the development team can concentrate on developing the product together. At the end of a sprint, an increment of the planned product has been created. Ideally, the aim is for a releasable product to have been created at the end of each sprint – not yet with the full range of functions, of course, but already usable in parts by the customer. This increment is critically examined in a next team event at the end of each sprint, in the sprint review, together with the product owner and ideally with the involvement of suitable stakeholders for this development step.

In this way, an imperfect result is boldly made available for feedback at an early stage in the process and this is developed together in a targeted manner over the course of many sprints directly with the respective empirical feedback. After the sprint review, which focuses on the resulting product, the team also takes time for a sprint retrospective. In this event, which the Scrum team organizes for itself and which is accompanied by a moderator from the Scrum master or Srummaestra, there is open communication about the form of joint collaboration and the strengths and weaknesses of the last sprint are clarified at eye level. Above all, the team strives to develop as a team and reaches solution-orientated agreements for collaboration. This conscious focus on joint action and joint improvement is a strength in the context of agility. This is why the emphasis on values and the resulting principles is so central to the implementation of the method – without this common understanding, these forms of collaboration based on self-organisation and trust in role-based teams would hardly be satisfactory for everyone involved and ultimately successful for the result.

Agile work and agile prozesses
The implementation of Scrum in an organisation with different roles instead of the usual functions and responsibilities basically always follows the same principles and is initially a challenging undertaking that should be well established together with the stakeholders in an organisation (for more details, see Gloger 20216)¹⁰.

By focusing on frameworks, roles and principles instead of hierarchies and responsibilities, a harmonized framework for action and decision-making is created for gradual development based on empirical feedback with the real area of application or real users in order to design proactively and to be able to react quickly through regular feedback.

Agile working is therefore more flexible when it comes to organizing the steps towards the desired result, but less flexible when it comes to the agreed framework, principles and roles for collaboration. This leads to the almost paradoxical-sounding conclusion that a consciously agile approach in a dynamic environment provides security – both in terms of the quality of the end result and its fit with the wishes of the customers or target groups, as well as the security of having the structured, collaborative freedom to develop new solutions for a requirement for which there is no routine or proven practice yet.

Every agile process is always a permanent process of change or a confrontation with uncertainty that can be experienced by the actors involved. It is precisely at this level that the corresponding considerations of changed working methods, framework conditions, organizational forms and specific leadership considerations come into play, which are discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

Between agile values and methods
At first glance, working agile seems relatively easy. For many, it starts with the practical realisation that agile working methods open up an alternative, for example, instead of producing long task lists or GANTT diagrams in projects, writing down the tasks on post-its and pushing them across a physical or virtual Kanban board. But is that already agile working? Is agile working the same as agility? And how do agile principles relate to this?

The significance of agile values
Even the agile manifesto speaks neither of methods nor of tools. If you take a closer look at Scrum, it is a framework with values, principles and practices and not a set of instructions including agile tools. Practice shows that it seems easier and sometimes more convenient to simply apply tools and methods than to grasp and live the underlying idea and values. For this reason, the question of values is sometimes underestimated and the focus is pragmatically placed on the use of tools and their optimisation. And this frequent practice already shows that in such cases, agility cannot be fully grasped or remains at the technical level and is not supported by deeper convictions, and thus there is also a risk that well-intentioned methods can degenerate into an end in themselves and lead to frustration rather than innovation (for a corresponding perspective from practice, see for example Leopold, 2019¹¹). Even if personal values cannot be changed overnight because they have grown in a person over a long period of time and certainly cannot be imposed, the gradual understanding of and work on a common value base in agile teams or between the players in a unit is central to the success of agility in an organisation and, above all, to the people involved and their satisfaction. Only then does it become clear why certain agile principles make sense and are worth using as a reliable guideline for regulated collaboration in coordination with the team.

Acting on concrete values
The Scrum framework already specifies five core values for agile collaboration: Commitment, openess, courage, focus and respect¹². This list can be explicitly expanded to include other very basic values such as communication, trust, transparency and appreciation as well as a fundamental willingness to help and share or to communicate and give feedback on an equal footing for collective ownership. Additional values such as simplicity or learning, diversity, humour and humility (see Diehl, 2021)¹³.

The exemplary presentation of the Scrum process has already indicated why these values are so central to agility in a team and in an organization. The values can come into play at different points and be related to a specific product or to the organizational perspective. Wiechmann and Paradiek (2020) illustrate that self-organization and collaboration can benefit from living agile values and that experiencing them can even be practiced¹⁴ impressively with playful references to improvisational theatre and its relation to error and learning culture. They show how agile collaboration thrives on connecting with each other, which can be expressed strikingly in a “Yes, and …” attitude instead of in mutual competition in a “Yes, but …” attitude¹⁵. Based on the five Scrum values, the authors describe eight central values or, in this case, agile mindsets:

Courage
Openess
Commitment
Trust
Focus
Respect
Communication
Feedback

Wiechmann und Paradiek (2020, S. 20)¹⁶ emphasizes the value of trust. Having trust, having confidence and being able and willing to give trust, as well as being trustworthy and trusting, is central to becoming truly agile. Trust is a condition and prerequisite for all other values or allows them to gradually become stronger, as trust cannot be imposed — similar to participation and self-organisation, for example.

Maehrlein undertakes a more classic practical application of the Scrum values to companies (2020)¹⁷ and presents negative and positive examples of implementation. The values of openness, courage and respect are cited here as examples. She again emphasizes respect as a particularly central value.

“ ‘Openness’ means two things: firstly, the willingness of the individual to engage with and try out new practices, techniques and ways of thinking, and secondly, a transparent approach to information — regardless of whether it concerns requirements, obstacles or the progress of the project. This is the only way to achieve continuous improvement.” (Maehrlein 2020, S. 20, translated with DeeplPro)¹⁷

„‘Courage’ means tackling new things without fear, doubt or reservations. It takes courage to make a difference or create something completely new — even at the risk of not succeeding.” (Maehrlein 2020, S. 23, translated with DeeplPro)¹⁷

“ ‘Respect’ means fully recognising the value of every person involved and their work, even when human weaknesses become apparent or mistakes occur. This is the basis for a trusting collaboration in which creativity can flourish and innovations can emerge. All previous values are particularly strongly influenced by this value. In other words: without respect, none of the other values can develop! Respect is also the basis for mutual trust.” (Maehrlein 2020, S. 28, translated with DeeplPro)¹⁸

Maehrlein’s description of agile values goes beyond the brief description given here and is very comprehensive and also considers important prerequisites such as psychological safety and a culture of error, feedback and learning. In addition, her explanations also allow the important conclusion to be drawn with regard to a lived diversity culture for people-orientation in the course of Agile Educational Leadership, i.e. being able to accept the heterogeneity or diversity of the people involved beyond a focus on productivity (ibid., p. 28ff.)¹⁹. As already stated with the Scrum framework, the same applies to the question of values: it is not just a matter of following framing process recommendations or ticking off a list of values, but of engaging in this way of working and thus bringing agile action (doing agile) together with an agile attitude (being agile) and adopting it coherently for oneself.

It is already clear from these buzzwords that the demands on the cooperation between the actors will be different here than in linear organizations and traditional hierarchies. Although a task to be solved or a project to be completed is the pivotal point for joint, self-organised action, the focus is on the people. Accordingly, in addition to the question of personal fit, i.e. what a person can already do and what skills and competences they bring to solving a task and to the team, the question of their own willingness to learn and develop, i.e. the question of a future-oriented and enabling perspective, is also key.

doing agile and being agile
The fundamental position of values in the context of agility is usually determined in relation to agile principles as well as agile practices and agile methods. Accordingly, a distinction is made here between being agile and doing agile. Agile values and agile principles are summarized under being agile and agile practices and agile methods under doing agile. Various illustrations are used for this catchy and central differentiation of agility, be it that agile values form the roots of a tree and thus serve as a breeding ground for the next stages²⁰ or form the base of a pyramid²¹ or the centre of an onion (see Wiechmann and Paradiek 2020, p. 55 for an adaptation of Powers’ agile onion)¹⁶. In this respect, values and principles can be combined to form a being agile, which is more strongly located at the level of attitude and emotions and forms the basis for frameworks and practices based on them, which can be considered more rational and functional (see, for example, the link to the Dilts pyramid²² to explain this illustration). )

The so-called doing agile now stands for the frameworks and concepts that usually come to mind first when the keyword agility is mentioned: be it Lean, Kanban, OKR (Objectives and Keyresults) or the aforementioned Scrum framework. The example of the Scrum framework with its different roles (such as development team, product owner and Scrum master) and principles (such as inspect & adapt) or practices, such as team meetings with reviews and retrospectives, iterative and incremental procedures in sprints, definition of done, transparent documentation and early delivery or provision of results as well as regular feedback loops, makes it clear that Scrum is not simply a method or a concept. As an example, it combines being agile and doing agile in a framework²³ that can only be implemented in a meaningful interplay in the agile sense. This interplay of values, principles and practices is also emphasised in Gloger’s (2016) explanations¹⁰, who has comprehensively prepared the framework in this sense for (business) practice in order to be able to develop customer-orientated or service-orientated products and offers under dynamic conditions. Using Scrum only at the level of doing agile therefore does not lead to agility. The decisive factor for the learning of an organization and thus the agile transformation is the being agile and thus the underlying mindset of the actors involved. In this respect, agility must be viewed in a differentiated way and its success depends heavily on how consistently the comprehensive understanding of being and doing is accepted for one’s own company or organisation and adapted in the sense of an agile transformation and associated with corresponding value-oriented agile leadership — or consciously and aware of the consequences, only at the level of implementing agile project management methods in product development (APM, Vigenschow, 2015)²⁴. If agility is utilised consistently, it can be a way of creating consistency and a specific form of security and, ideally, confidence among stakeholders in an uncertain, dynamic and unmanageable context.

Connection considerations
The term agility has taken on a trend-setting position with increasing consideration and exchange in the context of Agile Educational Leadership – and has thus displaced or better integrated original considerations such as digital educational leadership. This is because agile stands less as a reaction to dynamics and more as an invitation and offer to constantly make new decisions based on values and with a focus on the people or subjects, to move appropriately and to develop emergently with the complex context of education in a network-like and sometimes organic way with the help of agile leadership.

So far, agility itself has been discussed and the agile, value-orientated perspective has been addressed as an alternative to existing ways of dealing with complex challenges. It is becoming more important not to justify agility solely with reference to the digital transformation and existing dynamics as well as the time available for transformation. Rather, it seems important to prioritize the relevance of the framework for potentially emergent practice and practices for finding new solutions or even innovations. The knowledge of the possibilities of ambidexterity can be both relieving and challenging for process-based and sustainable development, but it offers an opportunity to approach the transformation process iteratively and incrementally together with all actors along agile values and principles.

But when exactly does the orientation towards agile values, principles and practices make sense? What context and what cultural framework is needed for the stakeholders involved — and to what extent could an expanded perspective on agility create development-orientated points of friction and connection for the (higher) education sector in the future?

Agility as the answer to complexity

Agility or agile approaches are not always preferable to previous approaches or methods of project or change management. In fact, it is even a hindrance if agile working and agile values are not consistent or are prescribed, so that pseudo-agility understandably causes resistance instead of opening up room for development. The extent to which agility suits one’s own organisation and person or personality can therefore also be classified beyond attitudes, values and even emotions along the objects.

The suitability of agility as a solution to a problem depends on the level of complexity. As agility can sometimes be prematurely assessed as a fad or special case from software development that does not appear to be immediately applicable or applicable to other areas, the contexts in which agility makes sense at all or in any case makes sense are discussed in more detail below. It should be noted at this point that, depending on the perspective on the current or desired organisational form, the (higher) education sector can be viewed as either more centralised and vertically organised or more networked and horizontally organised, as well as perceiving the experienced context as simple and complicated or complex, and that agility can play a very important role in this context.

VUCA-lifeworld
If one agrees that social conditions and therefore also the environmental and living conditions of organisations and individuals are undergoing major change, which brings with it increasing complexity and uncertainty as well as greater dynamism, the state of permanent change can be experienced more clearly, at least subjectively, than in previous years. Such developments are also described as a VUCA world. VUCA is an acronym for the terms volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity²⁵.

Each of these keywords can be placed in a larger, at least sociological, context and further differentiated theoretically with regard to social developments such as acceleration, risk or digital or systems. From an educational science perspective in particular, the changes in the subjective lifeworld described are hardly unfamiliar. As already mentioned in the Education chapter, the examination of uncertainty and ambiguity is increasingly becoming a subject of research, particularly from an educational science perspective. The changed framework conditions and requirements are a point of reference for contemporary teaching and learning and the promotion and development of corresponding 21st century skills or future skills or competences for sustainable development among learners with regard to competences for the ability to act in a future uncertain society. In the institutional education sector in particular, the focus is on pupils and students, even though a lifelong learning process can only be a matter of course here. Wolf Lotter (2020) makes a similar plea²⁶ with a view to the necessary further development of all learners or citizens, he advocates the promotion and encouragement of “complexity competence”, as he calls it, in order to be able to critically grasp and differentiate the currently complex interrelationships beyond the unambiguity and linearity that no longer exists. However, even apart from competence-orientated considerations, it is clear that framework conditions such as those strikingly outlined by VUCA are already long-established points of reference from an educational science perspective. This becomes even clearer insofar as the idea of education and personal development — especially if it is understood in a transformational way – has also regarded irritations and crisis situations in the individual educational process as the basis for subjectivisation or personal development. In this respect, it becomes clear that change and altered framework conditions are noticeable everywhere and, viewed with an open mind, will continue to represent the everyday framework (not only) for actors in the field of education until further notice. The question that will continue to arise here is to what extent, beyond the subjective educational processes, the education sector as a whole and, above all, the educational organizations and their stakeholders will allow themselves to be affected by this and are willing or able to face the changed framework with an open mind – and in what way they do and will do so.

Cynefin-framework
The Cynefin framework offers a differentiated analysis of the perceived environment with its tasks and challenges to be solved and correspondingly appropriate courses of action (Snowden & Boone, 2007)²⁷. It is often used to argue both for and against the use of agile approaches with a view to the actual context. It is also used here as a point of reference when the rest of this chapter deals with the relationship between agility and education (see also the simplified division into a blue, complicated and red, complex world, as is sometimes used for an initial approach in coaching practice²⁸).

The Cynefin framework was developed over decades along an evolutionary and adaptive basic idea and has since been iteratively developed and updated in an agile sense²⁹. The core idea of pursuing appropriate decision-making and action strategies for differently known and unknown or ambiguous contexts has remained unchanged. In the latest version from 2020³⁰, Snowden now justifiably distinguishes between clear, complicated, complex and chaotic systems (chaotic) and, as a fifth option, confusing systems that tolerate unresolved situations (or, with explication of the threshold state of liminality, also Aporetic or Confused — A/C). These include corresponding strategy combinations between act-categorise-analyse-probe-sense-respond. In short, and knowing that a framework does not allow the diversity of the situations at hand to be clearly identified, the areas can be roughly characterised as follows (see also Snowden & Rancati, 2021 for a more detailed practical transfer to decision-making processes in crises)³¹:

clear
In the clear domain, the environment is unambiguous and effects appear linearly based on a few variables in the form of information, so that the appropriate action strategy is the use of known routines and processes as well as proven practices (best practice; strategy: S‑C-R: Sense, Categorize, Respond). For example, the construction of terraced houses or blocks of flats is a very clear undertaking. The order is considered, assigned to a known category of house designs and planning begins.

complicated
In the complicated domain, the number of variables already changes compared to the simple domain, so that similar solutions or variants to already known procedures can now be developed and planned on the basis of additional specialist expertise (good practice; strategy: S‑A-R: Sense, Analyse, Respond). For example, the construction of new house variants is a complicated project. The order is recorded and identified as a variant of existing experience with a view to the new framework conditions, e.g. a smaller plot of land, then analysed on the basis of a known pattern and implemented as a new variant of the known practice and planning is started.

complex
In the complex domain, ambiguities and non-linear relationships between cause and effect are added to many variables, meaning that it is not possible to fall back on tried and tested practices because the contextual conditions are different to those that applied to complicated or simple solutions. In complex areas, the focus is on emergent development or the proactive exploration of suitable solutions for the problem (exaptive practice; strategy: P‑S-R: Probe, Sense, Respond). For example, building architect-designed houses from previously little-used material with different interests of the future residents is a complex project. The idea is developed and tested step by step, the material and feedback from the residents are scrutinised and it is traced where what works and how, and where improvements are still needed. The best plan for the given framework conditions is likely to emerge from an iterative approach or an agile approach. The main characteristic of complex is that, in retrospect, all connections can be shown as logical relationships, but the changes to individual steps cannot be recognised in advance in terms of their impact on the whole.

chaotic
In the chaotic domain, in addition to a large number of sometimes unmanageable variables, there are unstable interdependencies, which is why immediate and decisive action (usually by one or very few people) is the reaction here and completely new strategies can sometimes emerge — ideally in order to quickly stabilise the situation again and reach the complex domain and less in order to return to the controllable simple or complicated domain as quickly as possible (novel practice; strategy: A‑S-R: Act, Sense, Respond). For example, building shelters or rebuilding houses after a crisis or disaster situation such as flight or flooding is the first act of action, because any result counts more and is better than no solution. The next step is to see what makes sense and, as soon as it is possible, depending on the context, to continue acting in the clear, complicated or complex domain.

Confused; A/C
At the centre of these four domains is now the confused and aporetic critical centre (A/C) as the fifth domain, which has received greater attention in the 2020 version by taking up the idea of aporia. This environment arises when a recognised situation is not classified in the correct area of action and appropriate solutions are used. For example, acting according to established routines in a complex situation leads to a mismatch in the system and, above all, in the intended solutions and results. Snowden explicitly mentions here that it can also be possible to find no clear solution — and that it is also necessary to endure such a tension and to engage in a longer search process in order to be able to leave the aporetic area decisively. In the 2021 version of the Cynefin framework, he even suggests reducing this central, critical zone to just the three domains ordered, complex and chaotic³². Here, too, house construction is cited as an example: It becomes confusing and inappropriate when exact construction plans and schedules are followed by experimentation with known procedures or when the construction plans, including the electrical plan for residential complexes from the previous century, continue to be implemented without adaptation when framework conditions such as demographics, climate or digitalisation change.

In addition to and in combination with the Cynefin framework, the so-called “Stacey matrix” is often used (Stacy, 2000)³³. It is an independent model and visualises the relationship between the clarity of the task and the familiarity of solutions in order to be able to classify your own projects and thus decide to what extent agile or classic approaches are more suitable (see an illustrative example of the complexity of digitalization and the associated (mis)decisions in the course of digital transformation in organizations at Diehl at the end of the article³⁴ ).

In the context of transformation processes
The respective assessment of existing problem areas, tasks or projects with the help of the Cynefin framework naturally also goes hand in hand with leadership. Among other things, it is about becoming aware of the domains and one’s own location, such as the location of the challenges to be overcome, in one’s own organisation in order to make decisions on this basis. The aim is not to assign the organisation as a whole to a domain. In this respect, the Cynefin framework helps to understand, categorise and also explain which modes of action can be effective in complex environments and which are not — and which form of leadership may be appropriate. Consequently, this also means which direction an organisational transformation could take with regard to a VUCA world so that it remains capable of acting in its field. If the tasks or areas of action to be mastered remain clear or only complicated, it still appears possible to maintain the tried and tested approach even under uncertain conditions. If the company or organisation increasingly realises that its own practices no longer fit the requirements of the framework conditions or attempts to act in the non-causal domain using methods based on causal assumptions, there will be increasing friction or even a crisis. In this way, the system or the organisation can reach its limits and move more and more into a state of liminality at the confused centre. It is then called upon to reorient itself and, ideally, to cross the next threshold. If we look at the education sector with Cynefin’s glasses, we can conclude that it is currently in the critical area of confused and aporetic.

“Being at the centre” also seems to be the point at which it becomes clear what an organization wants or needs to remain capable of acting for – and to what extent the start of an agile transformation process of the organization or parts of it seems appropriate in terms of structural or contextual ambidexterity and to what extent it can convince its stakeholders of the undertaking. After all, agility is less about the question of whether agility in itself makes sense or not, and more about the question of whether people and an organization are open to change in a complex and dynamic environment and with which mindset they will embark on which path is appropriate for them individually and for the organization’s motivation.

Agility in the education sector

I have personally encountered the topic of agility in the education sector since 2015, both along agile-oriented methods in the course of the joint cross-university development of the network platform “Hamburg Open Online University“³⁵, as well as increasingly oriented towards agile values and principles and practices in the course of the (cross-faculty) development of teaching and innovative (interdisciplinary) educational offers of a central organisational unit at the time (see, among others, Mayrberger & Slobodeaniuk, 2017³⁶ sowie Mayrberger, 2017³⁷; 2020³⁸ ). In retrospect, ambidextrous practices and corresponding organisational relationships in the sense of doing agile and being agile were already recognisable and tangible in the course of these diverse trials in different settings in the context of a formal educational organisation “university”. Based on these practical experiences and conceptual reflections, as well as in exchange with the actors involved, the impulse to bring together the activities in research, teaching and practice transfer in a framework of Agile Educational Leadership has emerged over the last few years, taking into account questions of professionalism and organisational development under the conditions of digitalisation and digitality.

It is worth taking a closer look at where and in what way activities motivated by agility have already been launched in the education sector to date, from schools and vocational training to higher education, how they are developing and in what contexts agility has been addressed in the education sector in recent years. Is it more about being agile or doing agile and to what extent is agility critically reflected here and how is it adapted? Is the perspective placed more on the meso and macro level of the organisation or the micro level of the individuals or subjects?

Agility in the Context of K‑12 Education
First and foremost, there are individual activities in the school context, including vocational education and training events, which are orientated towards the micro-level of the design of teaching and learning along adapted agile methods and principles in the sense of agile learning³⁹. Adaptations of the Scrum framework are now also available for the education sector, such as EduScrum initiated by Willy Wijnands⁴⁰, scrum4schools developed by Boris Gloger⁴¹ or, more recently, KIDS Scrum for project-orientated, agile learning adapted by Barbara Hilgert and Miriam Lerch⁴². Initial experiences as contributions to agility in the education sector, primarily from a school practice and perspective, were promptly documented and compiled in jointly produced book publications by teachers themselves — both on Scrum in schools (Mittelbach, 2020)⁴³ as well as broader agility and education (Kantereit et al., 2021)⁴⁴. Agility is also no longer a foreign concept in school development (see, for example, Förtsch & Stöffler, 2021)⁴⁵.

Depending on the perspective, they emphasise either doing agile or being agile, but all stakeholders clearly express that they view agility in the context of a value-based cultural change and a changed mindset for the education sector and that being agile is therefore also taken into account. The extent to which so-called agile learning or agile teaching is fundamentally different to alternative learning and process-orientated, participatory teaching and learning methods, such as cooperative and collaborative project work, open lessons or problem-based learning, would need to be examined in each individual case.

Agility in higher education
In the German-speaking higher education sector, agile development opportunities have also been addressed in recent years at the various levels of teaching and teaching development, programme and degree course development as well as in the context of administration, administration and academic management. As in the school sector, experience at the micro level of teaching organisation still predominates. The attribute agile has also found its way into the didactic and, above all, methodological design of university teaching, for example in agile university didactics (Arn, 2017)⁴⁶, in agile studying (Stern, 2019)⁴⁷ as well as agile learning (Arn & MacKevett, 2020)⁴⁸. Initial adaptations of EduScrum (Wijnands & Stolze, 2019) can also be found⁴⁹ in institutions of Higher Education (e.g. at the Mannheim University of Applied Sciences⁵⁰ ) or by scrum4schools (Gloger, 2019)⁵¹, e.g. at the Munich University of Apllied Sciences⁵². There is also extensive experience in the course of teaching development projects and cross-university innovation projects (u.a. Mayrberger, 2019)⁵³ as in agile degree programme development (e. g. Seidl & Vonhof, 2017)⁵⁴.

Overall, the higher education sector with a focus on agile teaching appears to be somewhat more systematically positioned at the various levels of international discussion under the keywords lean education and agile education, and agility in the context of teaching-related change appears to be more tangible as a research and development topic as well as an object (e.g. Parsons & MacCullum, 2019)⁵⁵. With a focus on agile learning and agile teaching, a major challenge is certainly to find a common understanding for the respective educational sector from school to university and beyond for lifelong learning of what exactly the product is in terms of agile processes, which is to be improved along agile values, principles, methods and practices in exchange with learners or general customers in constant, iterative feedback loops in such a way that it creates the greatest benefit.

Agility in the university organisation
The question of agility in the German-speaking (higher) education sector does not currently remain solely in the context of agile teaching and research projects and development teams that are organized along agile principles and methods. Initial assessments and positioning are also taking place in the discussion here.

From the perspective of academic and project management at universities, agile approaches are seen as increasingly important (e.g. Hanft et al., 2016⁵⁶; Hanft et al., 2017⁵⁷ ). In Switzerland, the first university for agile education (HfaB) has even been founded with a focus on teacher training⁵⁸. In addition, a platform for agile administration is forming in German-speaking countries⁵⁹.

From the perspective of the organisation and the tradition of colleges and universities, initial, rather critical reflections and classifications of the calls for agility were made (vgl. Baecker, 2017¹ und Wilhelm, 2019⁶⁰ ). Konkrete Auseinandersetzungen mit der agilen Perspektive im Hochschulmanagement fanden unter Bezug auf Baecker Anfang 2020 zur agilen Führung als Konzept für Hochschulen in der zentralen Verbandszeitschrift des deutschen Hochschulverbandes statt (Poppelreuter, 2020)⁶¹. Das diesjährige Gutachten des Aktionsrats Bildung (Anders et al., 2021)⁶² specialising in “Leadership, management, governance. Responsibility in the education system”(translated with DeeplPro) is rather sceptical with regard to university organisation and agility. For example, with reference to the specific example of Scrum, it concludes: “Analogies in the education system are currently still difficult to imagine” (ibid., p. 51, translated with DeeplPro)⁶³. Bisher wird vor allem auf Baeckers erster Einschätzung von 2017 verwiesen, die neben einer kritischen Perspektive auf die Wirkkraft der digitalen Transformation auf die Hochschulen, auch zu bedenken gibt, dass Hochschulen so sie sich als Organisationen und nicht primär Institutionen verstehen, strukturell wie operativ sehr gute Voraussetzungen für agile Herangehensweisen mit sich brächten und Formen agilem Managements grundsätzlich gewachsen seien, „weil sie sie traditionell immer schon betreiben“ (Baecker 2017, S. 22)¹. Er stellt heraus, dass das den Hochschulen bereits innewohnende Potenzial stärker horizontal und netzwerkartig denn vertikal in Silos organisiert zu sein, vorhanden ist, wenngleich diesbezüglich zugleich noch hoher Handlungsbedarf erforderlich sei. Bei aller kritisch-analytischen Betrachtung stellt Baecker am Schluss seiner Erörterung entsprechend fest: „Die agile Hochschule wird in dem Maße unvermeidlich, wie die digitale Transformation der Gesellschaft weiter voranschreitet“ (ebd., S. 26)¹.

From educational via agile to leadership
The perspectives on agility in higher education outlined here already indicate that a distinction must be made between agile teaching and agile project management or higher education management, each with a different focus on individuals and organisations. The connection to questions of agile leadership and ambidexterity in the education sector is obvious and will be brought together and explored in greater depth later in the chapter on Agile Educational Leadership.

The above positions also indicate that the educational sector must first be considered in its specificity. By drawing on values and convictions — in addition to the inherent structural potential already mentioned by Baecker – it should be possible to build bridges between agile considerations and educational organisations in order to think of a new path that is based on a both/and approach in the variety of options of digital transformation and enables feasible, agile approaches. Accordingly, this also forms a central point of reference for the question of Agile Educational Leadership under the conditions of digitality for the future (higher) education sector.

Particularly with regard to the education sector and with a special focus on the alternative market for higher education or general academic education, which is developing in parallel despite state-supported stability, the question arises as to what extent this sector can and wants to allow itself to continue to adhere to linear forms of organisation and a culture that does not always appear to be in keeping with the times at the beginning of the 21st century. Why is the existing pyramid organisation in the education sector being clung to so vehemently when agile experiences in teaching, research and team organisation already exist? Despite all the tradition and reference to the nature of educational institutions and, in particular, the university, the question arises, not only in view of the pandemic that has now been going on for over a year and a half, to what extent today’s educational offers and actors can do without an appropriate and suitable organisational and interaction framework in order to remain confidently in motion and capable of acting in complex contexts? And the question also arises as to who can and should take on leadership in the education sector for themselves and for others in this changed framework?

Vorherige Seite: Ambidexterity 1.0Nächste Seite: Leadership 1.0

Baecker, D. (2017). Agilität in der Hochschule. Die Hochschule: Journal für Wissenschaft und Bildung, 26(1), 19 – 28. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
Licence: https://de.freepik.com/psd/mockup”>Mockup PSD by Vectorium — de.freepik.com; book-cover by Kerstin Mayrberger, Lizenz CC BY 4.0 [↩]
Rahn, M. (2018). Fundamentals of agility. In M. Rahn (ed.). Agiles Projektmanagement. Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, 5 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 23022-7_2 [↩]
Martin, R. C. (2019). Clean Agile: Back to Basics. London: Pearson Education. [↩]
see https://agilemanifesto.org/ [↩]
see https://agilemanifesto.org [↩]
Laloux, F. (2015). Reinventing Organizations: Ein Leitfaden zur Gestaltung sinnstiftender Formen der Zusammenarbeit. München: Vahlen. [↩]
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020).Der Scrum Guide. Der gültige Leitfaden für Scrum; Die Spielregeln . Abgerufen am 14 Januar 2021, von https://www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2020/2020-Scrum-Guide-German.pdf.; siehe den jeweils aktuellen Scrumguide unter https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html [↩]
https://www.scrum.org/resources/scrum-framework-poster [↩]
Gloger, B. (2016). Scrum – Produkte zuverlässig und schnell entwickeln. Carl Hanser: München. [↩] [↩]
Leopold, K. (2019). Agilität neu Denken – Warum agile Teams nichts mit Business-Agilität zu tun haben. https://leanpub.com/b/agiltaetneudenkenbundle [↩]
siehe https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#scrum-values [↩]
Diehl, A. (2021). Agile Werte – Das Herz agiler Teams und Organisationen. Accessed 15.07.2021, from https://digitaleneuordnung.de/blog/agile-werte [↩]
Wiechmann, R. & Paradiek, L. (2020). Agile Werte leben — Mit Improvisationstheater zu mehr Selbstorganisation und Zusammenarbeit. dpunkt.verlag: Heidelberg. [↩]
see for example https://agile-werte-leben.de/uebungen/ [↩]
Wiechmann, R. & Paradiek, L. (2020). Agile Werte leben – Mit Improvisationstheater zu mehr Selbstorganisation und Zusammenarbeit. dpunkt.verlag: Heidelberg. [↩] [↩]
Maehrlein, K. (2020). Agile Werte leben – so geht’s. Projektmagazin. Accessed 15.07.2021, from https://www.projektmagazin.de/artikel/agile-werte-leben [↩] [↩] [↩]
Maehrlein, K. (2020). Agile Werte leben – so geht’s. Projektmagazin. Accessed 15.07.2021, from https://www.projektmagazin.de/artikel/agile-werte-leben [↩]
Maehrlein, K. (2020). Agile Werte leben – so geht’s. Projektmagazin. Abgerufen am 15.07.2021, from https://www.projektmagazin.de/artikel/agile-werte-leben [↩]
https://www.borisgloger.com/blog/2019/05/15/der-agile-baum-als-orientierungshilfe-im-dschungel-der-agilen-begrifflichkeiten [↩]
https://digitaleneuordnung.de/blog/agile-werte/ [↩]
https://digitaleneuordnung.de/blog/dilts-pyramide/ [↩]
https://scrumguides.org/ [↩]
Vigenschow, U. (2015). AMP – Agiles Projektmanagement – Anspruchsvolle Softwareprojekte erfolgreich steuern. dpunkt.verlag: Heidelberg. [↩]
see https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=VUCA&oldid=212756560 [↩]
Lotter, W. (2020). Zusammenhänge – Wie wir lernen, die Welt wieder zu verstehen. Edition Köber: Hamburg. [↩]
Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard business review, 85(11), 68. [↩]
https://pm-blog.com/2017/09/24/blau-und-rot-in-projekten-dynamikrobustes-projektmanagement/ [↩]
https://www.cognitive-edge.com/ [↩]
https://www.cognitive-edge.com/cynefin-st-davids-day-2020-cynefin-framework/ [↩]
Snowden, D. & Rancati, A. (2021). Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, JRC123629. [↩]
https://www.cognitive-edge.com/cynefin-st-davids-day-2021 – 1‑of‑3/ [↩]
Stacey, R. D. (2000). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. The Challenge of Complexity to Ways of Thinking about Organisations . Harlow [et al.]: Financial Times Prentice Hall. [↩]
https://digitaleneuordnung.de/blog/stacey-matrix/ [↩]
https://www.hoou.de [↩]
Mayrberger, K. & Slobodeaniuk, M. (2017). Adaption agiler Prinzipien für den Hochschulkontext am Beispiel des Universitätskollegs der Universität Hamburg. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 48 (3), 211 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-017‑0376‑4 [↩]
Mayrberger, K. (Hrsg.). (2017). Agilität. Synergie. Fachmagazin für Digitalisierung in der Lehre, 3. Universität Hamburg. https://www.synergie.uni-hamburg.de/publikationen/fachmagazin-synergie.html [↩]
Mayrberger, K. (2020). Agilität als Motor für Transformationsprozesse in der Lehrentwicklung – Digitalisierung von Lehren und Lernen partizipativ gestalten, erproben und verankern. In R. Bauer, J. Hafer, S. Hofhues, M. Schiefner-Rohs, A. Thillosen, B. Volk & K. Wannemacher (Hrsg.). Vom E‑Learning zur Digitalisierung – Mythen, Realitäten, Perspektiven. Waxmann: Münster, 320 – 337. [↩]
e.g. https://agileatschool.de/ or https://www.agile-schule.org [↩]
https://eduscrum-deutschland.agile-living-room.org/ [↩]
https://www.borisgloger.com/blog/2021/02/12/so-fuehrt-ihr-scrum4schools-in-der-schule-ein-1-grundlagen [↩]
https://kidsscrum.de/ [↩]
Mittelbach, T. (ed.) (2020). Bring Scrum to Schools! It’s Time for More Agility in Teaching. Karlsruhe: Visual Ink Publishing. https://visual-books.com/scrum-in-die-schule/ [↩]
Kantereit, T., Arn, C., Bayer, H., Lévesque, V. & McKevett, D. (2021). Agilität und Bildung. Karlsruhe: Visual Ink Publishing. https://visual-books.com/agilitaet-und-bildung/ [↩]
Förtsch, M., & Stöffler, F. (2021). Die agile Schule. 10 Leitprinzipien für Schulentwicklung im Zeitalter der Digitalisierung. (2. Auflage). Hamburg: AOL-Verlag. [↩]
Arn, C. (2017). Agile Hochschuldidaktik. (2. Auflage). Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. [↩]
Stern, D. (2019). Agiles Studieren – Eine Einführung für Dozenten. Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden. doi:10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 23365‑5 [↩]
Arn, C. & MacKevett, D. (2020). The Agile in Higher Education as a Quality Question. Handbuch Qualität in Studium, Lehre und Forschung, 73. [↩]
Wijnands, W., & Stolze, A. (2019). Transforming education with eduScrum. In D. Parsons und K. MacCallum (Hrsg.), Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning (S. 95 – 114). Singapore: Springer. doi:10.1007/978 – 981-13 – 2751-3_5. [↩]
https://www.eduscrum.hs-mannheim.de [↩]
Gloger, B. (2019). Scrum4Schools – ein Projekt nimmt Fahrt auf. Accessed 15.07.2021 fromhttps://www.borisgloger.com/blog/2019/10/29/scrum4schools-ein-projekt-nimmt-fahrt-auf [↩]
https://www.borisgloger.com/blog/2018/01/25/scrum4schools-an-der-hochschule-muenchen-wie-es-den-studierenden-gefallen-hat-ein-erstes-feedback [↩]
Mayrberger, K. (Hrsg.). (2019). Angebot ≠ Auftrag. Aktivitäten im Universitätskolleg Digital 2017/2018. Sonderband zum Fachmagazin Synergie. Universität Hamburg. [↩]
Seidl, T., & Vonhof, C. (2017). Agile Prinzipien – was kann die Studiengangsenwicklung davon lernen?. Fachmagazins Synergie. Digitalisierung in der Lehre 3 , 22 – 25. [↩]
Parsons, D., & MacCallum, K. (2019). Agile education, lean learning. In D. Parsons & K. MacCallum (Eds.), Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning (pp.3 – 23). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 981-13 – 2751-3_1. [↩]
Hanft, A., Brinkmann, K. Kretschmer, S., Maschwitz, A. & Stöter, J. (2016). Organisation und Management von Weiterbildung und Lebenslangem Lernen an Hochschulen. Waxmann: Münster. [↩]
Hanft, A., Maschwitz, A. & Stöter, J. (2017). Agiles Projektmanagement an Hochschulen – get the things done. Synergie – Fachmagazin für Digitalisierung in der Lehre, 3, 8 – 15. [↩]
https://hfab.ch/ [↩]
https://agile-verwaltung.org/ [↩]
Wilhelm, E. (2019). The university as an open platform? : a critique of agility. Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung. 41(3), 66 – 79. [↩]
Poppelreuter, S. (2020). Agile Führung. Ein Konzept auch für Hochschulen? Forschung & Lehre: alles was die Wissenschaft bewegt, 27(1), 54 – 55, von https://www.forschung-und-lehre.de/heftarchiv/ausgabe-120/ [↩]
Anders Y., Daniel HD., Hannover B., Köller O., Lenzen D., McElvany N., Seidel T., Tippelt R., Wilbers K., Woessmann L. (2021). Führung, Leitung, Governance: Verantwortung im Bildungssystem. Gutachten des Aktionsrates Bildung . Hrsg. von der Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft. Münster: Waxmann DOI: 10.31244/9783830994008 [↩]
Anders Y., Daniel HD., Hannover B., Köller O., Lenzen D., McElvany N., Seidel T., Tippelt R., Wilbers K., Woessmann L. (2021). Führung, Leitung, Governance: Verantwortung im Bildungssystem. Gutachten des Aktionsrates Bildung . Hrsg. von der Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft. Münster: Waxmann DOI: 10.31244/9783830994008 [↩]