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 This page has been replaced by a current version and is available here as an archive for the AEL book version 1.0 until further notice.
“I can only say that the future does not lie in exploitation. Simply building the core business will not be enough in a world of artificial intelligence, digital, openness and ecosystems. You have to figure out how you can continue to pursue the core business and push exploration at the same time.” (translated with DeeplPro)
(Michael L. Tushman, 2020, S. 8)1
Agile Educational Leadership is my invitation to tackle the future of education together, step by step, and to shape our own educational sector as effectively and sustainably as possible through joint action. And even if dynamics and transformation are probably not the first keywords that come to mind when asked about the characteristics of the education sector and the higher education sector highlighted here as an example, they are part of its contextual conditions today. And it is even rarer to hear the term ambidexterity in relation to the areas of school and vocational training, higher education and adult and continuing education as a term for successfully dealing with parallel contradictory spheres of activity or areas of tension. However, it is precisely this ambidextrous perspective that is seen here as a possible starting point for shaping the (higher) education sector in order to align itself and its educational offerings with a future ability to act. When talking about ambidexterity, reference is made – as in the opening quotation – to two constituent modes that are decisive for the field of tension: the mode of exploration (here in the sense of exploring or innovating something new) and the mode of exploitation (here in the sense of optimization). The question that therefore arises with regard to an “educational” under the conditions of a culture of digitality is how the education sector today can move confidently in an enormously contradictory constellation between exploitation, i.e. optimization along decades of experience, and exploration in the sense of realignment and testing of changed structures and models?
Thus, an ‘either or’ perspective on this contradiction may presumably seem appropriate at present, because as a state-funded (higher) education system, there would be little to fear from a dynamic market (as is the case in other countries such as the USA). And so the main focus at the moment seems to be on optimizing the core business — or, as is often heard in the pandemic situation, how to get as close to normality as possible under the current circumstances. With Agile Educational Leadership, a different perspective is now being proposed, based on the aforementioned concept of ambidexterity: With Agile Educational Leadership, I would like to invite all actors, and among them above all all persons involved, to act confidently in the field of tension of a ‘both and’.
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)]
- Dynamics and contradictions as contextual conditions in the education system
- Ambidexterity
- Personal ambidexterity as a reference point for agile leadership
Dynamics and contradictions as contextual conditions in the education system
The German education system is characterised by stability, a high level of bureaucratisation and formal, institutional reliability, especially in the school sector – in addition to its federal specificity. If you also look at the different areas of education, such as extracurricular education, vocational training or adult education and continuing education, including a lifelong perspective, it can be assumed that all areas endeavour to provide the best possible educational opportunities at all times, depending on their target group. In the following, we will take a closer look at the higher education sector as an example before describing the ambidexterity concept in more detail.
Example of higher education and research
Today, the higher education sector and, above all, universities as we know them, are characterized by the fact that it is part of their core to critically and researchingly engage with the new, with innovation and the unknown. It is therefore part of the essence of universities to systematically seek out the new, to explore it and to critically reflect on it in relation to the current state of knowledge and relate it to one another. This can lead to the previous state of knowledge having to be revised and reassessed. Because the guiding principle here, briefly described, is that no truth, no knowledge is absolute and fixed. Instead, it is only valid until a systematically justifiable contrary finding emerges in the course of research and in the methodologically comprehensible examination of empirical evidence and theory development, this finding is critically recognized in the specialist community and, depending on the result of the review, the respective state of knowledge is sometimes adjusted. This so-called falsification principle3 is certainly easier to understand when new measurement data lead to previous assumptions having to be readjusted or can be made more precise in the sense of progress; however, the principle also applies when new prehistoric skeletal finds lead to us being able to read in the press that certain assumptions about early and prehistoric human history need to be reassessed and improved.
The perspectives described on the creation of knowledge should make it clear that the nature of universities in every subject is already based on the idea of ‘both’: They work with the existing knowledge base and improve and optimise it as well as constantly striving to update and innovate it using appropriate research methods. In this respect, research and science are subject to a constant dynamic to which they react systematically and confidently.
Exkursus: Inquiry-Based Learning
It would now be reasonable to assume that, based on the experiences in research, it would be similar with regard to the equally constant further development of higher education in the narrower sense presented through study and teaching. However, the long-standing discussion about suitable forms of teaching and learning at universities illustrates how contradictory the attitudes and perspectives between research and teaching at universities can sometimes be. For decades, for example, there has been an endeavour to establish research-based learning more strongly across all subjects in addition to the traditional lecture, seminar or (laboratory) practical experience. This is characterised by the fact that “learners (co-)design, experience and reflect on the process of a research project, which is aimed at gaining knowledge that is also of interest to third parties, in its essential phases — from the development of questions and hypotheses to the selection and implementation of methods to the examination and presentation of results in independent work or in active collaboration in an overarching project” (Huber, 2009, p. 11, translated with DeeplPro)4.
This very university-specific form of teaching and learning, which is also used at least as much in its basic features in the school context, harbours the potential, in terms of content and subject matter, of dealing with a ‘both and’ in teaching if it is used in its actual form geared towards promoting research-based self-determination. Viewed objectively, it can therefore make a major contribution to contemporary teaching that prepares students for dealing with uncertain problem solutions. However, regardless of the implementation of more or less open variants of research-based learning (Huber & Reinmann, 2019)5. Although Inquiry-Based Learning is still a didactic approach that adorns many models of good teaching at universities, it is not a matter of course in all degree programmes. To this day, an obvious format such as Inquiry-Based Learning requires tireless research-based justification and argumentation; this also applies to many more open, participative and essentially learner-centred teaching and learning formats, including problem-based or case-based learning, with a view to a possible contribution to the acquisition of future skills or 21st century skills.
Mode Transition
The fact that a confident ‘as well as’ approach in the education sector today tends to take a back seat to an ‘either or’ perspective in everyday life is once again made clear by the example of digitalisation. Similar to the corporate context, the digital transformation also affects the various education sectors in a variety of ways within their organisational framework — starting with their necessary mechanisation and digitalisation, through a digital transformation of their own administrative and business processes, to cultural change under the conditions of digitality. In addition, questions of digitalisation and digitality are also likely to be a topic or subject in all subjects themselves. It should therefore be questioned to what extent the image of a stable and persistent educational sector beyond dynamic influences that was raised at the beginning needs to be addressed at all? However, the topic of digitalisation alone, in the sense of creating a sustainable infrastructure with regard to educational technologies, concerns the entire education sector, which lags behind in international comparison not only due to federal peculiarities (see Kerres, 2020)6.
This makes it all the more important to question the extent to which it is not time for the entire education sector to reconsider its extremely strong focus on its core business in relation to its commitment to innovation and future-oriented developments and to look for alternative paths. At least two new orientations could probably be worth a try here: firstly, a more natural way of thinking and acting in small, iterative steps and, secondly, a more natural ambidextrous perspective in the sense of a ‘both and’ in decisions and implementation processes. After all, why should the education sector, as an equally affected part of the social megatrend of digitalisation, have such a completely different perspective to the one Tushman formulates for the corporate sector in the opening quote?
Ambidexterity
When we have previously spoken of a ‘both and’ perspective for the entire education sector, we were and still are referring to the adoption of an ambidextrous perspective (see https://www.ambidextrie.de/ and https://www.thinktank-ambidextrie.com for current German-language developments and work with a company perspective, for example). As the ambidextrous perspective is repeatedly taken up in subsequent chapters such as Agility and Leadership and adapted in a summarizing perspective Agile Educational Leadership, it is now introduced and described in more detail in its original sense in the following, in addition to the brief description above in the introduction to this chapter.
Ambidexterity, borrowed from the literal source, stands for being dexterous with both hands and thus refers to the art or skill of being able to act confidently with both hands without any particular preference – similar to the ability to write equally well with the left and right hand. This principle was originally applied primarily to managers or decision-makers. Ambidexterity or ambidextrous action as a concept originates from management and organizational theory and refers to the skill of dealing confidently with parallel, irreconcilable directions and areas at the level of an organisation or, as will be emphasized here and will be of even greater relevance in the further course for an Agile Educational Leadership, at the level of one’s own person.
Duality of exploitation and exploration
In the area of corporate management, referring back to John Kotter, for example, the best possible handling of dynamic external requirements, such as those currently arising from the digital transformation process, can be regarded as a likely strategy for companies to survive economically in one form or another (see, for example, Kotter, 2015)7. He thus comes to the conclusion, which he describes as fundamental, that the world is changing at an increasingly rapid pace and that systems, structures and cultures, as they developed over the course of the last century, are now no longer able to cope with the increasing new demands of the emerging dynamics in the same way as they did in the last century. He points out that further optimisation of what has gone before cannot contribute to operating successfully with and in change, but rather a completely new approach of a “dual operating system” is necessary:
“However, the solution is not to discard all our knowledge and start again from scratch. It is to naturally introduce a second system that most successful entrepreneurs are probably already familiar with. The new system provides the necessary agility and speed, while the continuation of the old system ensures reliability and efficiency” (translated with DeeplPro)
(Kotter, 2015, S. 4)7
What Kotter refers to here as the duality of two operating systems in an organisation is discussed elsewhere as organisational ambidexterity, when an organisation enables or must enable two modes through ambidexterity: Exploitation and Exploration.
The concept of ambidexterity was essentially developed by O’Reilly and Tushman (et al. 2008)8, following on from March (1991)9, were introduced into the discussion. They refer to organizational ambidexterity as the ability of a company to both flexibly develop and tap into new things (exploration) and to efficiently optimize its core business (exploitation) at the same time. The aim of this essentially very pragmatic dual strategy, or as Kotter describes it with a dual operating system, is to ensure the existence or even survival of an organization when the framework conditions are characterized by high dynamics and change, and currently above all by digital transformation processes. In a recent interview, Tushman gets to the heart of the basic idea of ambidexterity with reference to systems theory, in which he emphasizes.
“that the manager and their team have to build two completely different organisational structures together. […]: one for exploration, one for exploitation. And it is essential that these two systems are themselves inconsistent […]. It’s about confronting managers with the challenge of having to be consistently inconsistent and build completely different organisational structures at the same time in order to be successful today and tomorrow”. (Translated with DeeplPro)
(Tushman, 2020, S. 4)1
Organizational ambidexterity is therefore permanently faced with the conflict-laden task of enduring constant change in the form of a permanently existing contradiction and mastering it both structurally and culturally. A clear area of tension is expressed above all in the question of resources. The decisive factor for organizational ambidexterity is therefore the decisive balancing of resources for exploitation and exploration and thus constructively averting a supposedly permanent competitive situation in order to be able to align and position the companies for the future in all areas through flexibility and adaptability. Too great an imbalance between the two modes harbours the danger of falling too much into one or the other. What happens if too little attention is paid to change and dynamics has already been outlined above.
Organisational ambidexterity
The previous sections have focused on organisational ambidexterity as an external contextual condition and how it is managed by executives. Duwe (2020, p. 28 f.)10 summarizes the currently discussed forms of ambidexterity and differentiates three variants of organizational ambidexterity:
- First we speak of sequental ambidexterity when there is a temporal separation of the phases of exploration (innovation) and exploitation (testing, stabilisation of innovation), whereby this approach does not use the simultaneity of ambidexterity, but is oriented towards traditional approaches in less dynamic environments. Basically, there is little or no ambidexterity. In the context of education, it is important to consider the many funded projects and initiatives that usually come to an end when the (funded) innovation phase comes to an end.
- Secondly, we speak of structural ambidexterity when there is a spatial separation of exploration and exploitation. Here, the modes of exploitation and exploration can very well function simultaneously and side by side. In the education sector, for example, one could think of parallel structures of established linear IT services and support structures (exploitation) and network-like structured makerspaces or digital hubs or media labs (exploration). The particular challenge is not to allow these structures to develop in a competitive relationship, but to bring them together and build bridges between them. The aim of this form of ambidexterity is therefore to build and cultivate dual structures that exist side by side in the organisation (see also the example of Tushman (2020)1 on how Harvard Business School HBS deals with the challenges of digitalisation in terms of organisational ambidexterity).
- Thirdly, contextual ambidexterity is becoming particularly interesting as a further and most demanding form of organisational ambidexterity. It refers to a form of ambidexterity in which exploitation and exploration occur simultaneously within an organization or organizational unit and neither structure nor sequencing provides for an apparent separation of the modes. Contextual ambidexterity is the challenging form of ambidexterity to find both modes simultaneously and to balance and combine them in an integrated way. Examples of this in all areas of education, from school and vocational to university, adult education and further education, are becoming rare. However, it is precisely here that a great opportunity is seen for the future, incremental and agile development of education, to be linked to agile educational leadership.
Strictly speaking, both sequential and structural ambidexterity allow for an ‘either or’ perspective. Only contextual ambidexterity at the level of organisation and structures in the various areas of education calls for a consistent ‘both and’ perspective, as is constitutive of the basic idea of agile educational leadership. And if we take another closer look, it seems only logical that contextual ambidexterity does not necessarily limit decisions and actions to two options alone — especially with regard to complex problems, there are usually more than two options that need to be balanced with one another.
Intellectual ambidexterity
So far, the focus has been on the organization as a point of reference for ambidexterity. However, it is precisely contextual ambidexterity that opens up the possibility of including people more strongly at the actor level alongside the organization. In the field of education in particular, it is clear that educational organizations are shaped and developed with and by all individuals as actors – together.
In addition to contextual ambidexterity, the fourth form of ambidexterity is an interesting approach for agile educational leadership, which all people in the education sector can adopt. Because Duwe (2020)10 now further recognizes, fourthly, an intellectual ambidexterity that considers ambidexterity through internal, personal conditions. This flexibility manifests itself, for example, in the cross-over abilities of individuals who have expertise or talent in more than one subject area and are able to balance these. In the education sector, this would presumably be referred to as competences and a confident attitude towards interdisciplinarity or even transdisciplinarity. It is also conceivable that such personalities might find it easier to deal with cultural change and (teaching-related) change in the education sector than other people.
With a view to classic management executives, Tushman finds words here that are geared more towards traditional management models, but nevertheless clearly demonstrate how relevant the interplay of organizational and intellectual ambidexterity could be:
“As discussed, ambidextrous structures are easy to place, as are linking mechanisms. The one decisive factor that makes the difference between success and failure is the ability of the manager and their team to embrace contradictions and paradoxes. This ability to be in agreement with contradictions and consistently inconsistent is what makes the most successful ambidextrous companies. Leadership skills therefore define the difference between PowerPoint slides and implementation. But unlike typical leadership approaches that demand consistency, we encourage leaders to embrace contradiction and paradox and to give the organisation an identity that can embrace this contradiction.” (translated with DeeplPro)
(Tushman 2020, S. 9)1
In the education sector, we would no longer speak of managers and teams, but rather of leadership, as will be shown in the following chapters. However, shaping future education today also requires a perspective of ‘being able to affirm’ change or, to put it simply, a confident ‘as well as’ perspective as part of professional composure in dealing with cultural change and teaching-related change.
Since not only intellect, but also at least social and communicative skills for shaping relationships play an essential role for cultural change in the education sector, especially with regard to other categories, we speak here in a broader sense of personal or personal ambidexterity with regard to the actor level of the people who can take on agile educational leadership in their areas.
Personal ambidexterity as a reference point for agile leadership
The idea of agile educational leadership is not primarily a method, but rather an attitude and a mindset of openness and flexibility in dealing with dynamics and transformation processes. In this respect, this approach seeks points of contact in thinking and acting in terms of a contextual, organisational and personal, situated ambidexterity in the sense of a consistent, integrating ‘both and’, rather than persisting in difference-related and delimiting ‘either or’ ways of seeing and acting. In relation to the person, this is primarily about a role and basic attitude and not a function.
At the same time, it becomes clear that coping with contextual ambidexterity at the organizational level can hardly be considered separately from the person and thus from personal ambidexterity. In addition, culture and values play a key role in successful change. The individuals in this overall structure are therefore faced with an enormously ambivalent challenge of being able to act confidently and integrate in a highly diverse, inconsistent and sometimes even paradoxical framework – always with a view to the contradictory fields of exploration and exploitation and the ability to prioritize, curate and integrate as appropriate to the situation. It can be described as a superhuman challenge to be constantly travelling in such areas of tension without completely clear lines and ‘either or’ constellations. At this point, the contribution that an educational perspective makes in terms of professionalism in the field of education is particularly evident: dealing with contradictory situations for which there are often no clear rules at first, but only situational, case-related action based on theoretical and practical knowledge, has been a natural part of pedagogical professionalism for years. This also demonstrates a fundamental ability to connect to the so-called constitutive pedagogical antinomies of action, which must be further developed in the course of agile values and leadership.
(Helsper, 1996, p. 537)11. For example, ambidexterity in the sense of irreconcilable opposites in the form of an antinomy or paradox between consistency and innovation plays a key role. Other antinomies or paradoxes in pedagogical action are, for example, the contradiction between organization and interaction or closeness and distance, as well as the paradoxical situation between autonomy and heteronomy or self-determination and heteronomy already mentioned in the context of personal orientation.
In order to remain capable of acting in this ambidextrous contradiction, the question of the role and significance of agile values and principles as well as practices is further explored in order to deal confidently with a constantly dynamic environment.
This raises the question of the extent to which people working in the education sector in particular do not find themselves permanently in ambidextrous situations between exploitation and exploration, in which they have to iteratively and thus agilely and ambidextrously curate and manage the different requirements and objectives for themselves and their environment and thus assume or could assume appropriate leadership for their respective area in order to build bridges in the organisation and with the people.
- Tushman, M. (im Gespräch mit) T. Schumacher (2020). Ambidextrie gestern und heute. Ein Interview mit Mike Tushman. OrganisationsEntwicklung, 4, 4 – 9. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Licence: https://de.freepik.com/psd/mockup”>Mockup PSD byn Vectorium – de.freepik.com; bool-cover by Kerstin Mayrberger, Lizenz CC BY 4.0 [↩]
- https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifikationismus, accessed 06.04.2021 [↩]
- Huber, Ludwig (2009). Warum Forschendes Lernen nötig und möglich ist. In: L. Huber, J. Hellmer, & F. Schneider (Hrsg.): Forschendes Lernen im Studium. Aktuelle Konzepte und Erfahrungen. (S. 9 – 35). Bielefeld: UniversitätsverlagWebler. [↩]
- Huber, L., & Reinmann, G. (2019). Vom forschungsnahen zum forschenden Lernen an Hochschulen. Wege der Bildung durch Wissenschaft. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. doi: 10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 24949‑6 [↩]
- Kerres, M. (2020). Against All Odds: Education in Germany Coping with Covid-19. Postdigital Science and Education, 2, 690 – 694. doi:10.1007/s42438-020 – 00130‑7. [↩]
- Kotter, J. P. (2015). Accelarate. Strategischen Herausforderungen schnell, agil und kreativ begegnen.München: Vahlen. [↩] [↩]
- O’Reilly, C., & Tushman. M. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organisational Behavior, 28, 185 – 206. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002 [↩]
- March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71 – 87. [↩]
- Duwe, J. (2020). Beidhändige Führung: Wie Sie als Führungskraft in großen Organisationen Innovationssprünge ermöglichen. Berlin: Springer Gabler. [↩] [↩]
- Helsper, W. (1996). Antinomies of teacher action in modernised pedagogical cultures. In W. Helsper & A. Combe (Eds.), Pädagogische Professionalität. Untersuchungen zum Typus pädagogischen Handelns (p. 70 – 182). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. [↩]
