AAEL Practice PlayBook for the AAEL journey: action-oriented and participative
PlayBook on the Ambidextrous Agile Educational Leadership (AAEL) framework for the practice of (higher) education in the post-digital era
- Part I — To theAAEL Practise PlayBook
- Part II — Make a start!
- Part III — Taking the next step
- Focus 1: Post-digitality (gray)
- Fokus 2: Beidhändig (orange)
- Focus 3: Agile (green)
- Fokus 4: Bildung (blau)
- Focus 5: Leadership (yellow)
- Focus 6: Being (pink)
- Focus 7: Organization (light violet)
- Focus 8: Doing (purple)
- Focus 9: Person (violet)
- Focus 10: Values (rose)
- Focus 11: Principles (purple)
- Focus 12: Culture (petrol)
- part IV — Outlook AAEL Practice PlayBook
Part I — To theAAEL Practise PlayBook
A lot is already there
In the spirit of a dwarf on the shoulders of giants – as can be read in the introduction to the AAEL framework – well-known methods can also and especially be used for AAEL practice transfer. For possible ways of implementing AAEL, these include above all practices from the contexts of (systemic) consulting and coaching as well as (agile) organizational development.
After all, there is already a lot that AAEL can do to jointly improve higher education for and in the post-digital age, in which analog and digital are naturally merging. Existing methods and practices can be directly adopted for leadership in the practice of (higher) education in transition in line with the AAEL framework – or serve as an inspiration and starting point for further and completely new developments.
To the AAEL Practice PlayBook
In this AAEL Practice PlayBook, the focus is on providing action-oriented ideas and impulses for the joint, proactive design of a practice of higher education in change with Ambidextrous Agile Educational Leadership. The shortened term “AAEL practice” continues to encompass the entire field of practice and practices in which the implementation and integration of this specific leadership approach can take place from the micro to the macro level with its principles in the sense of the AAEL framework.
The AAEL PlayBook follows a unique style: it offers concrete practical suggestions from a systemic perspective that deal in depth with the individual elements of the AAEL framework and their interplay – questioning, interacting and reflecting and with the aim of taking direct action with the next step. The impulses are not exhaustive for all possibilities of implementation, but exemplary for a coherent direction in the sense of the framework.
For those who want to access the AAEL framework directly from the PlayBook, optional references to in-depth information and cross-references to the other chapters have been included at the relevant points. It is not absolutely necessary to read this chapter linearly — although it is currently structured linearly via the text flow.
Find the starting point together
When it comes to making a start, it is easy to be tempted to think linearly, in stages and phases and, above all, to wait for or expect the “right” or a starting point. However, starting in the sense of AAEL does not mean starting from scratch, but starting directly. With a first manageable experiment or trial. And where the greatest pressure to act can be felt or where a rapid change is expected and where it is feasible and suitable in terms of organization and personnel. In other words, determine a smart starting point and target area that, on the one hand, allows for a variety of considerations and is experienced as meaningful and of genuine interest to those involved, but is also realistically feasible within a manageable period of time. This clarity in starting point or lever as well as target field or target space (respectively) at the beginning is important because such a process could sometimes be perceived and experienced by the actors involved (including internal and external stakeholders) as extra effort both in implementation and in ongoing critical (self-)reflection.
The task at the start is therefore to find a good starting point together in order to make an active start. This works well by looking closely and listening carefully, as well as feeling closely and being sensitive to dynamics and relationships; to find out what is already there and what can be built on or built upon. In each case, it is important to determine which actors stand for a common ground, taking into account the specifics of the individual university.
The following practical PlayBook deliberately draws on a constructed, fictitious case study of a university that already appears in the practical transfer – the Learning University (LU). The aim is to illustrate a possible approach to the AAEL principles of action. This will hopefully make concrete methodological approaches more comprehensible and thus inspire and encourage their application and adaptation at your own university.
Part II — Make a start!
We are back at the fictitious Learning University. There have been preliminary orientation talks.
And now let’s imagine the following short scene in the course of a first personal meeting of a small group of people:
— “Okay. And where and with whom do I or do we start specifically with us?” —
— “What question or topic is currently pressing? Where are people for which topics with whom an initial project can be constructively piloted as a field of action and experimented with together? This is where we start!” —
— “And when can we start?” —
— „Now!“ —
— „And how exactly can we get started?“ —
— „That depends: There are many possibilities1 between a soft and a hard start with AAEL, between an analytical, creative or social approach — and just as many suitable methods and strategic approaches. 2 Here in the AAEL framework, it’s all about designing together. And first of all, it’s about taking a close look and listening and also sensing what is happening in order to get a good feel for the organization and its needs.” —
— “That sounds pretty vague at first, should we really just start now – or should we prepare and present something first?” —
— “My suggestion: let’s literally get a feel for how things are right now, where we should start and with whom — creatively and creatively. In other words, as a first step, let’s try to make what is already there and how it is there visible and comprehensible for us and thus easier to experience. And to take an analytical look at the Learning University from the perspective of the AAEL framework with its elements. For example, where do you experience Being in the sense of AAEL and where do you already experience Doing AAEL? What is closer together and what is further apart?“ —
— “Okay, let’s just go for it. And how do we do that now?” —
— “We model together!” —
Thinking with your hands – modeling your own university
The group looks at each other. “With modeling clay?” asks a teacher skeptically.
Another participant laughs:
“Last time my kids used it was in elementary school.
And that’s supposed to help us now?“
And the next one says:
“I’ve never been good at crafting,
I’m sure others can do it better.”
But this is not about skillful modelling or creating perfect shapes. We use modeling here to enter into a dialogue (a similar approach to building with Lego®Serious Play®.
Rather, the aim is not just to discuss a common understanding of AAEL for one’s own university, for university structures and change processes theoretically, but to experience them intuitively, creatively and haptically. Modeling clay as a material makes it possible to shape structures, processes, relationships and dynamics plastically and to make them tangible, to feel them and to talk about them. That sounds challenging at first. But here it is less about a perfect or correct result and more about the process itself – and shared trust in this process.
Jede Person bringt dabei das mit ein, was in ihr steckt, was ihr spontan auffällt, sie sieht oder visualisieren möchte, wenn sie allgemein an ihre Hochschule und konkreten an ihren Arbeits- und Handlungsbereich denkt. Denn wenn wir über Hochschulentwicklung sprechen, geraten wir schnell in mitunter auch abstrakte Konzepte: Governance, Strukturen, Prozesse, Kultur. Doch Hochschulen sind nicht nur aus Texten und Organigrammen gemacht – sie stehen auch für Menschen, Interaktionen, Beziehungen, Räumen, Spannungen, Verbindungen und Möglichkeiten.
If you like, you can recreate your own university or parts of it with modeling clay – or abstractly depict what you perceive as AAEL-relevant processes:
🔗 Questions for reflection
- Which structures hinder?
- Where are the blind spots?
- Where are the networks or bridges?
- What is particularly stable?
- Where do we need new approaches?
- What feels alive today?
- …
The 12 colors for modeling also stand for the twelve AAEL elements and the topics they represent in the framework, so that the university can be visualized as a system along the following key questions:
🏷️ Modeling colors and guiding questions and to the (following) focus sections
- Grau: How do we experience digitalization as an omnipresent condition in the
post-digitality? - Orange: Where do we stand between preservation and renewal – how does our our
Ambidextterity? - Green: Where are we flexible? Where are we stuck? Where does our Agility?
- Blue: What educational ideals shape us? Or also: Our position on Educational?
- Yellow: Who takes responsibility? Who remains passive? Where does Leadership?
- Pink: What attitudes characterize our thoughts and actions in the Being?
- Light violet: How are structures – in the Organization – are connected with each other?
- Purple: What methods do we use in the Doing put into practice?
- Violet: What role do I play as a – Person – in this system?
- Rosa: What ethical principles – what Values – determine our actions?
- Violet: Which guiding principles Principles do we follow?
- Petrol: What unspoken rules determine everyday life in our society? Culture?
The process – experience university as a model
Target group:
Teachers, students, administrative staff (mixed); AI agents (as independent, interactive actors)
Goal (of the method):
Making university structures tangible
The participants work together as a small group on one model or in several small groups.
The task is:
🧭 Task: Model your university or a section of it together.
Use the colors to make AAEL elements visible:
Where are you already experiencing ambidexterity? Where do you feel agility? Where is there resistance, gaps, missing connections?
Step 1— Perceiving & modeling
⚓️ What does our university look like?
- How do we experience centralized and decentralized structures?
- What are the decision-making processes?
- Where are the barriers, networks and bottlenecks?
- Where does innovation arise – and where does it falter?
🔋Expansion through AI analysis
While the groups are working, conversations can be recorded and transcribed. An AI-supported analysis evaluates the discussion and recognizes patterns:
- Which terms dominate?
- Are there contradictions between what is said and what is modeled?
- Which values and principles appear most frequently?
Step 2 — Reflection & interpretation
🔗 What do we recognize?
- Which structures are stable – which are flexible?
- Where do blockages occur? Where are there blind spots?
- Which areas are particularly well networked – where are connections missing?
- …
🔋 AI agents as initiators
Photos of the models are uploaded and an AI generates terms or clusters, e.g. to understand structures and gain new perspectives:
- “Centralized control vs. agile networks”
- “Specialist cultures with little exchange”
- “Tension between administration and teaching”
Step 3 — Action & experiment
📍 What can we change immediately?
Which one would be a good first measure to initiate at your university and what would be a feasible first step?
📍 A small experiment instead of a big reform:
- Making a decision-making process more transparent?
- Starting an interdisciplinary cooperation?
- Opening up an experimental space for new teaching methods?
🔋 AI-supported review
Which terms came up frequently in the initial reflection – which were taken up by concrete measures in the end?
Step 4 (optional) — Meta-reflection: Insights from modeling
After the models are finished, a consciously guided reflection round follows.
🧭 Task: Decide as a group!
Would you like to harden your model now and keep it as documentation?
or leave it open for further development later?!
🔗 Questions for meta-reflection:
- What did you become aware of during the modeling process?
- What structures have you built without realizing it?
- What tensions or challenges only became visible through modeling?
- To what extent does this method change your view of your own university?
- How do you experience personal ambidexterity in modeling – where do you feel more fixed, where more flexible?
- …
AAEL principle of action: Value-based action for sustainable higher education
Through creative engagement, university development is not only discussed, but experienced in a tangible way – this promotes dialog, reflection and shared understanding.
Part III — Taking the next step
In this chapter, a selection of suitable methodological approaches and variants are presented in the sense of the development and application of AAEL-Being and AAEL-Doing and systematically made comprehensible for practice along the building blocks of AAEL visualization.
Having identified rules, principles and the fictional framing example of the Learning University (LU) in the AAEL Transfer of Practice chapter, exemplary practices along the principles of the AAEL Framework for a Practice of Higher Education are now presented here.
In order to give the whole thing a structure, the respective building blocks from the visualization are used as the focus. To this end, the visualization with its twelve elements, which are now used as an outline for this chapter as follows, should be recalled here:
- Focus 1: Post-digitality (gray)
- Fokus 2: Beidhändig (orange)
- Focus 3: Agile (green)
- Fokus 4: Bildung (blau)
- Focus 5: Leadership (yellow)
- Focus 6: Being (pink)
- Focus 7: Organization (light violet)
- Focus 8: Doing (purple)
- Focus 9: Person (violet)
- Focus 10: Values (rose)
- Focus 11: Principles (purple)
- Focus 12: Culture (petrol)
Figure: Visualisation of the AAEL framework – Ambidextrous Agile Educational Leadership for the joint design of (higher) education in the post-digital era, version 2.1.1.
This sequence can also be put into its own order and considered with regard to the practice of higher education. In a systemic, multi-perspective sense, it is more important to keep all other elements in mind and to look specifically at the extent to which there are particularly strong overlaps with which elements in each case.
The colors assigned in the visualization are also included for hopefully better orientation. And with reference to the fictitious example of the Learning University, sometimes micro, sometimes meso and sometimes macro levels are addressed as well as selected actors. They are intended to show that an AAEL really does take into account all stakeholders at all levels in their interaction.
Each building block is then structured according to the following points:
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
🔗 (Systemic) questions for reflection
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant
💡Summary
And it remains the case that this is a framework and not a guide. The elements of the AAEL framework are discussed individually below as examples to give an impression of what a next step with a particular focus might look like. All suggestions are merely an impetus and not a binding template. It is always necessary to check which variant or adaptation suits your own individual university culture and which adjustments are necessary.
And: Perhaps just reading the suggestion will inspire you to take your own – equally suitable – approach?
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) has made a conscious decision to no longer separate education into analog and digital categories. Instead, it designs learning, teaching and working environments that are naturally post-digital: physical and virtual spaces merge with each other and create new, integrative and hybrid educational spaces. This also includes architectural issues with regard to the design of rooms and buildings on campus.
The Rectorate and the faculties understand that post-digital developments are fundamentally changing the way universities function. At the same time, it is clear that personal encounters in physical space continue to have their indispensable value. Both perspectives should be consciously integrated and given equal value so that they can be practiced at the LU as a matter of course.
As a learning organization, LU faces the challenge of rethinking and redesigning its identity as an on-campus university: It is important to consciously strengthen the value of personal encounters, contacts and interactions as well as to actively utilize the value of virtual encounters and digital communication.
In this context, university stakeholders are increasingly relying on AI agents they have created to support them in various functions. Generative language models or GenAI are no longer used merely as tools, but are integrated into learning and work processes as supportive, active actors and sparring or reflection partners – both at the micro level (e.g. seminars), at the meso level (e.g. faculty structures and processes) and at the macro level (e.g. strategic and ethical issues of university development). Through the continuous evaluation of interaction patterns and automated feedback loops, they help, for example, to make blind spots and systemic patterns visible and thus contribute to further development in the various areas of higher education.
This deliberate combination of presence and virtuality as well as the reflection by humans and AI agents characterizes this self-evidence of post-digitality at the LU.
⚓️ The following key questions therefore arise:
- How can LU shape education and collaboration if analog and digital spaces are no longer thought of separately, but instead merge with one another as a matter of course and systematically?
- How do we need to consciously and thoughtfully shape our dealings with AI agents in order to reap the benefits of cooperation while maintaining humanity and responsibility?
- What skills and attitudes do university members at all levels need in order to deal with the post-digital reality confidently and responsibly?
Focus 1: Post-digitality (gray)
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Post-digital interaction
at the micro, meso and macro level
It’s the morning. An interdisciplinary project group consisting of lecturers, students, administrative staff and their AI agents is meeting in a digital workspace, the “LU Workspace”. This space feels real to everyone involved: Personal avatars sit next to each other, share ideas, moderate discussions and independently suggest steps to solve problems. AI agents are involved in the process by having them ask their own critical questions, offering perspectives for decisions and (being able to) expand and improve proposals.
At the same time, a face-to-face meeting will take place on the physical campus:
Dean Leonie Hansen discusses with her colleagues from various faculties and the administration how AI agents can be integrated socially, organizationally and ethically.
Hansen emphasizes:
“Our AI agents have long since become team members. They not only take over routines, but also offer suggestions and critical reflections that can help us to think ahead and prepare decisions. They simulate more human communication behavior. But we need clear guidelines: Where exactly do we draw the line between human responsibility and AI’s scope for action?”
One student adds thoughtfully: “My AI agent often feels like a supportive conversation partner. It helps me enormously, but also challenges me not to hand over responsibility and personal decisions completely to it.”
During a short break in the conversation, Professor Henrik Meissner adds:
“In perspective, this fundamentally changes our ideas of social interaction, responsibility and also leadership. Right now, it is essential that we as a university do not end up in an either/or situation between presence and virtuality, but instead consciously interlink the particular strengths of many possible forms of communication and learning.”
AAEL principle of action: Post-digitality as a matter of course
Digital and analog communication are consciously and equally combined. Digitality and AI are understood and critically reflected upon as natural components of university culture
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How is the use of AI in higher education and AI agents changing our understanding of education, communication and responsibility at universities?
- How does the integration of AI in higher education and AI agents change our perception of responsibility, leadership and social interaction?
- How can we specifically promote and interlink the value of personal encounters and digital communication?
- What framework conditions are needed so that people feel safe when interacting with AI agents and responsibility remains clearly defined?
- How do we ensure personal responsibility and decision-making autonomy when AI acts increasingly independently?
- What framework conditions do university members need to work confidently and reflectively with AI agents in a post-digital environment?
- What ethical and value-based guidelines do we need for responsible collaboration with AI agents?
- …
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
Reflective Integration Workshop
Target group:
Teachers, students, administrative staff (mixed); AI agents (as independent, interactive actors)
Goal (of the method):
Targeted and reflected integration of AI in higher education and AI agents in working and learning processes.
The focus here is on consciously creating a balance between humans and AI and clearly defining areas of responsibility.
Step1 — Role awareness (Being AAEL)
⚓️ (Small) groups reflect together on their attitude to working with AI agents:
- What role do AI agents currently play in our processes?
- How is the presence of AI changing our interactions and decision-making processes?
- How does the interaction with AI agents influence our values, especially with regard to responsibility, trust and openness?
- What attitude do we need in order to act confidently and ethically?
Step 2 — Role awareness (Being AAEL)
🧭 Task: Work on a typical task in the group together with an AI agent
Teams work on specific tasks (e.g. project plans, analyses, texts) together with their AI agents. They explicitly document moments in which AI agents were perceived as particularly helpful, confusing or critical.
Step 3 — Critical reflection and recommendations for action (Being & Doing AAEL)
⚓️ Joint reflection after completing the task:
- Where were AI agents particularly valuable?
- Where do we need clear boundaries and rules for interaction?
🧭 Task: Develop a recommendation for the responsible use of AI agents at the university
AAEL principle of action: Value-based action for sustainable higher education
The method promotes conscious value orientation in order to deal responsibly and reflectively with the presence of AI agents.
AAEL principle of action: Social responsibility and educational mission
Consciously reflecting on and shaping cooperation with AI agents in the context of global ethical responsibility.
🏷️ Additions and comments (global perspective, macro level):
In strategic discussions at macro level, the university management also discusses global and ethical implications as well as its self-image as a future-oriented university in the post-digital age:
- What social responsibility do we as a university bear for dealing with AI as independent actors?
- What globally relevant ethical standards do we follow when dealing with AI agents? What recommendations for action are there so far that we can and should adopt?
- How do we design a post-digital campus that is an attractive learning and interaction environment for students?
- How do we design contemporary higher education that also sets international standards for ethical and socially responsible AI integration?
- How do we position ourselves clearly as a future-oriented university that does not separate between analog and digital, but confidently and confidently breaks new ground in the in-between and can become a visible role model for the university landscape?
💡 Summary
The LU consciously recognizes that AI agents and digital spaces have long since become a natural part of everyday university life. At the same time, it is clear that physical encounters retain their value.
The integration of physical and digital interaction and reflective collaboration with AI agents is systematically promoted — both on a value-oriented attitude level (Being AAEL) and on a methodical-practical level (Doing AAEL).
This can sustainably create an emergent AAEL culture that confidently combines digital and analog worlds.
Fokus 2: Beidhändig (orange)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
As an educational institution steeped in tradition, the Learning University (LU) is caught between the continuous optimization of proven structures and processes (exploitation) and the necessary openness to innovation and renewal (exploration). In the course of the digital transformation – from traditional e‑learning to the comprehensive integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in teaching, research and administration – universities are faced with the challenge of coping with diverse, sometimes contradictory requirements at the same time. It is becoming increasingly clear that simple solutions and linear answers are no longer sufficient. Higher education today takes place in a complex social context that requires ambidextrous and, strictly speaking, even multidextrous thinking and action due to the multiple perspectives that need to be taken into account.
Against this backdrop, the extended university management of the LU, together with political actors, made a conscious decision to create a framework in which universities increasingly function as experimental spaces for education. These should enable them to break new ground beyond classic regulatory requirements and traditional governance structures. The LU expressly recognizes the need to promote ambidextrous spaces for thought and action in order to be able to react confidently to diverse social demands.
⚓️ The following key questions therefore arise:
- How can LU shape education and collaboration if analog and digital spaces are no longer thought of separately, but instead merge with one another as a matter of course and systematically?
- How do we need to consciously and thoughtfully shape our dealings with AI agents in order to reap the benefits of cooperation while maintaining humanity and responsibility?
- What skills and attitudes do university members at all levels need in order to deal with the post-digital reality confidently and responsibly?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Ambidexterity in the university context: between stability and room for experimentation using the example of the meso and macro level
The extended university management, consisting of the Rectorate, pro-rectors, members of the Senate and external stakeholders from politics and society, meets for a strategic workshop. The topic is the fundamental strategic direction of LU in view of the challenges posed by digitalization and AI integration.
Rector Eva Adams opens the discussion:
“Our challenge is obvious: we are caught between two major poles. On the one hand, we need a reliable, stable basis – our traditional, modularized degree courses, fixed examination regulations and long-term research programmes.
On the other hand, we need to react openly and quickly to new developments, from micro-credentials to the systematic integration of AI in all areas of higher education. And the competition never sleeps – just look at the private university market and the influx of students that we are missing or will be missing.”
The Pro-Rector for Studies and Teaching, Nakoa Laux, adds:
“To be able to act with confidence, we need to be aware of the complexity of our environment. We should develop ambidextrous and, strictly speaking, multidextrous mindsets and agile governance structures that allow us to implement traditional degree programs and short-term innovation projects in parallel. Politics and universities must go hand in hand here to create genuine spaces for experimentation. Also with a view to our future ability to act.”
A representative of the ministry takes up this perspective:
“We understand that universities are currently too tightly bound by traditional regulations. For agile university development, we need flexible framework conditions. We are therefore open to promoting experimental spaces that allow universities to react quickly to social challenges such as AI integration and digital transformation.”
AAEL principle of action: bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
LU deliberately positions itself as an ambidextrous player that combines stability and innovation in a targeted and strategic manner.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How do we create a culture and structure in which we simultaneously optimize existing processes and explore new, innovative solutions?
- How can ambidextrous behavior be specifically established at our university, and which AAEL values and principles help us to do so?
- How can policymakers and universities work together to create a framework that enables genuine agility?
- How do we recognize whether we have found the right balance between stability and innovation in our actions?
- …
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
Ambidextrie-Review Workshop
Target group:
Extended university management (rectorate, pro-rectors, senates, university councils); representatives from education policy and ministries; external experts from science, business and society)
Aim of the method:
Regular strategic assessment of LU’s ambidextrous orientation between exploration and exploitation, jointly supported by university management and political decision-makers.
Step 1 — Reflection and assessment (Being AAEL)
- Systematic analysis of current areas of tension between traditional university structures and innovative approaches (micro-credentials, AI integration, etc.).
- Classification of current challenges and opportunities using the Cynefin framework for complexity analysis.
Step 2 — Strategic ambidexterity analysis (Doing AAEL)
- Identification of specific projects and initiatives (e.g. experimental spaces) that exemplify the tension between stability and innovation.
- Joint evaluation of successes, failures and lessons learned from measures already implemented.
Step 3 — Political and structural review (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Open discussion with the political level about regulatory and structural freedom for ambidexterity (experimental spaces).
- Development of concrete recommendations for action for political and structural framework conditions to enable ambidextrous (and multidextrous) action at the university in the long term.
AAEL principles of action: Social responsibility and educational mission & value-based action for sustainable higher education
Political and internal university stakeholders work together to shape LU’s future viability in an ambidextrous and agile manner, based on a conscious focus on values and social responsibility.
💡 Summary
The LU consciously recognizes that higher education today takes place in complex social contexts in which an ambidextrous way of thinking and acting is necessary. Together with political decision-makers, the LU creates strategic and structural framework conditions that allow it to navigate confidently between exploration (innovation) and exploitation (optimization). This is done consciously and methodically through regular reviews and experimental freedom, which can result in a sustainable, emergent AAEL culture in the long term, including at the macro level.
Focus 3: Agile (green)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
At the Learning University (LU), agility is not misunderstood as a fashionable term, but has long since become a guiding perspective and attitude: a confident, iterative, transparent and courageous approach to reacting quickly and sustainably to complex challenges. At the same time, LU knows that agility does not mean chaos or aimless flexibility, but conscious action based on a clear, shared set of values – above all courage, transparency, feedback and acceptance of responsibility – with a view to the quality of a university’s tasks and its achievements for science and education for society.
The Rectorate has decided to systematically enable framework conditions that promote agile methods and practices (Doing AAEL) as well as a sovereign orientation towards principles and values (Being AAEL) among all university members. An area of tension is currently particularly evident in the area of teaching development within and between the faculties: traditional university structures – such as fixed degree courses, modules and examination regulations – are in clear tension with short-term, demand-oriented and topic-centered educational offerings (e.g. micro-credentials on AI, sustainability, data literacy).
⚓️ This raises important questions:
- How can we confidently combine agile educational programs and traditional structures?
- What values and attitudes help us to take courageous agile steps in a systematic and reflective manner?
- How can we react systematically and flexibly to changes while continuing to develop our training programs in an agile manner?
- How do we integrate regular and rapid review and inspect & adapt cycles into our processes in order to specifically include external perspectives such as those of AI agents and external partners in the development and approval of contemporary study offerings?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Post-digital interaction (micro, meso, macro level)
Dean Henrik Meissner sits together with Dean Leonie Hansen, teaching staff, student representatives and representatives from the administration and examination offices to discuss curricula to complement the traditional study structures.
It is increasingly about new, short-term formats with micro-credentials or similar examination formats. Design sprints can support development here.
“Our challenge is clear.”
Meissner says.
“Our traditional degree programs are good, but too inflexible for current topics such as AI, data literacy or sustainability. We need to be courageous and integrate these new topics into our offering in an agile way without losing stability and continuity.”
Dean Leonie Hansen adds:
“It helps us to explicitly use agile practices such as regular Inspect & Adapt cycles. At the same time, we have to critically reflect on the integration of new educational formats – especially in reviews with students, external partners who support us as “critical friends” and AI agents as reflection partners.”
Student Sami Okoye adds further:
“Agility helps us enormously to learn in a practical and up-to-date way. But we need clear framework conditions and a transparent attitude: how open are we really to feedback from outside, for example from AI agents? And how do we ensure that agile practice does not come at the expense of our long-term skills development?”
The Pro-Dean of Studies and Teaching at the Faculty of Education, Stefano Clark, also raises the more fundamental question:
“To what extent do exam formats still make sense in the age of AI? And shouldn’t we start to rethink study programs in terms of lifelong learning across all phases of life as a suitable offer?”
AAEL principle of action: bridging exploration and exploitation
Agility at LU means consciously navigating between innovation (exploration) and proven structures (exploitation).
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- What agile values do we actually live by and how do they influence our daily activities at the university?
- How do we create a framework so that agile and traditional education formats complement rather than hinder each other?
- What role can AI agents play in agile processes?
- How do we promote a feedback culture that strengthens transparency, courage and acceptance of responsibility in agile processes?
- …
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant
AAEL Agile Circle
Target group:
Deans, lecturers, students from various faculties; representatives from administration and support; external stakeholders (e.g. alumni, practice partners); AI agents as reflection and feedback partners
Aim of the method:
Systematically and regularly practicing agile approaches in educational processes, integrating targeted feedback from internal and external stakeholders — including AI agents — and continuously improving learning opportunities and formats on this basis.
Step 1 — Planning (Doing AAEL)
- Joint planning of an agile training program (e.g. micro-credential on AI-related data literacy)
- Clear definition of goals, roles and responsibilities
Step 2 — Sprint phase: Agile implementation (Doing AAEL)
- Small groups develop concrete learning opportunities in an agile and iterative manner within short intervals (1 to 2 weeks)
- In the meantime, regular exchange and transparent feedback (actively live feedback culture)
Step 3 — Inspect-&-Adapt-Review with stakeholders (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Systematic, moderated review after each sprint
- Explicit involvement of AI agents for support and external partners as “critical friends”
- “What blind spots do AI agents recognize that we might overlook?”
- “What changes do external partners propose?”
AAEL principles of action: Social responsibility and educational mission/values-based action for sustainable higher education
LU consciously uses the review to put agile values such as feedback, openness and courage into practice.
Step 4 — Adaption and Iteration (Doing AAEL)
- Immediate adaptation of the educational offers based on the feedback
- New agile cycles start immediately afterwards
💡 Summary
The Learning University systematically establishes agile methods and practices (Doing AAEL) on the basis of a conscious focus on values and attitudes (Being AAEL). The explicit interplay of Inspect & Adapt cycles, regular reviews with internal and external stakeholders and a reflective value orientation creates a confident agility that values and combines traditional and innovative educational offerings in equal measure. In this way, a sustainable AAEL culture emerges that not only understands agility in theory, but also lives it in practice and makes conscious use of it.
Fokus 4: Bildung (blau)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) sees education as a common purpose and central meaning that connects all of the university’s stakeholders. Particularly in the face of complex social challenges – from digital transformation and sustainable development to ethical issues surrounding artificial intelligence – purely technical knowledge transfer is no longer sufficient. Today, knowledge is digital and freely available; the real value of a university therefore lies not only in imparting specialist knowledge, but increasingly also in promoting personal development, social skills and the ability to reflect critically.
LU consciously positions itself as a place of holistic education that enables young people and adults to develop their personalities in addition to professional skills and employability. At the same time, it is clear that universities in Germany face the internal challenge of integrating and connecting loosely coupled systems with different professional cultures, interests, resource allocations and areas of tension (centrality vs. decentralization, research vs. teaching, traditional vs. agile governance).
⚓️ This gives rise to key questions for the LU:
- How do we create a shared sense of purpose in complex contexts that connects and motivates students, teaching staff, administration and external partners alike?
- How do we explicitly promote personality development and social skills in addition to specialist knowledge and employability in a systematic and sustainable way?
- What methodological and structural framework conditions enable agile, ambidextrous and participatory educational processes in the sense of AAEL beyond traditional silo structures?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Enabling personal development together” (micro, meso and macro level)
In a university-wide “Purpose Forum”, students, lecturers, administrative staff, deans and university management discuss together with external stakeholders from business, politics and society what they see as the common purpose of their higher education. This time, the focus is on strengthening personal development at LU in addition to subject-specific and skills-oriented perspectives. And thus the question of what for with regard to the specific profile of the LU.
Rector Eva Adams opened the event:
“Today, our students can acquire knowledge anywhere. Our special role is to offer educational opportunities in a comprehensive sense: Space for personal development, ethical reflection, critical thinking and social responsibility. However, these goals have so far often only remained guiding principles on paper. How do we manage to integrate and realize our purpose in relation to education in a truly sustainable and practical way in our everyday lives?”
Student Ailani Chen adds:
“I would like higher education to consciously give us space to deal ethically and critically with digital topics such as AI. Education today should not only teach professional skills, but also life skills.”
Dean Leonie Hansen picks up on this:
“Our challenge is that we still think in silos. Faculties and administration often operate side by side. We need a shared purpose orientation that is actually put into practice.”
The Pro-Rector for Studies and Teaching, Nakoa Laux, adds:
“To achieve this, we need new, agile and integrated formats and structures that are explicitly based on a shared sense of purpose and regular reflection. Let’s establish this systematically and methodically.”
AAEL principles of action: Social responsibility and educational mission/values-based action for sustainable higher education
Education is conceived holistically as a purpose and explicitly linked to personal development, ethical reflection and social responsibility.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How do we define our common “purpose” as a university — beyond merely imparting knowledge?
- What personal, ethical and social opportunities for transformative education do we want to specifically promote and develop?
- Where do we consciously focus on a competence orientation for future capacity to act and more on transformational competencies?
- What structures or mindsets are currently preventing us from living this purpose together?
- Which methods and formats help us to implement a purpose orientation authentically and sustainably throughout the university?
- …
🎉Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL Purpose Circle
Target group:
Students from various faculties; teaching staff and researchers; representatives from administration and university management; AI agents
Aim of the method:
Development of a sustainable, common purpose that aligns education not only with the subject, but also with regard to personal development and social skills development.
Step 1 — Common purpose definition (Being AAEL)
- Mixed groups develop concrete proposals for a common purpose for LU, which also explicitly includes personal development.
- Discussion: What does education mean to us holistically today?
Step 2 — Analysis of current practice (Doing AAEL)
- Groups critically reflect on where and how the common purpose is already being practiced in their area and where it has so far only existed on paper.
Step 3 — Joint Purpose Integration (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Develop concrete steps to integrate purpose and personal development into teaching, research, administration and campus life.
- Planning agile experimental spaces for new formats of personal development and social skills development.
AAEL principles of action: Bridging the Duality of Exploration and Exploitation & Sovereign Agility in Education
Purpose and personal development are consciously developed, integrated and iteratively refined in an agile manner.
💡 Summary
Focus 5: Leadership (yellow)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
At the Learning University (LU), leadership is no longer confused with a hierarchical position. Rather, leadership is an attitude and an action that is explicitly supported and shaped by all members of the university – by deans, lecturers and researchers as well as students and administrative staff. This is particularly necessary in the context of agile and ambidextrous processes, in which dynamic change and uncertainty are part of everyday life.
The Rectorate has now made a conscious decision to create a framework that promotes active, broadly distributed leadership responsibility. The central idea behind this: If LU wants to act in a sustainable, agile and ambidextrous or multidextrous manner, all those involved must recognize and accept their own leadership role and practice it in joint processes. Only in this way can a genuine AAEL culture emerge and have a lasting effect.
The focus here is explicitly on the middle level of the faculties, as this is decisive for how change and innovation are successfully implemented in universities. At the same time, all university members (including students, administration, teaching staff and, where appropriate, alumni) should be involved as participants.
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— be able to assume leadership in all areas. (Focus: middle level of deaneries and faculties)
In recent months, LU has come to realize that leadership can no longer only come from the top-down management of the university, but also from the middle of the university in particular – and faculties – must be anchored and become effective.
Dean Leonie Hansen gets to the heart of the matter:
“Precisely because we operate in such agile and ambidextrous processes and have to constantly navigate between the tried and tested and the new, we need leadership that does not come from just a few people. Everyone in the faculty should be able to practice leadership confidently and responsibly in their own area of activity.”
Dean Henrik Meissner adds:
“This also means that we need to systematically develop an attitude that enables value orientation, openness and empowerment. But that doesn’t happen by itself – we have to learn and practise it together in agile, reflective and systematic formats.”
Against this backdrop, the deans, together with the university management, decide to make targeted use of a structured Circle method at LU in order to strengthen integrated leadership on a broad level.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How does my understanding of leadership change when I think of it in integrative rather than hierarchical terms?
- What does it take for me to be able to take on leadership in my environment in a courageous and responsible way?
- How do I experience my leadership attitude when navigating between tried and tested processes and new, still uncertain methods?
- What role can AI agents play as additional actors in leadership processes, and how does this change our attitude to leadership?
- …
Target group:
Deans, lecturers, students from various faculties; representatives from administration and support; external stakeholders (e.g. alumni, practice partners); AI agents as reflection and feedback partners
Aim of the method:
In future, the LU will rely on a systematically oriented circle method: the AAEL Peer-to-Peer Leadership Circle (working title: Ambidextrie4me[1]). The method is based on a systemic approach in which small groups (4 to 5 people) develop their leadership skills together and apply them in practice on a regular basis.
Integrated leadership can be learned particularly well in small groups because all participants are actively involved and mutual learning is experienced directly through reflection and feedback. Each person takes on the role of both coach and coached person. This creates a protected space, promotes trust and at the same time offers fast, iterative learning cycles, which are essential for agile and ambidextrous organizations.
The “AAEL Circle” method starts with a clear focus on the AAEL-principles and -values and consists of the following phases:
Step 1 — Determining the location (Being AAEL)
- Joint clarification of personal leadership attitude
- Sharing personal experiences and challenges with agile and ambidextrous leadership
- Reflecting on your own attitude towards responsibility, openness, trust and feedback culture
Step 2 — Peer-Coaching (Doing AAEL)
- Circle meetings every 1 to 2 weeks
- Mutual support in dealing with specific leadership issues (e.g. dealing with resistance in change processes, clarifying responsibilities in the use of AI)
Step 3 — AI agents as complementary reflection partners
AI agents as supplementary reflection partners
🏷️ Additions and comments (integrative perspective)
- Leadership at LU explicitly means distributing responsibility and managing change processes across many shoulders and consciously acting in an agile and ambidextrous manner.
- AI agents are not just helpers, but consciously integrated reflection partners to critically reflect on leadership decisions.
- The method creates emergent framework conditions that actively support and promote the development of an AAEL culture.
💡 Summary
The introduction of the AAEL Peer-to-Peer Leadership Circle (Ambidextrie4me[1]) supports the Learning University in developing integrated leadership as a shared responsibility and attitude (Being AAEL) and as a concrete, agile practice (Doing AAEL) in equal measure. Small, safe groups systematically learn what shared leadership looks like, which is essential in times of ambidexterity, agility and digital transformation – and how new players such as AI agents can also be consciously integrated.
Focus 6: Being (pink)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
Die Learning University (LU) hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, nicht allein agile und ambidextre Methoden und Strukturen zu implementieren (Doing AAEL), sondern auch darauf, eine tief verankerte Haltung mit zu denken, die diese Praktiken erst wirksam macht und die sich wiederum erst aus dem Praktizieren von AAEL, also einem Doing AAEL, ergibt – das Being AAEL. Dabei geht es um mehr als bloße Kompetenzentwicklung: Being AAEL bedeutet, eine reflektierte, wertebasierte und resiliente Grundhaltung zu kultivieren, die es Hochschulangehörigen ermöglicht, in komplexen Kontexten souverän zu handeln.
While many universities focus strongly on knowledge transfer and methodological excellence, the additional importance of self-reflection, coaching and personal development is often neglected. But without a conscious attitude, even the best methods cannot have a lasting effect. Being AAEL therefore focuses on stimulating inner work among all actors for self-organization, systemic reflection and dialogical development processes.
The LU consciously promotes this attitude through coaching, peer coaching and reflection formats in order to anchor AAEL not only as an organizational model, but also as the personal practice of its members.
🏷️ This happens at all levels:
- Micro level: Individual reflection and personal ambidexterity of students, teaching staff, administrative staff and researchers as well as managers in deaneries and the Executive Board.
- Meso-level: peer coaching, collegial counseling formats and interdisciplinary reflection spaces.
- Macro level: University-wide structures that enable a culture of systematic reflection and value-based development — including external stakeholders and members of committees.
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL Peer-to-Peer-Leadership-Circle („AAEL-Circle“-method) #Ambidextrie4me[1]
— Reflection as the key to AAEL (micro & meso level)
LU has begun to introduce agile and ambidextrous methods. For example, Kanban is being tested in administrative processes, design thinking and Scrum are being implemented in project seminars with students, and research cllusters are adapting agile project management methods for their own use. However, it is becoming apparent that not all those involved are comfortable with this or immediately recognize hthe benefits. Misunderstandings arise time and again, especially in interdisciplinary projects – wheather due to different expectations, working styles, or the pressure to achieve results quickly. In addition, traditional patterns such as making the next steps dependent on decisions and hierarchical responsibilities or working night shifts before deadlines for research proposals or publications are deeply entrenched. Especially in retrospectives , mistrust can still be felt here and there.
In an interdisciplinary research project on sustainable digitalization, professors from the engineering sciences, social sciences and the Faculty of Business and Economics come together. After initial euphoria, it becomes clear that the communication and decision-making processes are not as smooth as expected. While some prefer a quick iterative approach, others want to discuss fundamental concepts first.
Dr. Aylin Berger, project manager from the Faculty of Sustainability Sciences, notes:
“We have adopted many methods, but have we actually reflected on our own attitude? How do we deal with uncertainties? How do we deal with different expectations? And where does our need for quick or thorough decisions actually come from?”
AAEL principles of action: Integrated Leadership in Education & Values-based Action for Sustainable Higher Education
Being AAEL manifests itself in a conscious reflection on one’s own values, decision-making processes and systemic dynamics.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How consciously do we reflect on our own attitude when dealing with complex and dynamic challenges?
- To what extent can I differentiate between my perspective as a person and in my role? Where do I draw boundaries?
- How do we deal with uncertainties and tensions in interdisciplinary teams?
- What systemic factors shape our own behavior and decision-making processes?
- How do we promote spaces for personal development, self-organization and peer reflection at the university – for the benefit of the individual and the organization?
- …
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL-Peer-Coaching-Circle #Ambidextrie4me[1]
Target group:
University members from various faculties and status groups (students, teaching staff, administration, researchers); moderated peer coaching group (4 – 5 people per circle); reflection partners from other disciplines or with other perspectives.
Aim of the method:
Structured, peer-based reflection on personal development processes in the university context in order to actively experience Being AAEL.
Step1 — Clarification of personal development concerns (Being AAEL)
- Each participant formulates a question or concern for personal or professional development (e.g. “How can I improve my decision-making skills in uncertain situations?”).
- The group listens actively and asks systemic questions for reflection.
Step 2 — Peer reflection and change of perspective (Doing AAEL)
- Participants share experiences and observations from their own practice.
- Reflection on patterns, decision paths and alternative courses of action.
- Joint development of small experimental steps for practical application.
Step 3 — Individual commitments and feedback (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Each participant formulates concrete steps for implementation and records them.
- Regular check-ins at later meetings to reflect on learning progress.
AAEL principles of action: Social Responsibility and Educational Mission & Sovereign Agility in Education
Being AAEL means actively examining your own attitude and making conscious, value-oriented decisions.
💡 Summary
Being AAEL is not an abstract idea, but a lived practice: through peer coaching, reflection and a conscious examination of their own attitude, university members learn to act confidently as individuals and in their roles in dynamic and complex contexts. LU consciously anchors Being AAEL as an integral part of the university culture – not as an isolated measure, but as a continuous development process that is integrated into everyday practices, structures and decision-making processes. In this way, Being AAEL contributes to understanding agility, ambidexterity and leadership not only as methodological tools, but to anchoring them as a reflected, conscious way of acting in post-digital university practice.
Focus 7: Organization (light violet)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) is aware that universities operate as loosely coupled systems: Faculties, administration, teaching and research are often organized independently, but are intertwined at the same time. Traditional governance structures are often not flexible enough to deal with the increasing complexity and dynamics of education, research and social demands.
The central challenge for a university that is oriented towards the AAEL framework is to enable ambidexterity (innovation vs. stability) not only in individual processes or projects, but in the entire university structure as a contextual organizational ambidexterity. It requires spaces for experimentation as well as clear, reliable framework conditions that support agility, participation and sustainable decision-making processes.
⚓️ This raises important questions:
- How can a university as an organization navigate confidently between stability and change?
- Which power and decision-making structures promote or inhibit participative, agile and ambidextrous organizational development?
- How can centralized and decentralized control be combined in such a way that they strengthen the overall organization instead of creating new silos?
- How can physical and digital organizational structures complement each other in a post-digital university?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Centralized vs. decentralized control – who decides what?
(macro & meso level, with effects at micro level)
At the LU, a strategic question is coming to a head: should central control mechanisms (university management, central administration) be strengthened or should faculties and teaching staff be given more independent decision-making freedom?
A concrete example of this is the digital infrastructure: while the central IT department wants to establish a uniform platform for digital teaching and research, faculties prefer decentralized, subject-specific solutions. Students, on the other hand, demand more flexibility and openness.
In a meeting of the university management, Vice-Rector for Digitalization Dr. Senta Klein argues:
“We need a comprehensive digital infrastructure to ensure sustainability and data security. If every faculty has its own solution, it won’t be sustainable in the long term.”
Dean Henrik Meissner from the Faculty of Business and Economics disagrees:
“But if everything is centralized, we lose the ability to react agilely to new developments. Innovation often arises in the specialist culture – we have to enable that.”
Lisa Bites, spokesperson for the Digital Lab, brings a new perspective:
“Maybe it’s not a question of either/or. The question is: how can we design our organization in such a way that we combine stability and flexibility?”
aThe university management then decides to carry out a systemic organizational analysis with all stakeholders. This should help to make the actual structure of LU visible – and to find out where centralized or decentralized solutions make sense.
AAEL principle of action: Bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
Organizational ambidexterity means that universities create structures for stability and at the same time spaces for innovation.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How do the stakeholders experience the current organization of the university in terms of governance, distribution of power and decision-making processes?
- How transparent are LU’s current decision-making processes – and how could this transparency be further improved?
- Where do tensions arise between our centralized and decentralized structures – and why?
- Which decision-making processes are already agile, participative or ambidextrous?
- How can physical and digital organizational structures be sensibly combined?
- What alternative models to traditional university governance could be explored?
- …
🎉Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant: AAEL Organization Charter – Reflection & shaping the future
Target group:
University management, deans, administrative staff, teaching staff, students; external experts as “critical friends”; AI agents as reflection partners for digital pattern recognition
Aim of the method:
Systematic reflection on the development of LU as an organization in order to make structures, decision-making processes and cultures visible and adaptive.
🧭 Task: Develop an AAEL organizational charter
Use the questions along the three steps.
Step 1 — Review of the development of the organization (“Where do we come from”) (Being AAEL)
- Where do we come from? What central structures and decision-making processes have shaped LU to date?
- What historical developments have shaped our organizational structure?
- AI-supported pattern analysis: What patterns in decision-making processes can be identified over the last few years?
- How have we overcome obstacles so far? What were the strengths for success?
Step 2 — Making the present visible (“Where do we stand?”) (Doing AAEL)
- What power and decision-making structures currently characterize LU?
- How do different LU stakeholders experience the organizational culture? How do I experience it?
- What are the areas of tension between centralized and decentralized processes?
- Where are we currently experiencing strengths and where do we already see weaknesses?
- What existing routines or structural inertia could inhibit our ability to innovate? Which positive practices, on the other hand, should we consciously preserve?
Step 3 — Future perspectives (“Where do we want to go?”) (Being & Doing AAEL)
- What known strengths can help us to continue to be successful in the future?
- What new forms of governance and decision-making could be tried out?
- What structural adjustments does LU need in order to be a balanced ambidextrous organization? How does an #ambidextrie4us[1] succeed?
- How can hybrid, digital and physical structures be intelligently interlinked?
- Which interdisciplinary perspectives should we explicitly include in order to combine both subject cultures and university-wide strategic goals?
AAEL principles of action: Integrated Leadership in Education & Values-based Action for Sustainable Higher Education
A sustainable university organization is created through consciously designed, systemic change processes.
💡 Summary
The Learning University recognizes that its organization is not static, but develops as an emergent system. By systematically reflecting on past, current and future organizational patterns, both traditional decision-making paths become visible and new, participatory management models can be experienced.
The combination of systemic organizational analysis and a dialogical organizational charter makes it possible to manage the tension between central control and decentralized flexibility with confidence. AI agents provide support as analytical reflection partners and help to identify hidden patterns in university-wide decision-making processes.
This means that the organization is not just thought of as a system with structures, but as an emergent interplay of culture, processes and players — a dynamic ecosystem that continues to develop with and through all those involved.
Focus 8: Doing (purple)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) has decided to understand agile, ambidextrous and participatory principles not only as a theoretical model, but also to integrate them into everyday university life. Doing AAEL refers to the systematic implementation of these principles through methods, structures and practices that enable sustainable change in university processes.
While Being AAEL encompasses attitude, reflection and values, Doing AAEL ensures that these values are transferred into daily work processes, decision-making structures and teaching and learning settings. The central challenge here is anchoring agile and ambidextrous ways of working in a highly complex, often fragmented organization such as a university. Individual and organizational learning is an important part of this. Together with AAEL-Being, an AAEL culture can develop, which can also be summarized as a common AAEL learning culture depending on the situation.
The LU strategy reviews clearly show that AI agents are already involved in administrative processes as well as in teaching and research – but to varying degrees. While they are used as automated feedback systems in some faculties, they serve as learning and planning assistants in other areas.
LU relies on a systematic combination of different methods to enable both long-term strategic goals and short-term adjustment processes.
🏷️ Doing AAEL is visible at all levels:
- Micro level: Agile teaching and learning methods, iterative examination formats, adaptive feedback processes.
- Meso-level: agile governance, faculty sprints, interdisciplinary project formats.
- Macro level: university-wide review cycles, agile management models, strategic ambidexterity.
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Systematic integration of Doing AAEL (micro & meso level)
In recent years, LU has tried out various agile and experimental methods – from design sprints in teaching to agile management processes in administration. However, it is clear that these approaches often remain isolated. While some faculties have made great progress, others have encountered resistance or only implemented individual elements.
A central problem becomes clear in a university-wide strategy review: “How can a consistent but flexible implementation of Doing AAEL be ensured so that all university departments benefit?”
Dean Henrik Meissner addresses the area of tension:
“We see a lot of positive momentum, but at the same time implementation remains fragmented. Some faculties make intensive use of agile teaching methods, while others have hardly any points of contact. How can we manage to anchor AAEL in a structured yet flexible way – especially if we want to work together in an agile way and not side by side?”
The Pro-Rector for Studies and Teaching, Nakoa Laux, adds:
“We lack comprehensive experimentation and scaling processes. Doing AAEL means that we not only test individual practices, but also develop a consistent, iterative strategy in order to really anchor agile and ambidextrous working methods across the board, step by step.”
AAEL principles of action: Sovereign Agility in Education & Integrated Leadership in Education
Doing AAEL means systematically establishing agile, adaptive and sustainable university practices
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- Which methods and practices of Doing AAEL are already being used successfully at our university?
- Where are there challenges or resistance to systematic implementation?
- To what extent do principles and values influence the practical implementation of Doing AAEL in university structures?
- How can AI agents be meaningfully integrated as adaptive reflection and analysis tools for agile university development?
- How can we consistently transfer agile and ambidextrous principles into structures and processes?
- What review mechanisms do we need to anchor Doing AAEL in the long term?
- How do we deal with this if we now want to work with roles? And how do we deal with previous functions and traditional positions?
- How can the physical and digital dimensions of Doing AAEL be meaningfully combined in collaboration?
- …
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL implementation cycle
Target group:
University management; faculty representatives; administration; student representatives; agile coaches; AI agents and external partners as “critical friends”.
Aim of the method:
Structured, iterative implementation of Doing AAEL in university structures and processes. Learning AAEL while starting and doing AAEL.
Step 1 — analysis phase (Being AAEL)
- Survey of existing Doing AAEL methods at the university.
- Identification of success factors and resistance.
- Integration of AI agents to analyze patterns in university-wide management and decision-making processes.
Step 2 — Experimental phase (Doing AAEL)
- Implementation of concrete iterative measures in individual faculties or administrative areas.
- Testing new methods and control mechanisms.
Step 3 — Review & Adaptation (Being & Doing AAEL)
- University-wide reflection on the experiments and derivation of scalable measures.
- Adaptation of existing structures to integrate successful practices.
- AI agents provide data-based feedback analyses to optimize agile management.
AAEL principles of action: Values-based action for sustainable higher education & bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
Doing AAEL is not a one-off initiative, but a continuous, iterative process of university development.
Doing AAEL hängt unmittelbar mit anderen Elementen zusammen:
- Being AAEL: Without a value-oriented, reflective attitude, agile methods are ineffective.
- Ambidexterity: Doing AAEL means both optimizing what already exists and exploring new paths.
- AAEL-culture: Doing AAEL practices contribute directly to the development of an emergent AAEL culture.
- Principles: Doing AAEL is based on clearly defined principles, not rigid rules.
💡 Summary
Doing AAEL means systematically integrating agile, ambidextrous and adaptive methods into everyday university life. The LU relies on an iterative implementation cycle that combines reflection, experimentation and structural adaptation in an ongoing learning process. AI agents are specifically integrated as reflection partners in order to support data-based decision-making processes. In this way, Doing AAEL is not limited to individual pilot projects, but established as an integrative strategy for a sustainable university culture. It is essential that Doing AAEL develops during the implementation of AAEL and does not have to be learned beforehand.
Focus 9: Person (violet)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) is aware that individual ambidexterity – the personal ability to embrace the new (exploration) and at the same time retain or let go of the tried and tested (exploitation) – is an essential competence in dynamic, complex environments.
While organizations can adapt structurally, the real challenge remains at a personal level: All university members – from teachers and administrative staff to students and university management – must individually find ways to deal confidently with uncertainties, tensions and multiple demands.
Special challenges for various stakeholders
Individual or personal ambidexterity poses different challenges for different university groups:
- Long-standing university staff (e.g. teaching staff, administrative staff) often face the difficulty of questioning existing routines and actively integrating new things.
Teachers & researchers are used to dealing with new things, but they also face the challenge of not getting lost in constant exploration or being slowed down by administrative requirements.
Students & academic staff have to move between innovation and established academic structures and learn to strengthen their own ability to act in this area of tension.
University management & governance actors need personal ambidexterity in order to confidently weigh up optimization and innovation in strategic decisions.
How can university members at all levels consciously develop their personal ambidexterity?
At LU, the idea of using an AAEL peer coaching format — e.g. #Ambidextrie4me[1] – emerges, which supports individuals in systematically and iteratively reflecting on personal development processes and coaching each other.
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Developing personal ambidexterity (meso & micro level)
“How can I stay flexible without losing myself?”
Professor Dr. Clara Roth has been teaching economics at LU for 15 years. She is an expert in her field, but with increasing digitalization, the introduction of new examination formats and the changing expectations of students, she is feeling growing pressure. What to keep, what to let go of, what to pick up again?
Thomas Berger, a long-standing employee in the Examinations Office, faces similar challenges in the administrative area:
Digital processes and AI-supported assistance systems are changing his daily work, but he is unsure how he can shape his own role in this change.
“We talk about change all the time, but where is our individual approach to it?”
he asks at a faculty meeting.
The discussion shows that personal ambidexterity is not just an individual issue, but a collective one.
The LU then decides to launch a new coaching format as an experiment:
#Ambidextrie4me – a peer coaching circle that networks university members across faculty and functional boundaries and supports them in developing their personal ambidexterity.
AAEL principles of action: Values-based action for sustainable higher education & Sovereign agility in education
Personal ambidexterity is a key competence for dealing with complex change processes.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How do I perceive change – as a challenge, a threat or an opportunity?
- What routines or ways of thinking might be holding me back?
- How do I balance exploration (taking on something new) and exploitation (optimizing the tried and tested)?
- What support do I need to deal with uncertainty and change with confidence?
- How can I actively contribute to a constructive culture of change in my own role?
🎉Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
The AAEL-Peer-Coaching-Circle
Zielgruppe:
Lehrende, Verwaltungspersonal, Studierende, Forschende (fakultätsübergreifend gemischt);
4 – 5 Personen pro Circle, begleitet von einer erfahrenen Moderation oder selbstorganisiert.; KI-Agent_innen als digitale Reflexionspartner_innen.
Ziel der Methode:
Hochschulangehörige entwickeln in einem strukturierten, kollegialen Reflexionsprozess ihre persönliche Ambidextrie – indem sie eigene Herausforderungen systematisch bearbeiten und sich gegenseitig unterstützen.
Step 1 — Kick-off & clarification of objectives (Being AAEL)
- Each person formulates their individual ambidexterity challenge (e.g. “How can I become more digital without feeling overwhelmed by new tools?”).
- The group chooses a focus topic for the first sessions.
Step 2 — Collegial case consultation (Doing AAEL)
- One person describes their concerns, the others listen and ask systemic questions.
- Exchange about personal patterns, resistance and opportunities.
Step 3 — Change of perspective & solutions (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Joint development of new ways of thinking and acting.
- Feedback from the group and AI agents that generate alternative reflection impulses.
Step 4 — Commitments & Follow-up
- Each participant defines a specific micro-intervention for their own everyday life.
- In the next session we will reflect:
What has changed? What has worked? What did not?
AAEL principles of action: Integrated Leadership in Education & Bridging the Duality of Exploration and Exploitation
Ambidexterity begins at a personal level – through reflection, experimentation and continuous learning.
💡 Summary
The Learning University recognizes that personal ambidexterity is a central key to agility and change. #Ambidextrie4me[1] offers university members a structured opportunity to reflect on their individual approach to change, to try out concrete steps and to support each other.
AAEL is understood not only as an organizational concept, but also as a personal development process that is continuously tested and iteratively improved.
Through peer coaching, mentoring and collegial spaces for reflection, LU creates the basis for a culture in which personal development is understood not only as an individual task, but also as collaborative learning.
Focus 10: Values (rose)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The values central to AAEL as a primarily value- and principle-based framework, such as trust, responsibility, courage, openness, respect, diversity, feedback, commitment, focus and communication, should not remain merely abstract guidelines at LU. Rather, they must be actively and jointly lived and shaped by all members of the university. An agile, ambidextrous and participatory university culture – a genuine AAEL culture – can only be created in the long term if all stakeholders consciously decide to make these values visible in everyday life.
⚓️ Particularly in light of the rapid developments in the field of AI and the growing role of AI agents, LU is asking itself key questions:
- What values are central to the integration of AI systems into our everyday university life?
- How can we transfer these values into our everyday teaching, research and administrative work?
- What attitude is needed to work responsibly, critically and courageously with new digital players such as AI agents?
The following situation is an example of how value orientation and AI issues can be combined at LU across the micro, meso and macro levels.
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Values and AI agents in everyday university life (micro, macro and meso level)
It’s morning at the Learning University. Teachers, students, administrative staff and – for the first time explicitly included – AI agents are sitting in the digital workspace of an interdisciplinary project group. The LU’s virtual spaces have long since become a natural addition to the physical campus spaces. Personal avatars and AI agents discuss things together here, coordinate appointments and independently suggest work steps.
However, AI agents are no longer just passive tools, but real actors who ask questions independently, provide critical feedback and structure work processes.
Dr. Anne Wegner, Professor of Sociology, reports:
“Our AI agents have now become real team members. They take on routine tasks, draw our attention to unclear formulations and increasingly make their own suggestions for strategic decisions that are not based exclusively on human input, but are generated algorithmically and therefore raise particular ethical and value-based questions. But we urgently need to reflect on the limits that need to be set here.”
At the same time, a mixed group of deans, lecturers, administrative staff and students – including Dean Leonie Hansen and Dean Henrik Meissner – will meet in the administration building to discuss precisely this challenge. Together, they want to clarify how the explicitly named LU values such as trust, responsibility, courage, openness, respect and diversity can be put into practice in the collaboration between people and AI agents.
Student Andrea Vitale-Theodorou speaks up:
“Sometimes my AI agent almost feels like a human being. He gives me sound advice and asks critical questions about my scientific work. This is helpful, but I often ask myself: where exactly is my responsibility and autonomy as a learner when AI agents are increasingly involved in thinking and decision-making?”
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How does my own sense of responsibility in the learning or work process change when my AI agent regularly makes helpful or advanced suggestions – and what does that mean for my self-efficacy?
- How do trust, respect and responsibility become visible in mixed teams of humans and AI – and who decides when an algorithmic proposal is value-oriented enough to be implemented?
- What implicit values are reflected in the way we accept AI agents as team members – or not?
🎉Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
Values Compass Workshop
The values compass workshop is a method in which different LU stakeholders reflect on, discuss and establish their values together. The aim is to define clear and viable points of reference that make the interaction between people and AI sustainable, open and responsible.
This workshop is explicitly based on a combination of self-reflection and concrete, practical exercises in order to convey a value orientation not only in theory, but also to translate it directly into practical action. The aim is to systematically reflect on the LU values together and then integrate them into everyday university life.
Target group:
Deans and faculty representatives; university management (Rector Adams, Chancellor Hinz); teaching staff from various faculties; staff from administration and support structures; students from all faculties; external partners (“Critical Friends”)
Aim of the method:
Making values visible as the foundation of joint decisions; reflection and conscious examination of own values and the values of the organization; clear and concrete linking of values and practical issues relating to AI; development of joint guidelines for the use of AI at LU; promotion of institutional cohesion and trusting cooperation between all university groups
Step 1 — Making values visible (Being)
- Brief impulse on the LU values already formulated: trust, responsibility, courage, openness, respect, diversity, feedback, commitment, focus and communication.
- Mixed groups of students, teaching staff, administration and university management discuss the following questions for reflection:
- Which of these values are already visibly and tangibly anchored in our everyday university life?
- What specific situations have shown that these values are already being actively practiced?
- Which values do we find particularly challenging when we think about AI use or change?
- How are we currently dealing with these challenges?
AAEL principle of action: Value-based action for sustainable higher education
Values are only sustainable if they are understood, shared and lived by all members of the university. The workshop therefore begins explicitly with an inventory of lived and desired values in order to build on what already exists and to jointly identify potential for development.
Step 2 — Making values practical (Doing)
After reflection, the values are immediately translated into concrete decisions and action steps:
- Practical exercise phase (designing decision-making spaces)
Small groups work on specific scenarios from everyday university life (e.g. AI-supported examinations, virtual learning spaces, agile projects, interdisciplinary research teams).
Each group receives exemplary real decision-making scenarios that are currently open at the LU, e.g:- Should generative AI systems be allowed to be used without restriction?
- How do we deal with plagiarism issues?
- Who takes responsibility for errors caused by AI?
- What social and ethical boundaries do we want to set when dealing with AI?
- Practical application:
The small groups work out a concrete, action-guiding result for each question based on the LU values and record these results on a values compass card.
Each group determines how the jointly reflected values can be implemented in these scenarios:- What decisions do we make when we live responsibility and trust consistently?
- How do we deal with diversity and openness when AI agents are integrated into teams?
- What feedback culture do we want to actively establish so that commitment and focus can grow?
- Sharing & Discussion:
Presentation of the results in the large group, summary and discussion of university-wide binding orientation points to enable consistent and sustainable decisions for all faculties.
AAEL principle of action: bridging the duality of exploration and exploitation
Through this practical work, the participants recognize that a common value base helps to successfully navigate tensions between innovation (exploration) and established structures (exploitation).
🔋 AI as an additional player in the value compass
An experimental format is being tested for the first time: A generative AI language model is part of a working group and answers questions from a broader perspective:
- What values does AI convey?
- What value judgments or biases do we recognize?
- How does the presence of AI agents change our own discussions about values?
The AI agents are thus explicitly included as active players in the value formation process.
Post-digitality as a matter of course
The AI agents are no longer just passive tools, but active discussion partners who themselves contribute to critical value orientation.
Step 3 — Being & Doing AAEL
🏷️ Spatial perspective as a supplement
In addition, the workshop is deliberately held in the physical space on campus to emphasize the importance of personal interactions and psychological safety:
AAEL principle of action: Post-digitality as a matter of course
LU recognizes that digitality and physical presence do not replace each other, but complement each other and form educational spaces together.
Step 3 — Final reflection and invitation Final reflection and invitation to the participants (Being & Doing)
Joint reflection in plenary: How has the practical examination of our values helped us to shape future education at the LU more clearly?
Formulation of initial concrete steps on how value orientation can be made more visible institutionally and anchored strategically.
- Which values do we already actively live by, and which less so?
- What does it take in concrete terms to really live trust, responsibility, courage, openness, respect, diversity, feedback, commitment, focus and communication?
- How can you promote openness and diversity in practice?
- Where can we find examples that are already working and that everyone can build on together to bring AAEL to life in practice?
🧭 Task: Decide as a group!
🧭 Task: Develop concrete proposals for the long-term integration of these values into everyday university life. Think about the feasibility of the following formats, among others:
— Final invitation to all members of the university:
“With this in mind, we cordially invite you to consciously reflect on how these values can be anchored in your specific working and learning environment.
What does it take to ensure that trust and responsibility are not just on paper?
How can you, how can you promote openness and diversity in practice?
And above all: Where can you find examples that already work in your context that everyone can build on together to bring AAEL to life in practice?”
The further deepening of these values and their significance for AAEL practice can be anchored in very different places – be it in workshops on agile methods, in targeted formats for self-reflection on roles and responsibilities or in organizational development processes.
It is always worth taking an iterative approach:
Which values are already visibly practiced in your and your environment?
Let’s decide together how we can start there and go deeper.
Step 4 — Summarizing the method (Being & Doing)
The participants in the method can decide to make particularly successful examples of value orientation visible so that other areas or stakeholders in the organization can benefit from them and build on them.
- The method combines value orientation (Being) with concrete practice (Doing) and shows that values can become part of everyday life.
- AI agents explicitly appear as independent actors whose role is critically reflected upon.
- The conscious use and design of physical space underlines the importance of human relationships and social security alongside digital interactions.
💡 Summary
The Values Compass workshop not only emphasizes the central role of value orientation in the AAEL framework, but also links it directly to university practice. It shows how values can become effective in everyday actions and be actively supported by all stakeholders – which is a basic prerequisite for successful agile, ambidextrous and participatory university development.
Focus 11: Principles (purple)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) has made a conscious decision to align its development and day-to-day activities more closely with clear principles rather than sticking solely to rigid rules, responsibilities and hierarchies. This change from a rule-oriented to a principle-oriented approach is challenging, but necessary in order to act in an agile, ambidextrous and participatory manner in complex contexts.
In the areas of agility, ambidexterity and leadership in particular, LU has defined principles in line with its values that help to make responsibility and decisions more conscious and flexible. At the same time, an area of tension arises: in a principle-oriented university, mistakes, responsibility and questions of guilt must be dealt with differently. Traditional systems seek clear responsibilities and individual accountability, while a principles-based approach promotes and demands systemic and shared responsibility.
⚓️ This raises important questions:
- How do we as LU create a culture in which principles (responsibility, openness, courage, trust, feedback) are truly lived?
- How do we deal constructively with mistakes as individuals and as an organization when rules are replaced by principles?
- How can a balance be struck between shared responsibility and clear decision-making ability?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— Principle orientation and responsibility – how to deal with mistakes?
(micro, meso and macro level)
A cross-faculty project is being launched at the LU to develop and pilot agile and innovative study formats such as micro-credentials. Teaching staff from various faculties, administrative staff and students are involved. The first mistakes and misunderstandings emerge during the process:
Some administrative staff complain that responsibilities are unclear and ask for clear responsibilities and rules:
“If there are no clear rules, how do I know who is responsible for mistakes?” asks Max Lindenhain, an employee from central administration.
Dean Henrik Meissner explains:
“Our challenge is precisely this: We are consciously replacing traditional rules with principles such as trust, responsibility and openness. We don’t see mistakes primarily as a reason to apportion blame, but rather as learning opportunities that we systematically and openly reflect on together and from which we jointly derive responsibility for change.”
Mechanical engineering professor Samir Al-Hakim adds skeptically:
“That sounds good in theory, but how does it work in practice? What do I actually do if something goes wrong?”
The university management takes the challenge seriously and decides to hold a workshop on principles, which will be attended by all stakeholders in order to clarify these issues together in a practical manner.
AAEL principles of action: Values-based action for sustainable higher education & Sovereign agility in education
Principles replace rules, promote joint learning and support agile decision-making skills in dealing with errors.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How have we dealt with mistakes so far, and what attitude currently characterizes our error-learning culture?
- What advantages does a principle-based approach offer over the traditional rule- and responsibility-oriented approach?
- What obstacles do we have to overcome in order to truly live values such as responsibility and trust?
- How can a balance be struck between joint and individual responsibility in everyday life?
🎉Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL principles workshop – Dealing with responsibility and mistakes
Zielgruppe:
Lehrende, Studierende verschiedener Fakultäten; Verwaltungsmitarbeitende; Hochschulleitung und Dekan_innen; KI-Agent_innen als Reflexionspartner_innen
Ziel der Methode:Bewusste Einführung und Vertiefung einer Prinzipienorientierung im Umgang mit Verantwortung und Fehlern, um agiles, ambidextres und wertebasiertes Handeln im Hochschulalltag zu verankern
Step 1 — Being & Doing AAEL
- Mixed groups reflect on current practice: How do we currently deal with errors?
- Open discussion about current attitudes towards mistakes: blame vs. learning opportunity.
Step 2 — Being & Doing AAEL
- Groups use specific practical examples to work out how AAEL principles of action (based on values such as trust, openness, responsibility and feedback) can be effective in difficult situations.
- Identification of concrete measures to implement a principle-oriented error culture.
Step 3 — Being & Doing AAEL
- Development of a common consensus on a concrete, principle-oriented error-learning culture.
- Planning regular feedback and reflection formats (e.g. responsibility circles) in order to continuously develop the principles.
AAEL principles of action: Integrated Leadership in Education & Bridging the Duality of Exploration and Exploitation
Principle orientation demands and promotes individual and collaborative leadership in order to enable both agile innovation and systematic optimization with confidence.
💡 Summary
At the Learning University, a consistent focus on principles replaces traditional rule and responsibility orientations by making values such as responsibility, openness and trust the benchmark. By seeing mistakes not as a matter of guilt, but as a learning opportunity, a confident, agile and ambidextrous culture is created that strengthens joint action and drives university development forward in the long term.
Focus 12: Culture (petrol)
📍 Background and initial situation at the Learning University (LU)
The Learning University (LU) has set out to create the conditions to enable an AAEL culture – a culture that cannot be prescribed or trained, but emerges from the conscious interaction of all actors and modes of action. An AAEL culture develops not only at the governance level of the university, but in every seminar room, in every interdisciplinary cooperation and in the informal discussions between faculties and administration. It arises where principles are not only stated, but actually lived.
Unlike traditional organizational cultures, which are often shaped by mission statements or programs, an AAEL culture grows out of lived values, principles and practices – in other words, out of Being AAEL (values, principles) and Doing AAEL (methods, practices).
⚓️ The LU recognizes that culture unfolds across all university levels:
- Micro level: Interactions between students, teachers, administration and support teams.
- Meso-level: Cooperation in faculties, between teams, in interdisciplinary projects and administrative units.
- Macro level: university-wide decisions, governance, cooperation with politics and society.
- How do we integrate regular and rapid review and inspect & adapt cycles into our processes in order to specifically incorporate external perspectives, such as those of AI agents and external partners, into the development and approval of contemporary study programs?
But how can an AAEL culture develop emergently in an institution as diverse and loosely coupled as a university?
A central approach is to make the culture lived tangible through visible challenges. At LU, this kind of tension is particularly evident when dealing with “centralized vs. decentralized” – especially when it comes to topics such as digital transformation and sustainability. A sustainable university culture is not only an ecological issue, but also a question of long-term value orientation. How do we deal with resources – not just material ones, but also social and cognitive ones? How do we ensure that our decisions are sustainable in the long term and not just optimize short-term efficiency?
💭 Fictitious situation as a case study at the LU
— be able to assume leadership in all areas. (Focus: middle level of deaneries and faculties)
LU is facing a fundamental challenge:
How can the digital transformation be made sustainable across the university?
There is a controversial debate in the Senate: should digital platforms, tools and AI systems be controlled centrally or decided decentrally by faculties and institutes? Students want flexible, open digital offerings. Administration and IT, on the other hand, favor a clearly regulated infrastructure. Lecturers are divided: Some see great opportunities for digital teaching, others fear a loss of control.
Dean Leonie Hansen from the Faculty of Humanities expresses her concerns:
“If everything is prescribed centrally, we lose the flexibility to adapt digital teaching to our specialist culture in an agile way.”
Dean Henrik Meissner from the Faculty of Business and Economics disagrees:
“But if each faculty develops its own solutions, this is inefficient and consumes unnecessary resources that we don’t have. We lack a common vision. How do we avoid a digital patchwork?”
The speaker Lisa Bites from the Digital Lab has her say:
“The problem is not centralized versus decentralized – but how we experience a digital culture together that enables innovation and at the same time provides a stable foundation for research, teaching and administration. We need a structured dialogue process in order to jointly identify our current practice of digitalization and action in the digitality of higher education and to reflect on how we can best act in the future.”
The student representatives in the Senate also emphasize how relevant it is to include the challenges that teachers sometimes face and the actual practices of students in order to paint an honest picture of the current situation.
As a result, the university management decided to initiate a dialogical cultural analysis in the form of an “AAEL culture lab” with a small group, in which various stakeholders at all levels reflect together on what the digital transformation already means for their daily work and the university culture and what it could mean in the future. What technological, social, spatial or legal framework conditions will be necessary in order to be sustainable in digitality in the future – and to have a sense of psychological security here?
AAEL principles of action: Values-based action for sustainable higher education & Sovereign agility in education
An emergent culture is not created through top-down specifications, but through consciously designed dialog and mutual listening.
🔗 Systemic questions for reflection
- How are we currently experiencing the digital transformation at our university?
- What unspoken values and principles shape our current practice in the area of digitalization and sustainability? Where do these possibly conflict with our mission statement?
- How does the tension between centralized and decentralized structures affect our daily work and collaboration?
- How are our actual actions and dialog with each other shaped by formal and informal rules and structures? What happens in formal channels? Why have informal processes and working methods become established?
- Which values and principles are practiced in our university culture, which are missing or only exist on paper?
- How do we shape a university culture that promotes digital innovation and sustainability in equal measure?
🎉 Outline of a method for application as an exemplary procedure variant:
AAEL cultural analysis – listening, understanding, shaping
Target group:
Students, teaching staff, administration, university management; external observers (“critical friends”); AI agents as reflection partners
Aim of the method :
To make emergent university culture visible and understand how principles and values are actually lived in everyday life.
Step 1 — Perception & Observation (Being AAEL)
- Over the course of a week, university members document and reflect on their daily experiences in relation to central values and principles.
- KI-Agent_innen analysieren parallele Muster in digitalen Prozessen (z. B. Kommunikationsverhalten, Entscheidungswege, interdisziplinäre Zusammenarbeit).
Step 2 — Listening & understanding together (Doing AAEL)
- Members of the university exchange their perceptions in mixed groups: Where do tensions arise? Where are there contradictions between mission statement and practice?
- AI agents are not only used as observers, but can also make patterns in communication processes visible, for example by analyzing assigned meeting minutes and clustering aspects that are frequently addressed – and which are missing. They can also be used as sparring partners by introducing alternative perspectives into the dialog.
Step 3 — Dialogue & cultural design (Being & Doing AAEL)
- Development of joint proposals to promote positive cultural change in an emergent way.
- Identification of areas in which AAEL values can be lived more visibly.
- Planning specific experimental spaces to further develop the university culture.
AAEL principles of action: Integrated Leadership in Education & Bridging the Duality of Exploration and Exploitation
AAEL culture cannot be imposed – it develops over time through reflective, participative processes and joint learning.
💡 Summary
At LU, culture is not defined by instructions or programs, but grows through daily action, reflective practice and iterative dialogue. The university recognizes that culture is fluid and can only emerge emergently – by actively engaging with values, principles and lived practices. Through AAEL culture labs, cultural analyses and dialogical spaces for reflection, LU creates systematic opportunities in which university culture becomes visible and actively develops. The AAEL culture thus develops from the interplay of all AAEL elements and contributes to shaping an agile, ambidextrous and participatory university landscape.
🧭 Task: Model your university or a section of it together.
Use the colors to make AAEL elements visible:
Where are you already experiencing ambidexterity? Where do you feel agility? Where is there resistance, gaps, missing connections?
[2] e.g. https://9spaces.de
part IV — Outlook AAEL Practice PlayBook
The previous part of the AAEL Practice PlayBook will be expanded with the next iterations and supplemented with methods that have already been adapted to an AAEL and (further) developed. It is therefore to be expected that there will be major revisions, significant extensions and methodological concretizations. However, with this first draft of a practical PlayBook, a version is now available that can be built upon.
And for this moment, the fictitious case study outlined here in various places with exemplary outlined possibilities for action provides an initial insight to get a general idea of how the AAEL framework could be adapted in the practice of higher education in the post-digital era.
In the spirit of “being able to act in between”.
Last Update on 11/05/2025 (Changelog)
