Agile Educational Leadership – Auf dem Weg zum Rahmenwerk 1.0

Lese­zeit: 28 Minu­ten

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

“The real role of lea­der­ship in edu­ca­ti­on (…) is cli­ma­te con­trol, crea­ting a cli­ma­te of pos­si­bi­li­ty. And if you do that, peo­p­le will rise to it and achie­ve things that you com­ple­te­ly did not anti­ci­pa­te and could­n’t have expected”. 

Sir Ken Robin­son (2017)1

This ver­si­on 1.0 of the Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship approach is also the first step in the deve­lo­p­ment of a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship.

Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship as a frame­work is inten­ded to help deal with the ongo­ing deve­lo­p­ments in the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor with its dyna­mic con­tex­tu­al con­di­ti­ons and (high­ly) com­plex social chal­lenges in a future-ori­en­ted man­ner and to remain capa­ble of acting. 

Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is based on the idea that a mind­set based on agi­le values and prin­ci­ples can be adapt­ed to the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor in the sen­se of a spe­ci­fic agi­le lea­der­ship. Alt­hough the focus here is on the hig­her edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor, many aspects can be adopted for edu­ca­ti­on and its are­as in a spe­ci­fic way. 

In the Pre­lude to this book, it was alre­a­dy important to me to illus­tra­te with the help of Simon Sinek’s Gol­den Cir­cle that Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship as a con­cep­tu­al approach in the sen­se of a how could be a pos­si­ble stra­te­gic start­ing point — and pro­ba­b­ly not the only one – to shape the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor dif­fer­ent­ly than befo­re with a focus on the digi­tal trans­for­ma­ti­on and under the con­di­ti­ons of a cul­tu­re of digi­ta­li­ty and to deve­lop it on a broad basis along agi­le values and an agi­le mind­set in a par­ti­ci­pa­to­ry and self-orga­nis­ed manner. 

An agi­le approach and a future joint, par­ti­ci­pa­to­ry and self-orga­nis­ed (fur­ther) deve­lo­p­ment of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship as a frame­work are also inten­ded with this free­ly and open­ly available online resour­ce in the form of an initi­al Mini­mal Via­ble Pro­duct (MVP). What exact­ly is meant by this and what con­se­quen­ces it has for the fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is descri­bed below with regard to the inten­ded frame­work, as well as con­nec­tions and cri­ti­cal reflec­tions. This chap­ter con­cludes with an out­look on the next MVP for the AEL framework. 

Licence2

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

A frame, and yet not a frame

A first con­cep­tu­al Mini­mal Via­ble Pro­duct (MVP) (see3 or a more detail­ed expl­ana­ti­on in Ries, 20094 ) is now available – strict­ly spea­king, the MVP in ver­si­on 1.0 of the approach and trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship.

The MVP Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship
The under­stan­ding of an MVP from lean manage­ment is adapt­ed here: Ver­si­on 1.0 of the AEL book is the first usable pro­duct and at the same time the result of a cogni­ti­on and trans­fer pro­cess. It is func­tion­al and can be used imme­dia­te­ly as an online resour­ce with an addi­tio­nal pod­cast func­tion, the basic idea of the objec­ti­ve is made tan­gi­ble and the con­cep­tu­al basis is shown in order to obtain feed­back from inte­res­ted per­sons and spe­ci­fic stake­hol­ders as quick­ly as pos­si­ble during the deve­lo­p­ment pro­cess. This feed­back can show that the direc­tion is right, that cer­tain aspects should defi­ni­te­ly be expan­ded or alre­a­dy exist else­whe­re and should be inte­gra­ted – or that Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is abso­lut­e­ly use­l­ess. In any case, all feed­back is hel­pful for the fur­ther joint deve­lo­p­ment of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship and, fun­da­men­tal­ly, for the joint decis­i­on as to whe­ther it is worth sti­cking with it. 

Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship as frame­work
A frame­work is to be unders­tood as an umbrel­la under which various acti­vi­ties that have agreed on a com­mon frame of refe­rence can be united. How nar­row or broad this frame of refe­rence is drawn, which acti­vi­ties and which actors are ulti­m­ate­ly sub­su­med under it, is an open and con­stant­ly ren­ego­tia­ted pro­cess. A frame­work is not to be unders­tood dog­ma­ti­cal­ly, but pro­vi­des a bin­ding, com­mon thread in the plu­ra­li­ty of pos­si­ble inter­pre­ta­ti­ons and rea­li­sa­ti­ons. Or, to stay with Sinek’s Gol­den Cir­cle, the spe­ci­fic what within the trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship still needs to be developed. 

Accor­din­gly, the Agi­le Educ­tion­al Lea­der­ship frame­work is not a clear method or a spe­ci­fic reci­pe-like approach, simi­lar to the Scrum frame­work5. Based on the agi­le value of con­ti­nuous impro­ve­ment, the agi­le prin­ci­ple of con­stant review and adapt­a­ti­on is also fol­lo­wed in this way by enab­ling an ongo­ing public review of the free­ly and open­ly acces­si­ble frame­work. The fact that the agi­le prin­ci­ples here also over­lap with tho­se of good sci­en­ti­fic prac­ti­ce, such as the fal­si­fi­ca­ti­on prin­ci­ple, review acti­vi­ties of the spe­cia­list com­mu­ni­ty and, more recent­ly, open access, seems almost self-evi­dent, but should be expli­cit­ly men­tio­ned here for the sake of completeness. 

Against this back­ground, it seems only logi­cal that Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is not yet available as a ful­ly deve­lo­ped, theo­re­ti­cal­ly well-foun­ded trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work that has been tried and tes­ted in a wide ran­ge of (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on practice. 

Connections and reflections

Alt­hough the aim is to crea­te a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship, this ver­si­on 1.0 of the approach in the form of the AEL book has alre­a­dy high­ligh­ted initi­al con­nec­tions or rela­ti­onships via the chap­ters published to date. In the fol­lo­wing, examp­les of important con­nec­tions are tra­ced and cri­ti­cal­ly reflec­ted upon. My per­spec­ti­ve is pri­ma­ri­ly that of an edu­ca­tio­nal sci­en­tist when I ori­en­ta­te mys­elf on the three obvious focal points: the A for Agi­le, the E for Edu­ca­tio­nal and the L for Lea­der­ship.

About the A in AEL
The term agi­li­ty has taken on a trend-set­ting posi­ti­on with incre­asing reflec­tion and exch­an­ge in the con­text of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship – and thus over­laps and inte­gra­tes ori­gi­nal con­side­ra­ti­ons such as digi­tal edu­ca­tio­nal lea­der­ship when we now speak of a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship under the con­di­ti­ons of digi­tal trans­for­ma­ti­on and a cul­tu­re of digi­ta­li­ty. Agi­le stands for both an ori­en­ta­ti­on towards agi­le values and an agi­le mind­set (being agi­le), as well as deci­ding against this back­ground and from this per­spec­ti­ve how I can move and deve­lop appro­pria­te­ly as a per­son mys­elf, tog­e­ther with other peo­p­le or in and with the orga­niza­ti­on and the goals asso­cia­ted with it and the pro­ject (doing agi­le). Being agi­le and under­go­ing chan­ge in the sen­se of impro­ving fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment is also the aim of the Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship frame­work itself. 

Roles and respon­si­bi­li­ties

The­re is a strong refe­rence here to the sub­jects or per­sons in their respec­ti­ve are­as in an edu­ca­tio­nal orga­niza­ti­on – and this does not expli­cit­ly mean their respon­si­bi­li­ty or func­tion. The focus is on the dif­fe­rent are­as of action in which each per­son sees room for mano­eu­vre for them­sel­ves or in coor­di­na­ti­on with the peo­p­le around them. The ques­ti­on here is not what func­tion and manage­ment and con­trol task have I been assi­gned, but what respon­si­bi­li­ty do I want to take for my own area of action and in what way, and what frame­work sup­ports me in doing so. In a sys­te­mic sen­se, that not one per­son alo­ne can chan­ge an orga­niza­ti­on with its cul­tu­re, but each indi­vi­du­al per­son can alre­a­dy begin to cul­ti­va­te other or alter­na­ti­ve beha­viours through their beha­viour, the per­son ori­en­ta­ti­on in the Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship approach is also inten­ded. The per­spec­ti­ve of lifel­ong lear­ning and edu­ca­ti­on also plays a role here: Eman­ci­pa­ti­on and the expe­ri­ence of auto­no­my are fun­da­men­tal to per­so­nal deve­lo­p­ment, just as deal­ing with (chal­len­ging) situa­tions bey­ond rou­ti­nes can con­tri­bu­te to per­so­nal trans­for­ma­ti­on and per­so­nal growth. Basi­cal­ly, the idea of edu­ca­ti­on is also embedded in the trans­for­ma­tio­nal lea­der­ship per­spec­ti­ve and, in par­ti­cu­lar, in per­son-cent­red approa­ches such as agi­le lea­der­ship. Alt­hough one group of peo­p­le in par­ti­cu­lar is repea­ted­ly empha­sis­ed here when tal­king about the inte­rests of cus­to­mers or stake­hol­ders, the importance of agi­le teams and their good coope­ra­ti­on with good com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on and inter­ac­tion is also empha­sis­ed at the same time. Cri­ti­cal­ly, the reason for an agi­le team is never an end in its­elf and the­r­e­fo­re the crea­ti­on or deve­lo­p­ment of a pro­duct is the reason for coming tog­e­ther – but at the same time it beco­mes clear here that the work, the per­for­mance or the work that the team per­forms or crea­tes tog­e­ther is always crea­ted in rela­ti­on to deve­lo­p­ment in the sen­se of empower­ment or enab­ling growth of the team members. 

Agi­le values and an agi­le mind­set
The agi­le values can also be con­side­red more broad­ly than the four values from the agi­le mani­festo. Based on the five values that have beco­me a fixed part of the dis­cus­sion with the Scrum frame­work, which include open­ness and trans­pa­ren­cy, cou­ra­ge and encou­ra­ge­ment, respect, focus and com­mit­ment, fur­ther values can also be for­mu­la­ted. The gre­at over­lap in values such as com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, respon­si­bi­li­ty and open­ness as well as diver­si­ty and cou­ra­ge appears to be par­ti­cu­lar­ly cen­tral to the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor, which also has to ful­fil a demo­cra­tic edu­ca­tio­nal man­da­te for a plu­ra­li­stic society. 

It is assu­med here that alt­hough the appli­ca­ti­on of methods and prac­ti­ces can be trai­ned, they can only deve­lop their full effec­ti­ve­ness – inclu­ding at the rela­ti­onship level – when it is clear to ever­yo­ne that being agi­le is the dri­ving force in a per­son for doing agi­le. Authen­tic doing agi­le can the­r­e­fo­re only be cul­ti­va­ted with grown inner con­vic­tion and atti­tu­de. Assum­ing respon­si­bi­li­ty and trust can­not sim­ply be impo­sed or adopted as new team rules over­night. The­se very sen­si­ti­ve values can only deve­lop if the­re is cri­ti­cal reflec­tion on how the power struc­tu­re and actu­al open­ness in the team and the orga­niza­ti­on should be clas­si­fied. This rai­ses important ques­ti­ons, such as how this type of col­la­bo­ra­ti­on can sup­port net­work-ori­en­ta­ted work and how this can some­ti­mes suc­ceed along­side other, clas­sic, line-like forms of collaboration. 

About the E in AEL
Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship aims to con­tri­bu­te to the joint fur­ther deve­lo­p­ment of the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor with a per­spec­ti­ve on peo­p­le, cul­tu­re and edu­ca­tio­nal organizations. 

The Spe­ci­fi­ci­ty of the Edu­ca­ti­on Sec­tor
Es ist eine beson­de­re Her­aus­for­de­rung, denn das über Jahr­zehn­te gewach­se­ne (Hochschul-)Bildungssystem mit sei­nen Zustän­dig­kei­ten zwi­schen Bund, Län­der und Kom­mu­nen sowie Funk­tio­nen und Hier­ar­chien des öffent­li­chen Diens­tes erscheint in der exter­nen Betrach­tung zumeist sehr sta­tisch. Zugleich füh­ren Neue­rung, man den­ke hier nur an die Digi­ta­li­sie­rung, immer wie­der vor Augen, dass es eini­gen Stand­or­ten sehr gut gelingt, die­se für sich pas­send zu inte­grie­ren und zu adap­tie­ren und ande­re hier sehr lan­ge Anlauf­zei­ten benö­ti­gen. Das Bei­spiel Unter­richt und Leh­re zeigt es der­zeit ein­drück­lich: Die aktu­el­le Pan­de­mie-Situa­ti­on nach nun­mehr 1,5 Jah­ren und die brei­te Sor­ge vor dem Start nach den Som­mer­fe­ri­en bzw. nach der vor­le­sungs­frei­en Zeit im Herbst zeigt öffent­lich wahr­nehm­bar deut­lich auf, wel­che Bil­dungs­or­ga­ni­sa­tio­nen und Per­so­nen der­zeit hohes Zutrau­en von ihren Ziel­grup­pen und Akteur_innen genie­ßen und wo Skep­sis über­wiegt. Es scheint also mög­lich zu sein, durch Impul­se von außen und Enga­ge­ment und Krea­ti­vi­tät aus dem Inne­ren her­aus mit spe­zi­fi­schen Ver­än­de­run­gen begin­nen zu können. 

The chall­enge of adap­ting agi­li­ty and lea­der­ship to the Ger­man edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor with its spe­cial cha­rac­te­ristics lies pri­ma­ri­ly in its frame­work con­di­ti­ons. Public fun­ding and thus inde­pen­dence from eco­no­mic requi­re­ments some­ti­mes leads to being per­cei­ved more as an insti­tu­ti­on with its tra­di­ti­ons than as an edu­ca­tio­nal orga­niza­ti­on in the con­text of a dyna­mic VUCA world. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly with regard to the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor and with a spe­cial focus on the incre­asing­ly deve­lo­ping mar­ket for hig­her edu­ca­ti­on or gene­ral aca­de­mic edu­ca­ti­on, the ques­ti­on still ari­ses as to whe­ther it can and wants to do wit­hout a con­tem­po­ra­ry orga­niza­tio­nal and inter­ac­tion frame­work for edu­ca­tio­nal offe­rings and stake­hol­ders that is sui­ta­ble for the­se dyna­mic times? 

Focus on peo­p­le
With its pri­ma­ry ori­en­ta­ti­on towards values for joint inter­ac­tion and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship focu­ses pri­ma­ri­ly on diver­si­ty-sen­si­ti­ve indi­vi­du­als as desi­gners of their orga­niza­ti­on and thus their (edu­ca­tio­nal) sys­tem. They are the actors who can pro­mo­te chan­ge in the tea­ching and lear­ning cul­tu­re, inclu­ding the exami­na­ti­on cul­tu­re, in the various are­as from the cent­re of the orga­niza­ti­on with the know­ledge of orga­niza­tio­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty in the sen­se of lifel­ong lear­ning. They are also the ones who can pro­vi­de decen­tra­li­zed impe­tus for chan­ged forms of col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with short-term ite­ra­ti­ons along hori­zon­tal, net­work-like struc­tures and deve­lop sui­ta­ble working methods bet­ween the depart­ments. And they are the peo­p­le who can build and live a cul­tu­re of faci­li­ta­ti­on tog­e­ther – with the aim of stron­ger self-orga­ni­sa­ti­on that can go well bey­ond par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on and the empower­ment that goes with it. 

As much as this deve­lo­p­ment offers the oppor­tu­ni­ty for per­so­nal growth, the pro­cess can also be exhaus­ting for indi­vi­du­als. This is becau­se a com­mit­ment to agi­le values and working methods also requi­res indi­vi­du­als to con­stant­ly enga­ge in dia­lo­gue, make decis­i­ons them­sel­ves and take on respon­si­bi­li­ty in order to streng­then a cul­tu­re of app­re­cia­ti­on and com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on on an equal footing. 

Pro­zess und Pro­dukt
From an agi­le per­spec­ti­ve, the pro­cess descri­bed and the peo­p­le who have taken respon­si­bi­li­ty for it take on grea­ter signi­fi­can­ce than just the fact that a pro­duct was crea­ted on time. A simi­lar dua­li­ty bet­ween pro­cess and pro­duct can also be found in the field of edu­ca­ti­on. Espe­ci­al­ly at the micro level of tea­ching, this can be illus­tra­ted by ana­lo­gy when it comes to for­ma­ti­ve con­side­ra­ti­ons of lear­ning pro­ces­ses (e.g. the ite­ra­tively pro­du­ced e‑portfolio or pro­ject- and rese­arch-ori­en­ta­ted lear­ning) on the one hand or sum­ma­ti­ve con­side­ra­ti­ons of the results on a dead­line (e.g. the exam or pre­sen­ta­ti­on) on the other. In the con­text of e‑portfolio work, the fine line to a some­ti­mes more neo­li­be­r­al­ly moti­va­ted shift of com­ple­te respon­si­bi­li­ty for one’s own lear­ning pro­cess and edu­ca­tio­nal suc­cess to the sub­ject is jus­ti­fia­bly cri­ti­cis­ed when the ambi­va­lence of self-tech­ni­ques is reflec­ted upon (see, for exam­p­le, the con­tri­bu­ti­ons under Views in Mey­er et al., 2011)6 – a dis­cus­sion that the design of lear­ning envi­ron­ments that empha­sise trans­pa­ren­cy and self-con­trol rather than exter­nal con­trol must con­ti­nue to face today and should be ans­we­red. This dis­cus­sion should also be con­side­red for agi­le teaching. 

The qua­li­ty of a pro­cess and the ext­ent to which it can con­tri­bu­te to a bet­ter pro­duct is often a ques­ti­on of the tea­ching, lear­ning and exami­na­ti­on cul­tu­re and the asso­cia­ted orga­niza­ti­on of rela­ti­onships. In this case, from the subject’s per­spec­ti­ve, the pro­duct repres­ents the per­so­nal lear­ning pro­cess of each per­son or, from the organization’s per­spec­ti­ve, the ful­film­ent of the requi­re­ments to enable suc­cessful edu­ca­tio­nal qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons in the allot­ted time. 

Agil tea­ching
Agi­le lear­ning and stu­dy­ing is curr­ent­ly the anchor point in the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor through which agi­li­ty is fre­quent­ly approa­ched – alt­hough the impres­si­on is that doing agi­le, i.e. the ques­ti­on of methods, is initi­al­ly empha­si­zed some­what more stron­gly here. Howe­ver, the agi­le values and the agi­le mind­set are empha­si­zed more stron­gly by tho­se peo­p­le who, accor­ding to ano­ther impres­si­on from the dis­cus­sion, have alre­a­dy work­ed and expe­ri­men­ted with pro­gres­si­ve, open and more lear­ning-ori­en­ted pedago­gi­cal and didac­tic approa­ches. The­se peo­p­le will pro­ba­b­ly not dis­co­ver as much that is new in agi­le approa­ches and adapt­a­ti­ons of Scrum for tea­ching, but can nevert­hel­ess sup­ple­ment them with newer con­cepts and thus expand the diver­si­ty of pro­cess-ori­en­ta­ted methods. With regard to 21st Cen­tu­ry Skills as well as so-cal­led Future Skills, it can cer­tain­ly be argued that know­ledge of agi­le working methods and prin­ci­ples alo­ne is an important com­pe­tence in itself. 

Adapt­ed to the edu­ca­tio­nal con­text, agi­le methods for tea­ching and lear­ning from a didac­tic and edu­ca­tio­nal sci­ence per­spec­ti­ve enable, for exam­p­le, the actors to deal with the assump­ti­on of dif­fe­rent roles and respon­si­bi­li­ties (simi­lar to open les­sons). They also offer a sui­ta­ble frame­work for joint­ly and open­ly reflec­ting on rela­ti­onship con­stel­la­ti­ons with regard to the dis­tri­bu­ti­on of power bet­ween tea­chers and lear­ners in the tea­ching and lear­ning pro­cess. Par­ti­cu­lar­ly from the per­spec­ti­ve of cross-func­tion­al teams, the­re is an oppor­tu­ni­ty to reflect on ques­ti­ons of ine­qua­li­ty as well as actu­al inclu­si­on and par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the con­text of hete­ro­ge­neous lear­ning groups and their col­la­bo­ra­ti­on in the cour­se of agi­le teaching. 

Lcar­ning Cul­tu­re ins­tead of error cul­tur
A per­spec­ti­ve bet­ween pro­cess and pro­duct also makes it very clear why it seems char­ming to speak of an error cul­tu­re and les­sons lear­nt; howe­ver, from a sub­ject-ori­en­ted per­spec­ti­ve and the cla­im that lifel­ong lear­ning is com­ple­te­ly nor­mal, it would not be neces­sa­ry to speak of errors or error cul­tu­re at all, which are most­ly based on extern­al­ly defi­ned cri­te­ria, but rather on sub­jec­ti­ve lear­ning and edu­ca­tio­nal pro­ces­ses. Howe­ver, this is alre­a­dy a ques­ti­on of values and the image of lear­ning and lear­ners that pre­vails in each case. From an edu­ca­tio­nal theo­ry per­spec­ti­ve, the­re is some­ti­mes talk of situa­tions that are cri­sis-rid­den for a per­son, the over­co­ming of which can con­tri­bu­te to per­so­nal and pro­fes­sio­nal deve­lo­p­ment. Howe­ver, this (edu­ca­tio­nal) cri­sis is lin­ked to the socia­li­sa­ti­on and bio­gra­phy of each per­son — for one per­son, only 98% of the goal achie­ved is alre­a­dy a cri­sis, while for ano­ther per­son 80% is good enough. In each case, the cor­re­spon­ding frame­work for the­se per­spec­ti­ves is pro­vi­ded by the set of values that each per­son brings with them and that is estab­lished and cul­ti­va­ted in the respec­ti­ve area or orga­ni­sa­ti­on. Agi­le values take into account both the per­son in their deve­lo­p­ment and the value of good coope­ra­ti­on, from par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on to self-orga­ni­sa­ti­on; in the­se lea­der­ship per­spec­ti­ves, they repre­sent the view that over­laps great­ly with pro­gres­si­ve under­stan­dings of edu­ca­ti­on, lear­ning and teaching. 

Agi­le (euca­tio­nal) orga­niza­ti­on
Even though agi­li­ty is incre­asing­ly being tri­al­led in the Ger­man edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor and a con­cep­tu­al and theo­re­ti­cal reflec­tion on agi­li­ty for the (own) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor is begin­ning, this deba­te is still in its infan­cy. In retro­s­pect, it could also be an over­sight not to take the­se deve­lo­p­ments, which are not real­ly all that new but have been taken up anew for the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor, into account more broad­ly with regard to agi­le lear­ning and agi­le organizations. 

The exam­p­le of the insti­tu­ti­ons of hig­her edu­ca­ti­ons l the­r­e­fo­re be used to exami­ne the legi­ti­ma­te ques­ti­on of the fit and non-fit of agi­li­ty in the uni­ver­si­ty orga­ni­sa­ti­on in grea­ter depth – also becau­se the­se are assess­ments of fit that are pre­su­ma­b­ly also made in the same or a simi­lar way in other places.
As ear­ly as 2017, Bae­cker came to the fol­lo­wing con­clu­si­on in his artic­le: “The key­word agi­li­ty thus cat­ches uni­ver­si­ties on the wrong foot twice over. (…) But the field is ready”(Baecker, 2017, p. 20, trans­la­ted with DeeplPro)7. Bae­cker argues that uni­ver­si­ties are alre­a­dy pre­pared for at least one form of agi­le manage­ment becau­se they have always tra­di­tio­nal­ly prac­ti­sed it (ibid., p.22)7, when he descri­bes agi­le manage­ment as fol­lows and at the same time empha­si­s­es that, regard­less of this, the­re is still a need for fur­ther action at insti­tu­ti­ons of hig­her education: 

“For the pur­po­ses of the uni­ver­si­ty, agi­li­ty can be unders­tood as a manage­ment con­cept in which the reco­gni­ti­on, cul­ti­va­ti­on and deve­lo­p­ment of the indi­vi­dua­li­ty of facul­ties, chairs and staff posi­ti­ons is con­di­tio­ned and con­trol­led by the estab­lish­ment of feed­back loops that com­bi­ne this indi­vi­dua­li­ty with tasks that come from out­side. The defi­ni­ti­on and mode­ra­ti­on of what is unders­tood by an out­side is the fore­most task of the uni­ver­si­ty manage­ment, which must find an intern­al­ly mana­geable balan­ce bet­ween the various can­di­da­tes for this out­side, such as stu­dent appli­cants, the sta­te of sci­ence and requests from super­vi­so­ry aut­ho­ri­ties” (Bae­cker, 2017, p. 22, trans­la­ted with DeeplPro)7.

It is alre­a­dy clear here that Bae­cker is tal­king about agi­le manage­ment and is addres­sing uni­ver­si­ty manage­ment rather than prio­ri­tiz­ing the lea­der­ship per­spec­ti­ve. Howe­ver, he goes on to empha­si­ze that main­tai­ning the balan­ce bet­ween the dif­fe­rent ver­ti­cal demands bet­ween inter­nal and exter­nal is the domi­nant main task in a uni­ver­si­ty — and this does not even take into account clas­sic com­pe­ti­ti­ve situa­tions with the (not only inter­na­tio­nal) pri­va­te mar­ket. The ext­ent to which agi­le prin­ci­ples can be appli­ed here and whe­re exact­ly the attes­ted need for fur­ther action for spe­ci­fic agi­le lea­der­ship in the con­text of hig­her edu­ca­ti­on lies would have to be exami­ned in detail. This almost rai­ses the ques­ti­on of whe­ther agi­le, decen­tra­li­zed and ver­ti­cal impul­ses from and into socie­ty do not form the actu­al tra­di­ti­on of uni­ver­si­ties? This ques­ti­on does not ari­se from the per­spec­ti­ve of Wil­helm (2019)8, cle­ar­ly cri­ti­ci­s­es agi­li­ty in hig­her edu­ca­ti­on and speaks of the dilem­mas of agi­le orga­ni­sa­ti­ons when she sum­ma­ri­ses the pros and cons of agi­le uni­ver­si­ties in nine the­ses, some of which are out­lined here as examp­les, as they con­tain argu­ments that are heard more fre­quent­ly. She points out that neither the incre­asing com­ple­xi­ty nor the prin­ci­ples of agi­li­ty are new and that deve­lo­p­ment dyna­mics are curr­ent­ly being dra­ma­tis­ed; simi­lar­ly, the­re is no con­vin­cing con­cept in the cur­rent manage­ment lite­ra­tu­re that would be sui­ta­ble for uni­ver­si­ties:
„The­re is no lar­ge orga­ni­sa­ti­on and no uni­ver­si­ty that mana­ges wit­hout a hier­ar­chy. Orga­ni­sa­ti­ons and uni­ver­si­ties are still based, to a con­sidera­ble ext­ent, on the hier­ar­chy prin­ci­ple and will do so in the future as well“ (Wil­helm, 2019, p. 74)9. Wil­helm spricht sich ganz klar auf Grund von Koor­di­na­ti­ons­pro­ble­men gegen eine Dezen­tra­li­sie­rung von Ent­schei­dungs­kom­pe­ten­zen an Hoch­schu­len und für star­ke Hoch­schul­lei­tun­gen aus. Hier­bei stellt sie die Ansicht her­aus, dass Hoch­schu­len ein Inno­va­ti­ons­pro­blem hät­ten, bezwei­felt aller­dings, dass sich die­ses via Agi­li­tät lösen lie­ße. Wil­helm merkt schließ­lich an, dass am Ende von der Idee von Agi­li­tät in ihren Augen allein der stär­ker regio­na­le Bezug in die Umge­bung blie­be und sie den Wert in Agi­li­tät dort sehe, wo Agi­li­tät eine Form sei, „is a mode to crea­te the envi­ron­ment rather than to adapt to it“ (Wil­helm, 2019, S. 76)10. Die Grün­de, wes­halb eine Sta­tus­ver­än­de­rung kaum mög­lich erschei­ne, wer­den zudem mit der The­se unter­mau­ert, dass agi­le Orga­ni­sa­tio­nen an einem Über­maß an inter­ner Unsi­cher­heit schei­ter­ten, da sie sich trotz hoher Fle­xi­bi­li­tät sta­bi­li­sie­ren wol­len wür­den und somit zu neu­en Macht­fel­dern und gar einem Kom­ple­xi­täts­di­lem­ma führen. 

In view of the­se cri­ti­cal assess­ments, which pre­su­ma­b­ly meet with broa­der appr­oval for the time being, the ques­ti­on ari­ses as to whe­re exact­ly the cer­tain­ty comes from that struc­tu­red fle­xi­bi­li­ty, such as that made pos­si­ble by the Scrum frame­work, leads to decis­i­on-making uncertainties? 

And yes, agi­li­ty is not a new topic, nor has the pres­su­re to act curr­ent­ly increased — on the con­tra­ry, this has been poin­ted out for deca­des. The ques­ti­on is the­r­e­fo­re about our sen­se of time and whe­ther we have been moving at the right pace for social dyna­mics sin­ce the intro­duc­tion of the rail­way? The fact that the peo­p­le in an orga­niza­ti­on will react bet­ween eupho­ria and resis­tance to the intro­duc­tion of agi­le pro­ces­ses and working methods is inde­ed the gre­at chall­enge of an agi­le trans­for­ma­ti­on, or rather any trans­for­ma­ti­on. The ques­ti­on is whe­ther the image of a trans­for­ma­ti­on jour­ney, i.e. a lon­ger jour­ney tog­e­ther rather than a switch move­ment, can encou­ra­ge, figu­ra­tively spea­king, to keep the tra­vel­ling group hap­py with inte­res­t­ing expe­ri­en­ces and adven­tures? Becau­se an agi­le trans­for­ma­ti­on pri­ma­ri­ly pur­sues an evo­lu­tio­na­ry basic idea and not a des­truc­ti­ve one – simi­lar to how an orga­niza­tio­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty would allow the modes of Explo­ra­ti­on und Explo­ita­ti­on to coexist. What Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship could alre­a­dy build on would be start­ing from the sta­tus quo and rely­ing on a coll­ec­ti­ve wil­ling­ness to chan­ge, as has alre­a­dy been iden­ti­fied as a cen­tral suc­cess fac­tor in the cour­se of the digi­tal trans­for­ma­ti­on of tea­ching (see Graf-Schlatt­mann et al., 2020)11. The ques­ti­on is the­r­e­fo­re how we can find out whe­ther (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on orga­ni­sa­ti­ons can also ful­fil their social mis­si­on in edu­ca­ti­on, rese­arch and trans­fer along agi­le values and prin­ci­ples as well as the free­dom of rese­arch and tea­ching.

About the L in AEL
The L in AEL stands for the adop­ti­on of agi­le lea­der­ship in the spe­ci­fic con­text of (hig­her) education. 

Assump­ti­on of lea­der­ship
Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is essen­ti­al­ly about assum­ing lea­der­ship — deli­bera­te­ly in the sen­se of lea­der­ship vs. manage­ment. The form of lea­der­ship here once again goes bey­ond the fami­li­ar situa­tio­nal lea­der­ship, becau­se the decis­i­on of situa­tio­nal appro­pria­ten­ess is made with an ambi­dex­trous view of the needs of explo­ita­ti­on and explo­ra­ti­on from the point of view of an agi­le lea­der with a cor­re­spon­din­gly agi­le atti­tu­de (mind­set). The respon­si­bi­li­ty for decis­i­ons can be assu­med by all per­sons invol­ved in their roles for their area — in line with the afo­re­men­tio­ned per­spec­ti­ve of a hori­zon­tal ori­en­ta­ti­on along insi­de and out­side and vis-à-vis. What is important here is that lea­der­ship com­bi­ned with the wil­ling­ness and abili­ty to take on respon­si­bi­li­ty can and should take place inde­pendent­ly of a powerful manage­ment func­tion. In the hig­her edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor, for exam­p­le, lea­der­ship for one’s own area or a spe­ci­fic area can be lived and sup­port­ed for the deve­lo­p­ment of the edu­ca­tio­nal orga­niza­ti­on by lear­ners such as tea­chers or pro­fes­sors, employees in admi­nis­tra­ti­on and in the so-cal­led third space as well as in the sup­port­ing ser­vices and, last but not least, as a frame­work in the func­tions of dea­ne­ries and uni­ver­si­ty manage­ment. In the future, Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship can deve­lop into its own vari­ant in the field of trans­for­ma­tio­nal lea­der­ship styles. 

Matu­ri­ty level
Agi­le lea­der­ship is based on the assump­ti­on that basi­cal­ly anyo­ne can deve­lop this form of lea­der­ship. Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship is based on the idea and assump­ti­on that every per­son can take on lea­der­ship in their envi­ron­ment and that the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor can thus deve­lop from the cent­re and chan­ge in per­spec­ti­ve (see, for exam­p­le, the num­e­rous crea­ti­ve and high­ly com­mit­ted peo­p­le in the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor in tea­ching, admi­nis­tra­ti­on, rese­arch or in aca­de­mic sup­port sys­tems, who deve­lop or impro­ve pro­ces­ses with a broad view and in coor­di­na­ti­on in line with requi­re­ments through cus­to­mi­sed solutions). 

This is based on the edu­ca­tio­nal per­spec­ti­ve of per­so­nal deve­lo­p­ment and growth over a (long) peri­od of time. Basi­cal­ly, Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship can be seen as part of the (pro­fes­sio­nal­ly ori­en­ta­ted) lifel­ong lear­ning pro­cess of peo­p­le who work in or are com­mit­ted to the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor. Good lea­der­ship the­r­e­fo­re depends not only on talent or a spe­cial spi­rit, but also on an individual’s level of matu­ri­ty and wil­ling­ness to develop. 

Evo­lu­tio­na­ry matu­ri­ty models are not uncom­mon (see Dig­Com­pE­du, for exam­p­le, for media-rela­ted com­pe­ten­ces)12, but for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship it would be neces­sa­ry to dis­cuss the ext­ent to which this is a step-by-step model along growth stages or a cir­cu­lar model with a holi­stic view, in which the indi­vi­du­al are­as of action and com­pe­tence of agi­le lea­der­ship for the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor, which have yet to be defi­ned, are equal­ly deve­lo­ped fur­ther. With a view to orga­niza­tio­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty and sen­si­ti­vi­ty as well as the abili­ty to act for two par­al­lel ope­ra­ting sys­tems of explo­ita­ti­on (more manage­ment) and explo­ra­ti­on (more lea­der­ship) and the cor­re­spon­ding per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty, fur­ther con­side­ra­ti­ons with a view to a holi­stic cir­cu­lar model appear promising. 

Per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty
Per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty has so far been more of a phe­no­me­non that has emer­ged on the frin­ges and yet, in terms of the basic idea, forms the core of a per­son who takes on agi­le lea­der­ship for the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor. Becau­se being able to endu­re and balan­ce, to act skilful­ly in the con­text of both explo­ita­ti­on and explo­ra­ti­on and to be sen­si­ti­ve and open to the needs and advan­ta­ges of both are­as for an orga­ni­sa­ti­on and its pro­ces­ses is a major chall­enge and requi­res a high tole­rance for ambi­gui­ty. This in turn, cou­pled with agi­le values and prin­ci­ples and the abili­ty to pos­sess coa­ching and inspi­ra­tio­nal skills in addi­ti­on to a par­ti­ci­pa­ti­ve lea­der­ship style, is what cha­rac­te­ri­ses agi­le lea­der­ship. And if you take a clo­ser look, it is some­thing that many peo­p­le alre­a­dy have and are pos­si­bly just not yet awa­re of. In hig­her edu­ca­ti­on in par­ti­cu­lar, it is vir­tual­ly part of ever­y­day life to think and deve­lop rese­arch ide­as crea­tively and explo­ra­tively from the out­set, while the­se have to be adapt­ed in par­al­lel in a line­ar and high­ly stan­dar­di­sed way to appli­ca­ti­on forms and small-sca­le spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons – some­ti­mes at the cost of redu­cing the inno­va­ti­on or com­ple­te­ly new ide­as in favour of the chan­ce of fun­ding appr­oval becau­se they do not fit into the fami­li­ar sche­me. In tea­ching, more and more lec­tu­r­ers are deve­lo­ping crea­ti­ve ways of tea­ching online and taking respon­si­bi­li­ty for their area, sup­port­ed by an open admi­nis­tra­ti­on that seeks and finds ways in the for­mal requi­re­ments to enable tea­ching and exami­na­ti­ons to be for­mal­ly com­pa­ti­ble with the cur­ri­cu­lar and admi­nis­tra­ti­ve requi­re­ments of the exami­na­ti­on offices. This and other examp­les alre­a­dy cha­rac­te­ri­se ever­y­day life in the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on con­text and fur­ther examp­les can pro­ba­b­ly be found immediately. 

Cou­ra­ge for Ambi­dex­teri­tyut
The step towards a self-evi­dent accep­tance and hand­ling of per­ma­nent ambi­dex­teri­ty, as it stands for the digi­tal trans­for­ma­ti­on, is a con­scious one, but some­ti­mes less signi­fi­cant than initi­al­ly feared. After all, the­re is alre­a­dy ple­nty of expe­ri­ence of how linea­ri­ty and net­work struc­tures can work and deve­lop tog­e­ther – inclu­ding in the edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor. Ever­y­thing is alre­a­dy there! 

The step towards per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty, on the other hand, requi­res more cou­ra­ge. After all, beco­ming awa­re of the VUCA world and your own pre­re­qui­si­tes and are­as of deve­lo­p­ment is one thing, but embar­king on a per­so­nal deve­lo­p­ment jour­ney (again) tog­e­ther with a team with a view to con­stant chan­ge in line with agi­le values and prin­ci­ples is ano­ther. This step can once again be a chall­enge for some peo­p­le; after all, it starts with retro­s­pec­ti­ves in the team, reflec­ting on the joint col­la­bo­ra­ti­on on a small sca­le and impro­ving it tog­e­ther, ins­tead of cul­ti­vat­ing attri­bu­ti­ons and fin­ger-poin­ting and taking the pre­vai­ling team cul­tu­re as a given along­side the fac­tu­al level of task com­ple­ti­on. Enga­ging in Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship the­r­e­fo­re also means enga­ging with one’s own per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty and deve­lo­ping it fur­ther – sim­ply refer­red to as Ambidextrie4me. The­se sup­port­ing skills should then make it pos­si­ble to deve­lop and imple­ment spe­ci­fic Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship within the frame­work of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship for the respec­ti­ve spe­ci­fic edu­ca­tio­nal sec­tor; in Sinek’s words: to crea­te the What.

Deve­lo­ping Ambidextrie4me
The deve­lo­p­ment of one’s own per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty can take place in con­junc­tion with acting in an orga­ni­sa­tio­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty and hap­pen inci­den­tal­ly. The idea here is also to fur­ther under­stand and dif­fe­ren­tia­te per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty in order to spe­ci­fi­cal­ly pro­mo­te it and sup­port its development. 

First and fore­most, the coa­ching style and the spe­cial role of a coa­ching atti­tu­de should be empha­sis­ed here. Espe­ci­al­ly with refe­rence to the fact that many con­tra­dic­to­ry expe­ri­en­ces have alre­a­dy been expe­ri­en­ced and made, the per­spec­ti­ve on one’s own resour­ces and the pro­mo­ti­on of help for self-help through sys­te­mic coa­ching appears to be an important aspect in the deve­lo­p­ment of ambi­dex­teri­ty. Coa­ching focus­sed on the deve­lo­p­ment of one’s own per­so­na­li­ty can take a varie­ty of forms — from accep­ting a coa­ching offer to peer coa­ching in a team or across the work area. The cir­cle-based Working Out Loud (WOL) method, for exam­p­le, is curr­ent­ly being expe­ri­men­ted with in various are­as of edu­ca­ti­on such as hig­her edu­ca­ti­on, which can be seen as a form of peer coa­ching, col­le­gi­al coun­sel­ling and a stage of lifel­ong (self-)learning in net­works (see for exam­p­le https://hochschulforumdigitalisierung.de/de/blog/working-out-loud-hochschule or for the wider area https://workingoutloud.com/blog/wol-for-education-an-update)).

The ext­ent to which gene­ral­ly cir­cle-based methods, i.e. methods in which fixed small groups work tog­e­ther over a limi­t­ed peri­od of time along a gui­ding struc­tu­re and net­work bey­ond their own area of work or even bey­ond their own orga­ni­sa­ti­on, can con­tri­bu­te to per­so­nal deve­lo­p­ment in the sen­se of ambi­dex­teri­ty, or whe­ther alter­na­ti­ve for­mats or for­mats that have yet to be deve­lo­ped are requi­red, will be shown in practice. 

The com­pre­hen­si­ve pro­mo­ti­on of the deve­lo­p­ment of Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship can con­tri­bu­te to the deve­lo­p­ment of strong and satis­fied teams that lead each other well and are able and wil­ling to assu­me lea­der­ship for each other and from the cent­re for the edu­ca­tio­nal orga­ni­sa­ti­on as a who­le. And this is whe­re the cir­cle clo­ses with regard to agi­le trans­for­ma­ti­on, whe­re the ques­ti­on must be con­stant­ly asked to what ext­ent it suits ever­yo­ne, whe­ther the­re is fun­da­men­tal satis­fac­tion and open-min­ded­ness and what each per­son needs to be able — and wil­ling — to con­ti­nue the pro­cess. The ext­ent to which ever­yo­ne can be taken along in the end can cer­tain­ly be bet­ter ans­we­red if the respec­ti­ve start­ing point is known at which the agi­le trans­for­ma­ti­on jour­ney beg­ins in the respec­ti­ve edu­ca­tio­nal organisation. 

The Power Ques­ti­on
Alt­hough the expli­cit focus on peo­p­le and agi­le values takes cent­re stage here, one important ques­ti­on remains, name­ly how to deal with issues of power. Here, it seems sen­si­ble to look at the micro-level of inter­ac­tions and their con­nec­tions in an orga­ni­sa­tio­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty from the per­spec­ti­ve of power theo­ry as well as psy­cho­lo­gi­cal ques­ti­ons of moti­va­ti­on and socio-psy­cho­lo­gi­cal perspectives. 

At this point, the role of the orga­ni­sa­ti­on as a frame­work that can be shaped and, abo­ve all, as an estab­lished and set frame­work from an orga­ni­sa­tio­nal socio­lo­gy per­spec­ti­ve must also be cri­ti­cal­ly dis­cus­sed via the ques­ti­on of power. 

Last but not least, the cri­ti­cal view of the aspect of power or acting against values invi­tes us to open up broad per­spec­ti­ves and cri­ti­cal­ly reflect on Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship in the con­text and con­tra­dic­tion bet­ween sys­tems theo­ry and con­s­truc­ti­vism as well as orga­ni­sa­ti­on and sub­ject. In this con­text, the pos­si­bi­li­ties of an inte­gral view of agi­le trans­for­ma­ti­on and evo­lu­tio­na­ry forms of orga­ni­sa­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ment should also be cri­ti­cal­ly explo­red. From a cul­tu­ral per­spec­ti­ve, with a view to the digi­tal trans­for­ma­ti­on and the asso­cia­ted deve­lo­p­ment of spe­ci­fic modes of com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on and action, it remains to be explo­red how a cor­re­spon­ding cul­tu­re of digi­ta­li­ty in (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on can emer­ge in this context. 

In this respect, the approach via the ques­ti­on of whe­re exact­ly power remains in Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship offers a cen­tral start­ing point for a theo­re­ti­cal con­side­ra­ti­on – with a focus on a clear solu­ti­on ori­en­ta­ti­on for the deve­lo­p­ment of the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sector. 

Everything is already there! – Outlook on the framework 

The Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship frame­work is curr­ent­ly being deve­lo­ped. Ver­si­on 1.0 of the MVP is now available. In the indi­vi­du­al chap­ters, the­se expl­ana­ti­ons high­light important per­spec­ti­ves that under­pin Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship. Refe­rence is made to exis­ting con­cepts and their poten­ti­al or spe­ci­fic ele­ments for adapt­a­ti­on, as well as initi­al theo­re­ti­cal con­nec­tion pos­si­bi­li­ties, and cor­re­spon­ding lines of thought and cri­ti­cal reflec­tion are sug­gested. Howe­ver, the ele­ments of an Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship frame­work are basi­cal­ly not new. The only ques­ti­on that remains is what should be fur­ther deepe­ned, what should be sup­ple­men­ted or what should be dis­card­ed and how the re-mix should con­ti­nue to be organised. 

What may be new in this con­text is that, start­ing from an edu­ca­tio­nal sci­ence per­spec­ti­ve, the endea­vour is to think lea­der­ship for the abili­ty to act in com­plex con­texts and start­ing from the sta­tus quo of the edu­ca­tio­nal sector’s own trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry needs. The per­spec­ti­ve of per­so­nal ambi­dex­teri­ty ser­ves as inspiration. 

It may be cou­ra­ge­ous to call for inte­gra­ti­ve, solu­ti­on-ori­en­ta­ted action bey­ond respon­si­bi­li­ties and posi­ti­ons of power — and to remind ever­yo­ne that anyo­ne can take on lea­der­ship in their area at any time. It may also be cou­ra­ge­ous to sug­gest a dif­fe­rent path for the (hig­her) edu­ca­ti­on sec­tor than the one taken so far and to pre­sent the approach for a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship for joint con­sul­ta­ti­on and coor­di­na­ti­on – and to con­ti­nue thin­king and rese­ar­ching its jus­ti­fia­bi­li­ty and fea­si­bi­li­ty in the mean­ti­me. After all, the­re is a lot the­re – but only a first step has been taken, which can be fol­lo­wed by others to turn the MVP into a finis­hed pro­duct or, in this case, a framework. 

Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship can curr­ent­ly be used as a coll­ec­tion of values, prin­ci­ples and prac­ti­ces for a spe­ci­fic edu­ca­tio­nal prac­ti­ce and can be deve­lo­ped con­cre­te­ly and appro­pria­te­ly within this frame­work. Ver­si­on 1.0 of the MVP curr­ent­ly com­bi­nes con­cepts, approa­ches and methods adapt­ed for the spe­ci­fic field of edu­ca­ti­on from dif­fe­rent disci­pli­nes and prac­ti­ce with a view to the goal of a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship.

With Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship, I want to encou­ra­ge solu­ti­on-ori­en­ta­ted rethin­king and step-by-step chan­ge from within the edu­ca­ti­on system. 

  1. Robin­son, K. (Autor). (2017). An Inter­view with Sir Ken Robin­son [Pod­cast]. Los Ange­les: Art Ed Radio. []
  2. Licence: https://de.freepik.com/psd/mockup”>Mockup PSD by Vec­to­ri­um — de.freepik.com; Book-Cover by Kers­tin Mayr­ber­ger, Lizenz CC BY 4.0 []
  3. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minimum_Viable_Product&oldid=208755859 []
  4. Ries, E. (2009, 3. August). Mini­mum Via­ble Pro­duct: a gui­de. Acces­sed 30.07.2021, from http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/08/minimum-viable-product-guide.html []
  5. see https://www.scrum.org/resource s/what-is-scrum/)) or the IATF frame­work (Inte­gral Agi­le Trans­for­ma­ti­on Frame­work) ((see https://www.trans4mation.coach/trans4mation-approach/)). Curr­ent­ly, ver­si­on 1.0 of the MVP Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship com­bi­nes con­cepts, approa­ches and methods adapt­ed from dif­fe­rent disci­pli­nes and prac­ti­ce with a view to the goal of a trans­di­sci­pli­na­ry frame­work for Agi­le Edu­ca­tio­nal Lea­der­ship for the spe­ci­fic area of (hig­her) education. 

    What is spe­cial about a frame­work is that it is not sta­tic or inten­ded to be sta­tic. The strength of a frame­work lies in the fact that the cur­rent ver­si­on is repea­ted­ly sub­jec­ted to a cri­ti­cal review and adjus­t­ments can be made from time to time to meet the requi­re­ments of the respec­ti­ve time and needs (see, for exam­p­le, the latest ver­si­on of the Scrum frame­work with its chan­ges every 2 – 3 years) ((https://scrumguides.org/revisions.html []

  6. Mey­er, T., Mayr­ber­ger, K., Mün­te-Gous­sar, S. & Schwal­be, C. (Eds.). (2011). Kon­trol­le und Selbst­kon­trol­le. Zur Ambi­va­lenz von ePort­fo­li­os in Bil­dungs­pro­zes­sen. Wies­ba­den: VS Ver­lag für Sozi­al­wis­sen­schaf­ten. []
  7. Bae­cker, D. (2017). Agi­li­tät in der Hoch­schu­le. Die Hoch­schu­le: Jour­nal für Wis­sen­schaft und Bil­dung, 26(1), 19 – 28. [] [] []
  8. Wil­helm, E. (2019). The uni­ver­si­ty as an open plat­form? : a cri­tique of agi­li­ty. Bei­trä­ge zur Hoch­schul­for­schung. 41(3), 66 – 79. []
  9. Wil­helm, E. (2019). The uni­ver­si­ty as an open plat­form? : a cri­tique of agi­li­ty. Bei­trä­ge zur Hoch­schul­for­schung. 41(3), 66 – 79. []
  10. Wil­helm, E. (2019). The uni­ver­si­ty as an open plat­form? : a cri­tique of agi­li­ty. Bei­trä­ge zur Hoch­schul­for­schung. 41(3), 66 – 79. []
  11. Graf-Schlatt­mann, M., Meis­ter D. M., Oevel G., & Wil­de M. (2020). Kol­lek­ti­ve Ver­än­de­rungs­be­reit­schaft als zen­tra­ler Erfolgs­fak­tor von Digi­ta­li­sie­rungs­pro­zes­sen an Hoch­schu­len. In: S. Hof­hues, M. Schief­ner-Rohs, S. Aßmann & T. Brahm (Hrsg.). Zeit­schrift für Hoch­schul­ent­wick­lung, 15 (1). 19 – 39. https://zfhe.at/index.php/zfhe/article/view/1302 []
  12. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcompedu []
Scroll to Top