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 This page has been replaced by a current version and is available here as an archive for the AEL book version 1.0 until further notice.
„If you genuinely embrace these new perspectives, that openness can radically change the way you relate to your challenges, both personally and professionally, and be the catalyst that shifts your way of being as a transformational leader“ (translated with DeeplPro)
Michael K. Spayd & Michele Madore (2020, S. 54)1
Mit Agile Educational Leadership werden verschiedene Perspektiven integriert, in denen hier der gemeinsame Sinn gesehen wird, zur Antwort beizutragen, wie wir den (Hochschul-)Bildungsbereich möglichst gut aufstellen und entwickeln können, so dass aus dem vielfach zu vernehmenden Bekenntnis, die Handlungsfähigkeit der Lernenden für die Lösungen von zukünftigen Problemen in einer ungewissen Zukunft zu stärken, auch Realität wird (siehe Why).
With a personal focus on the learners in the educational organisations, this also includes keeping an eye on the extent to which the (training) development of so-called T‑shape skills (see agility) or a VUCA world and for action in the course of a digital transformation is equally dependent on specialist expert knowledge and generalist skills, as is the case, for example, with future skills or 21st Century Skills, which can also contribute to the personal development of each person. From an organisational perspective, the question arises as to what framework the (higher) education institutions as an organisation will and want to offer for this. After all, opportunities for action can be both limited and opened up by the type of structures and rules that are in place and practised.
In any case, “equally” poses the same challenge for everyone involved, both in terms of people and the organisation. Being able to do or balance something equally or, in a figurative sense, equally skilfully with both hands is the core idea behind the ambidexterity described above.
Whether as organizational or personal ambidexterity, both entail an external and internal conflict, as contradictory demands have to be harmoniously balanced. Once you become aware of this constant presence of exploitation and exploration, it becomes clear that this kind of balancing of ambiguity, complexity, volatility and uncertainty is by no means new, whether in everyday life (e.g. paying with cash and buying at the counter or trying out the latest apps for paying or booking tickets), or with a self (e.g. organizing leisure time and holidays, planning leisure time and holidays, or booking tickets). Whether it’s with yourself (e.g. organizing your leisure time and holidays close to your own comfort zone, where the campsite promises security and routine, or trying out a Spanish hiking trail with minimal luggage) or in a professional context (e.g. spending the morning working on an innovative project in a completely self-organised manner and filling out forms to prove project funds in the afternoon or optimizing the quality and speed of feedback formats). Tolerance for precisely such contradictory situations, constellations or moments is increasingly required and also demanded.
What this is intended to make clear is that although the organizational framework and therefore also the form of organizational ambidexterity as sequential, structural or contextual ambidexterity is important, it is the individuals within it who are responsible for the greatest performance. And this is why personal ambidexterity is seen here as the primary reference point for contemporary leadership. So what role does this personal ambidexterity play in relation to leadership and especially in relation to leadership in (higher) education?
As a first step, it makes sense to make a conceptual differentiation between management and leadership and their forms and to examine the role of agility and values, before moving on to Agile Educational Leadership in the next chapter.
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)]
Management and leadership
The question of leadership in Agile Educational Leadership arises from an interest primarily related to the education sector. For this reason, it is less about the question of corporate management, institutional management or governance in educational organizations and more about the question of who could take on leadership in which areas for the improvement of (higher) education.
Leadership vs. Management
Why does the question of leadership arise here and not management, and why not simply talk about leadership or leader / manager instead of leader or manager? Leadership and management are not synonyms, even if they are usually subsumed under leadership. Leadership can therefore serve as a framework here, but the next differentiated level is focussed on here — particularly due to the history of the term leader in Germany – because this makes it clearer why leadership forms the anchor for Agile Educational Leadership.
The debate about the distinction between management and leadership was initiated back in the 1970s because it became clear that the understanding of management had been too narrow until then. This differentiation was further developed by John P. Kotter (2001[1991])3, who emphasised that leadership and management should be distinguished and at the same time complement each other. To this day, his main statement is still being taken up, according to which managers promote stability and leaders are out for change and only those organisations that can take this contradiction into account and implement it can develop quickly in turbulent times such as VUCA. Essentially, the difference between leaders and managers lies at the level of core processes and results:
As a result, management primarily stands for reliability in the form of order and consistency. It is characterized by planning and budgeting, organization and personnel planning as well as controlling and problem solving. Known and existing processes are optimized as a matter of priority in order to increase efficiency.
Leadership is associated with the result of creating change, transformation and movement. It is characterised by the opening up of new directions and opportunities in line with visions, while at the same time empowering employees in the new direction and involving them in the change process through motivation and inspiration and allowing them to grow as individuals. Leadership often requires new, unfamiliar processes; effectiveness is a key metric.
Kotter (2001[1991])3 states that in a changing world, one cannot function without the other, meaning that management and leadership are equally necessary. This distinction is still relevant in practice today (for an example of agile leadership see Greßer und Freisler, 2017, p. 33)4.
This becomes clear once again when further differentiations and perspectives on leadership and management are listed below. This distinction is important for Agile Educational Leadership because it is primarily a matter of recognizing where the differences lie and why they exist, with what advantages and disadvantages, on the one hand, and being able to decide integratively when which mode should prevail, on the other.
Educational Leadership and Management
The distinction between management and leadership is also seen and made for the education sector.
With reference to the German education sector, Anders et al. (2021)5 in Anlehnung an Kotters (2001[1991])3 Differenzierung in ähnlicher Weise fest, dass eine Unterscheidung zwischen Management und Leadership gemacht werde und Unterschiedliches meine. Es wird hier allerdings für den deutschsprachigen Bildungsbereich klar herausgestellt, dass eine funktionale Unterscheidung zwischen Management und Leadership so nur im Hochschulsystem getroffen werden könne, was sich in den Funktionen von Rektor_in und Präsident_in sowie Kanzler_in ausdrücke (siehe zum besseren Nachvollzug beispielsweise die ausführliche Analyse zum status quo des new public managment an deutschen Hochschulen bei Kleimann, 2016)6. This is different in the school system, where head teachers have to combine both in their person, “… which is associated with considerable professionalisation problems” (ibid., p. 27, translated with DeeplPro)7. In this context, the term “Educational Management” is primarily used and the limitations of leadership approaches in the education sector are repeatedly pointed out and there is even talk of a leadership paradox,
„because managers are always forced into double-bind situations: On the one hand, they are expected to make and enforce smart, robust decisions (‘top down’), while at the same time they are expected to ‘take the employees with them’ (‘bottom up’), which means that they often have to forego enforcing their own decisions or subject them to significant modifications. The assumption that this is purely a communication problem is wrong “ (ibid., p.29)8.
In business organisations, the perceived leadership paradox is also a well-known situation, especially in middle management, which is associated with the competencies of managers and how they put perceived contradictions into practice. The situation is therefore not new – what seems rather unusual is that this expectation of managers’ leadership competences is now increasingly being recognised in the education sector (see, for example, the discussion on lateral leadership from the centre in universities in Zellweger, 20169 or the thematisation of power in leadership positions in the school context by Amtmann and de Fontana, 202010 ).
For this reason, in view of the aforementioned professionalisation problem, it would seem appropriate to take a further look at a specific personal ambidexterity in the (higher) education sector.
In the international education sector, explanations can be found under the heading of educational leadership, which mostly refer to the management of schools and the pronominalization of head teachers, which is why the term school leadership is often used directly here. It should be noted here that business management perspectives are indeed appropriate wherever the public education system is not essentially state-funded, as is the case in Germany. This also applies to the private market of education providers in Germany (for example, the importance of private universities is also increasing in 2020, see Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, 202011). Wobei die Corona-Pandemie dazu beigetragen haben dürfte, dass eine Aufmerksamkeit dafür geschaffen wurde, als Lernende selbstverständlicher auch auf nationale wie internationale Online-Angebote zurückgreifen zu können, die nicht explizit von der eigenen (Hochschul-)Bildungsorganisation stammen.
The relationship between leadership and management in the education sector is also analyzed here with reference to Kotter (2015)12 and its starting point of the dual operating system (see also again the illustrative analogy of the red and blue worlds for organizational transformation and the role of the actors assuming responsibility in Greßer & Freisler, 2020, p. 54ff.)13, to emphasize that the education sector is also about the “and” between management and leadership in order to remain capable of acting. This does not mean that management and leadership are always present in equal measure. Finding the right balance is already part of leadership or the question: Why is the “and” still so difficult in the education sector?
Leadership variants
Leadership does not stand for a single approach. Some variants of leadership approaches and concepts, as they appear relevant in the context of a dynamic, complex environment and digital transformation, are outlined in the following sections as examples in order to contribute as reference points for the further concretisation of leadership in Agile Educational Leadership. This is because Agile Educational Leadership is essentially the fundamental perspective of Kotter (2015)14 of a dual operating system, for which it needs a broad view of management and leadership in order to enable contemporary leadership. Accordingly, it is assumed that only knowledge of traditional leadership concepts for hierarchical line or pyramid organizations, as well as more complex and open forms of leadership geared towards network organizations, can help to decide wisely in every situation which form of leadership is appropriate here and which is not consistent with the values of the organization and the actors. It should be noted at this point that for an Agile Educational Leadership, it is not only relevant to be able to decide situationally, but to make the decision based on the context of agile values and an agile attitude and mindset.
Transformational and transactional style
In the context of debates on management competences, according to Burns (1978)15, different leadership styles and leadership models can be distinguished: approaches and concepts in the direction of transactional leadership, which can be categorized more strongly as management, and approaches and concepts that can be described as transformational leadership or transformational leadership, which are associated with the idea of leadership. Both perspectives essentially pursue the same goal, namely that the organisation’s objectives are successfully achieved. The difference lies in the process design between the actors in order to achieve these goals. The two perspectives can be roughly distinguished and characterised as follows (see, among others, Greßer and Freisler, 201716; Anders et al., 202117 ).
A transactional understanding of leadership is characterized by the fact that it is characterized by give and take and is fundamentally based on an exchange relationship between superiors and employees. Employees receive a tangible or intangible reward, such as remuneration or status, for the successful achievement of set goals and tasks for which they have been delegated responsibility. Accordingly, they are criticized and penalized if they fail to achieve the set targets. Target agreements (management by objectives) are therefore also a central means of this management concept. Transactional leadership relies less on employees’ own initiative and sense of responsibility and more on their extrinsic motivation and goal-orientated functioning on the basis of a more objective exchange of services (transaction).
In contrast to transactional leadership, a transformational understanding of leadership pursues the integrative approach of involving employees in their attitudes, goals and values in such a way that these evolve with those of the organisation and are aligned in terms of values and purpose (transformation). The organisation develops with all its people in its structures and remains dynamic. The approach clearly focuses on transparency, conviction and the intrinsic motivation of employees and works with four principles such as the idealised influence of the leader as a role model, inspiring motivation through vision, intellectual stimulation of employees’ creativity and innovation potential as well as individual attention and support for the strengths and needs of employees and the promotion of self-confidence by the leader as a coach (see e.g. Greßer and Freisler, 2020, p. 120ff.)18. Conceptually, the following typical behaviours of leaders are associated with the transformational leadership approach (Anders et al., 2021, p. 65 who also emphasize that there is still a research gap in terms of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of these behaviours)5:
- “Explication of a positive vision or mission with a clear reference to the past and future of the group (organisation),
- Linking the vision or mission with positive, fundamental values,
- formulate challenging expectations and demand collective self-confidence,
- to make your own self-confidence clear again and again,
- be a role model and symbol, e.g. by exemplifying the desired behaviour and making your own sacrifices,
- show trust and respect towards employees,
- emphasise the value of employees and seek personal relationships,
- recognise the emotions of employees, take them seriously and stimulate them for the good of the mission (control your own emotions),
- stimulate the employees’ motivational dispositions in line with the mission, e.g. through challenging goals, offers of friendship or the evocation of danger,
- Both perspectives, with their respective proximity to management and leadership, also play a role in the education sector, although transformational leadership is considered to have more advantages in terms of satisfaction, motivation, creativity and quality of results, among other things (for more details on this distinction and an overview of existing empirical studies, see Andersemphasise the intrinsic value of one’s own actions.” (translated with DeeplPro)
Both perspectives, with their respective proximity to management and leadership, also play a role in the education sector, although transformational leadership is considered to have more advantages in terms of satisfaction, motivation, creativity and quality of results, among other things (for more details on this distinction and an overview of existing empirical studies, see Anders et al., 2021, p. 63 f.)5.
Kotter (2015, S. 23 f.)12 and his perspective on a dual operating system makes it clear that for an organisation to be successful, it must continue to consist of management-controlled hierarchy and leadership in a network that acts strategically in terms of development, or to put it more boldly, of stability and agility in equal measure. For future development under dynamic conditions, leadership rather than management must take place and an attitude of wanting to rather than having to should prevail. His first basic principle for a dual operating system is accordingly:
“Important changes are driven by many employees from all areas and not just the usual select few. That’s where it all starts. To become fast and agile, you need a completely new way of gathering information, making decisions and implementing strategically relevant decisions. If you want to really step on the gas, you need more eyes to see, more brains to think and more legs to act. To be innovative, you need more people with different perspectives and good working relationships. More employees must have the freedom to initiate initiatives — and not just carry out the instructions of others.” (Kotter, 2015, p. 25)12
Wanting to and being able to confidently endure and handle this simultaneity of more activities, as described by Kotter, also constitutes organisational ambidexterity.
Variants of transformational leadership
The transformational approach stands for types of leadership styles that lie more in leadership and clearly beyond management. If you look at the characteristics and typical behaviours, variants of transformational leadership generally correspond to agile values and principles. At the same time, there is no single correct style and the task remains to be able to fall back on the appropriate one depending on the situation – in other words, to remain agile with oneself in order to be able to adapt to the respective situation with its requirements and the respective players. The need for a wide range of leadership styles is in turn also dependent on how the organizational context is structured and which culture will develop in complex contexts.
Greßer and Freisler (2020, S. 124)19 have compiled a pragmatic overview of behavioural patterns for leadership along an ascending person orientation. These rather practice-oriented attributions are adopted here for the moment and subsequently summarised along the formulations of Greßer and Freisler (2020, pp. 124 – 129)20 because the radius of situationally appropriate leadership is made clear in this way and further reference can be made to these initially descriptive attributions in a critical and constructive manner.
Overall, the authors assign normative and directive behaviour to a transactional leadership style, which could also be subsumed under management in line with the differentiation outlined above. Participative, integrative, coaching and inspirational leadership behaviour are attributed to a transformational style, as they are assigned to leadership. In order not to overuse the terms, we will continue to refer to leadership styles that can be categorised from management to leadership against the background of the differentiation just made in this section.
- Normative – The what and how are clearly formulated (“Do it … my way!”), i.e. there is a high demand on employees to accept and adopt the high performance and quality standards set by superiors as a benchmark for themselves. Typical behaviours here are command & control with clear goals and paths and little room for manoeuvre and delegation of responsibility.
- Directive – The what is specified – the result counts (‘Just do it!’), i.e., with this strongly task- and results-oriented behaviour, concrete and clear instructions are given to employees, whereby the process is less important than the result. Typical behaviours are to delegate tasks and responsibilities, to make decisions without involving employees and to act consistently and assertively.
- Participative – the focus is on participation, questions and involvement (‘Be part of it!’), i.e. employees are involved in the processes at an early stage and with shared responsibility, and goals are set and decisions made together. Typical behaviours for this type of transparency and comprehension are giving freedom and scope for development, acting cooperatively and democratically, and actively encouraging team participation.
- Integrative – promoting cohesion and integrating differences (‘Together we are strong!’), i.e., strengthening team cohesion and placing a high value on good interpersonal working relationships and cooperation beyond the factual level. Typical behaviours include relationship-oriented thinking and action, as well as promoting a positive and constructive working atmosphere of belonging with regard to the needs, diversity of opinion and diversity of all employees.
- Coachiv – recognizing and promoting potential, reinforcing strengths (‘Yes, you can!’), i.e. the long-term development of individual employees is at the forefront, which is why they are encouraged to recognize and develop their strengths by asking questions that help them to help themselves, by working independently and using the space given to them to develop. Typical behaviours are expressed in consistent support for personal growth by engaging with individuals and delegating appropriate tasks to them, which they then develop and create learning opportunities. Accordingly, a good error or learning culture is supported and encouraged to actively change perspectives and critically reflect on one’s own actions and their results. This strength-oriented behaviour also requires continuous self-reflection in order to clearly differentiate between the leader and neutral or neutral coach in the coachive style.
- Inspirational – inspiring and creating meaning (‘I have a dream!’), i.e., employees can be inspired by a vision or meaning (purpose or the ‘why’ of working together) for the overarching goals, change, transformation or strategy because they have been shown the big picture and have been given a long-term orientation. Typical behaviours are inspiration and enthusiasm for breaking new ground together and trying things out. Energy is released, and creativity, innovation and free thinking are encouraged by activating intrinsic motivation.
These perspectives on leadership can in turn also be considered together with the complexity of the environment and the problems to be solved and located, for example, along the Cynefin-Framework and its 5 domains. The more complex it becomes, the more important person-oriented leadership and self-organisation become.
Focus on leadership
In addition to these behaviour-oriented descriptions, there are also concepts of leadership, three of the more frequently mentioned variants of which are outlined below because they are also geared towards digital transformation as a context. In this respect, leadership with a focus on the digital is outlined first, followed by a second exemplary perspective on leadership with a focus on distributed leadership and, thirdly, leadership with a focus on agility. These perspectives are not completely overlapping, but each have their own focus in the context of transformational leadership.
Focus: digital leadership
In their leadership concept and development, Digital Leadership or Leadership 4.0 refer explicitly to the digital transformation, as well as to the integration of digital infrastructure and framework conditions in leadership as found in digital companies or start-ups. Digital leadership is considered synonymous with leadership in the digital world and is sometimes equated with Leadership 4.0 in analogy to the technological trend Industry 4.021.
This leadership concept stands for strategies and forms of transformational leadership that are geared towards a VUCA world under the conditions of digitalisation and in the course of digital transformation. Operationally, leaders can of course deal with strategies and tools for activities in both real and virtual settings (see, for example, Dombrowski and Bogs, 2020, for considerations on a competence-based digital leadership index)22.
It is a form of leadership that develops openness, networking and participation as well as agility in a special way. Digital leadership is one possible approach to countering organisational ambidexterity. The challenge with digital leadership is not to be too tempted by digitalisation and its need to move more strongly into management via functions such as the Chief Digital Officer (CDO). For this reason, the explicit perspective of a culture of digitality in conjunction with leadership appears more promising under these conditions, as digitality arises beyond digital infrastructure and tools and joint communication and action in networks is essential.
Agile Educational Leadership is also situated in the context of a digital transformation and under conditions of a culture of digitality. And yet, or perhaps precisely for this reason, we have not included digital leadership as an essential part of the name. This is because we generally refrain from emphasising the digital, because in the sense of post-digital positions it already constitutes a self-evident, everyday context in all areas of life, from everyday life to work and family – our world is already deeply mediatised.
In addition, the concept of digital leadership is profiled differently depending on the author: some see the realisation of leadership with digital tools and in the various physical and virtual realities more strongly (see i.e. Berninger-Schäfer, 2020)23. And the others use digital leadership as a representative of contemporary and transformative leadership concepts in companies.
In the Agile Educational Leadership approach, digital leadership is considered in a natural and integrative way when the focus is subsequently placed on forms of transformative leadership in the context of digital transformation and under the conditions of a culture of digitality, such as servant leadership and agile leadership.
Focus on distributed leadership
For the consideration of approaches to distributed leadership, the well-known approaches of lateral leadership and servant leadership as well as the interesting perspective of plural leadership are discussed here as examples.
Kühl (2017) sees this as a leadership concept beyond the classic hierarchy24, das Konzept Lateraler Führung. Hierbei geht es nach Kühl im Wesentlichen darum, ohne formale Weisungsbefugnis und dennoch über die drei formalen Mechanismen Verständigung, Macht und Vertrauen Einflussnahme auf andere Personen auszuüben. Er beschreibt laterales Führen als ein Konzept, das nicht darauf ausgelegt sei, die formalen Strukturen einer Organisation grundlegend zu verändern, sondern zusätzliche Handlungsmöglichkeiten zu eröffnen. Es ist auch ein Konzept das bereits von Zellweger und Thomann (2019)25 The concept of leadership has been adapted for the higher education context by emphasising the potential of stronger leadership from within the higher education organisation for innovation and reflection.
The concept of servant leadership (Greenleaf, 1977)26 is widely used and frequently adapted, so that, as with all other concepts, there is no single definition (see, for example, the literature review by Pawar et al., 2020)27, but the basic idea is shared that serving the next person and recognising that the role of organisations is to develop individuals who can build a better tomorrow. Servant leadership is often used in an agile context. Servant leadership, like shared leadership, is also closely associated with digitalisation or digital leadership (e.g. Hasenbein, 2020)28. In servant leadership, the leader’s actions are completely focussed on the interests of the stakeholders and place a special focus on the needs of the team. This means that the leader has neither a role nor a function as a formal superior, but is solely at the service of the cause and the stakeholders or takes on a servant role. In the context of Scrum, one is reminded here of the role of the Scrum Master or the Scrum Maestra. In the overall context of digital transformation, this form of leadership is aimed more at agile organisational models and forms of organisation, as servant leadership is created by those who recognise a person in their role as a servant leader on the basis of shared values and principles. In this way, the supposed contradiction of servant leadership can be contextualised and becomes comprehensible. Diehl (2021)29 describes this role in a very practical way when he emphasises that serving comes first and then leadership and illustrates this using the example of a digital unit and an agile coach. Servant leadership is an attitude that, in principle, every person in a value-oriented organisation and value-based cooperation can adopt and embrace. Servant leadership therefore relies on a strong “we” in leadership and is aimed at networks.
We are also aiming at an approach that Endres and Weibler (2019)30 combine under plural leadership. In doing so, they make it clear that although a change from power-focused hierarchies to open networks is underway, this does not mean that less leadership or leadership is needed, but rather more. ‘Plural leadership is an umbrella term for forms of leadership in which several people exercise leadership influence together. Leadership is thus exercised ‘in the plural’ (ibid., p. 5)31.“ Leadership is distributed among many people who can and want to take on responsibility, e.g. in the format of shared or collective leadership. According to Endres and Weibler, there are two variants. A more conservative one, along which different vertical styles of leadership can be implemented, from directive to transactional to transformational and empowering, and a second, more progressive variant, which understands shared leadership as a genuine collaborative leadership process or leadership that only works if shared followership can be enabled and initiated among the other actors: “In the flow of collaborative influence and collective progress, the perception of individuals as leaders and those being led becomes blurred. In their place comes the group as a whole”. (ibid., p. 12, translated with DeeplPro)32.
The role of the group or team in a network organisation as a node and connecting anchor will become increasingly important for the further development of organisations with changed ideas of hierarchies, which take the courageous step out of the linear pyramid organisation – also in the field of education.
Focus on agile leadership
Under the heading of agile leadership or agile leadership skills (i.e. Gresser and Freisler, 2017) (Gesser, K., & Freisler, R. (2017). Agil und erfolgreich führen – Neue Leadership-Kompetenzen: Mit einem agilen Mindset und Methoden Ihre Führungspersönlichkeit entwickeln (1. Auflage). Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags)), agile management (e.g. Gloger and Rösner, 2017)33 or directly Agile Leadership (Sieroux et al., 2020)34
Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag.)), such leadership concepts are bundled together that aim to enable greater agility and the associated self-organisation in organisations35. Agile leadership can therefore be seen in the transformational area of leadership, which is based on agile values such as transparency, trust, respect, communication and feedback. Accordingly, agile leadership can be realised in forms ranging from participative, integrative and coaching to inspirational leadership – with a close look at the values and principles, even from a suitable mix. Similar to plural leadership, the tenor is clear: the more transformational the leadership is, the more demanding and important a concrete idea of what leadership is appropriate becomes. It would be a fallacy to assume that more self-organisation would require less leadership – similar to the assumption from the context of teaching and learning that open formats are less complex because the learners mainly work on their own.
At the same time, agile leadership itself also stands for constantly adapting to new framework conditions, the needs of stakeholders and changing resources and acting accordingly with confidence36. However, this agile behaviour takes place within the framework of the respective culture and with a focus on the team and the shared values and principles (being agile) using appropriate methods and practices (doing agile). This makes agile leadership similar to situational leadership, because in both cases it is about adapting to the respective situations. However, agile leadership is already a guiding principle in that agility is at the core of a value-based leadership approach (being agile) – even if this does not necessarily mean working within the Scrum framework.
For further considerations regarding the development of Agile Educational Leadership, it is particularly interesting to look at the question of the relationship between the players. To what extent will it still be possible to speak of managers or supervisors and employees in the various areas or will a team concept be introduced? To what extent is it about empowerment and where is the focus more clearly on self-organisation? And what role does value orientation play here? And how can the answers to these questions contribute to the further differentiation of a personal ambidexterity for the (higher) education sector?
Developting leadership in complexity
There are numerous perspectives on leadership and variations on existing approaches. And yet, at its core, it is not about deciding in favour of one approach, but about the attitude and mindset to act flexibly and with precision, indeed to remain agile in decisions depending on the respective context and its needs.
Making good decisions is the outstanding achievement that people in the (educational) organization have to deliver. However, just as it is essential to be aware of the range of possible and sometimes contradictory perspectives on leadership, it is just as important to be aware of one’s own contradictions and to know and get to know oneself as a person in contexts of interaction. The demands that personal ambidexterity places on people themselves go beyond cultivating participation with a greaterperson orientation by relinquishing responsibility and being able to take it with professional composure, relinquish control and delegate in many cases. Personal ambidexterity also requires the ability to confidently combine the two operating systems, as Kotter (2015)37 has already described them. To be able to oversee the different forms of organisation, and to be able to switch between them, of which at least one will repeatedly have to do with self-organisation, and to be able to act with them in an integrative way as well as in between them. This sovereign in-between requires a clear idea of oneself as the leader one wants to be. It can, so the assumption here, be better achieved if one is aware of all extremes in the sense of transformational leadership, in order to be able to assess for each situation which contradictions need to be linked or require integration.
In the following, Theory U by Otto Scharmer (2019)38 and the Concept of Management 3.0 by Jurgen Appelo (2011)39 addresses two approaches to dealing with complexity. These can help leaders to be more agile and act more courageously in the (so-called) VUCA world. Both perspectives strengthen the perception of individuals and their self-efficacy within the framework of constant change and are aimed at personal transformation and growth.
Theory U
With Theory U, Otto Scharmer (2019)38 has presented a framework that provides a starting point for leadership to deal with the current challenges of the VUCA world. His starting point is to orientate towards the future in several ways:
„Managers need truly innovative approaches to overcome the disruptive challenges that this world constantly presents them with. However, they cannot find these using conventional thinking, i.e. by reflecting on past experiences and then planning and implementing improvements. Managers need to look to the future and activate other sources of knowledge […]“ ( Lipkowski, 2016, p. 26, translated with DeeplPro)40
Scharmer assumes that the next, meaningful steps are already present in every person, i.e. that the future is always already there, but that sometimes the next step still needs to be recognised. This principle is not new in itself and is also assumed in systemic coaching in particular, according to which the solution to the client’s problem or concern is always already present in the person and only the awareness of the solution path needs to be promoted (see, among others, Hellwig, 202041 or in more detail in Rauen, 202142 ).
Scharmer has developed a complex framework for this, the so-called Theory U. The U stands for a process movement along a U‑shape that expresses itself holistically in 7 ways of being attentive and bringing into the world (for a visualisation, see Scharmer 2019, p. 41, Fig. 538 and as a concise visualisation43 ). The seven types of attention are headed as follows (Scharmer & Käufer, 2008, pp. 8 ff.)44:
1. give and hold space: Listening to the emerging shared intention (downloading)
2. pause: Perceiving with an opening mind (seeing)
3. perceiving: with the instrument of feeling (sensing)
4. presencing: perceiving from the highest future possibility (presencing)
5. condensing and crystallizing: The power of intention (Crystallizing)
6. prototypes: The integration of head, heart and hand (prototyping)
7. bringing into the world: Acting from the whole (performing)
Engaging in a conscious perception of a problem with head, heart and will and being courageously open to other possibilities in action than a sometimes abbreviated leap between the stimulus of a problem and reaction along familiar routines and practices is a prerequisite for new forms of leadership. Scharmer also refers to this as mindfulness. This process, which may seem a little esoteric at first glance and is more of an argument in favour of engaging with it than empirical data (see, for example, Kühl, 2015, for criticism from a sociological perspective)45, essentially helps people to reach a state of presencing at the apex of the U‑shaped process, a kind of transition between becoming aware, letting go and opening up to something new. Presencing is described by Scharmer and Käufer (2008)44 as a social technique that should help to get to the point where the intention for action arises, or as they call it, “the creative source of action, i.e. about how action and thus the new comes into the world” (ibid., p. 4)46. He illustrates it with the moment before the blank canvas, before the first brushstroke is made.
Theory U represents a starting point for Agile Educational Leadership because it focuses on the individuals themselves and their understanding of their leadership, as Scharmer makes clear:
“(…) in the face of disruption and uncertainty, ultimately the only thing I can rely on as a manager is my own self. That’s why I must always ask myself the question: Who am I? And who do I want to be? What do I stand for? I have to develop an inner attitude that allows me not to fall into fear, compartmentalisation or prejudice in the face of conflicting information and interests, but to open myself up to future possibilities” (Lipkowski, 2016, p. 29, translated with DeeplPro)47.
And although Scharmer focuses primarily on the actors’ ability to act, this ultimately aims at “performing” in a dynamic VUCA world and thus keeps the context for future action in mind as a reference point. For leadership, Theory U offers a possible answer to the personal handling of complexity based on sharpening the perception of one’s own ability to act and self-efficacy. Like others, the theory also assumes that today’s leadership cannot depend on just a few people, but that the willingness to take responsibility together is the central anchor point for future ability to act.
“The problem with leadership today is that most people think that leadership is a characteristic of individuals and works with one person at the top. But if we look at leadership as the ability of a system – or a community – to sense and realise the future together, then we realise that leadership is always distributed among many people – it has to involve everyone. In order to develop the collective capacity, everyone in this system must learn to recognise and use themselves as caretakers of the larger ecosystem” (Scharmer, 2019, p. 11, translated with DeeplPro)38.
This greater personal responsibility is a basic orientation that should not be underestimated, especially for the (higher) education sector with its various stakeholders and its affinity for horizontal orientation in their respective system-relevant areas of action.
Management 3.0
With his Management 3.0 approach, Jurgen Appelo (2011)48
deals with what contemporary leadership for complex systems (systems thinking and complexity theory) with a focus on empowering teams and individuals can look like. Although the term management is used here, the versioning indicates the idea of leadership contained therein that goes beyond classic management. Appelo sees all actors as equally responsible for ensuring that creative workers or creative networkers can achieve their goals well and happily together (see also his practical book on Management 3.0, Managing for Happiness, 2016, which he introduces with the sentence: “Management is too important to be left to managers”, Appelo, 2016, p. 3)49.
Appelo derives a Management 3.0 by strikingly differentiating between Management 1.0, which does the wrong thing50 and in Management 2.0 that the right things are being done in the wrong way because these new ideas basically only serve to further strengthen the position of managers51.
Management 3.0 is expressed in three central practices. If they are implemented well, Appelo assumes that the right thing has been done:
“This means that a management practice is a good practice if:
1. it improves people’s engagement and co-operation,
2. it empowers people to improve the system,
3. it helps to delight all customers and clients” (Appelo, 2016, p. 15, translated with DeeplPro)52.
He sees Management 3.0 neither as a framework nor as a method. “It is a way of looking at work systems with a few timeless principles” (ibid., p. 16, translated with DeeplPro)53, which could be added.).
In this context, two aspects of leadership are of particular interest with regard to the second principle of empowering people to improve the system: Awareness of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS, Appelo, 2011, ch. 3)39 and that meaningful problem solving can therefore only take place across disciplinary boundaries, as well as changing the landscape (Landscape of Change, Appelo 2011, ch. 4)39, which follows the view that the introduction of a system into an environment changes the environment. Here, too, it becomes clear that increasing complexity and less clarity and complexity, to argue in Snowden’s cynefin logic, must be assumed and that it also makes sense to deal with dynamic complexity in the context of leadership (see, for example, Oswald et al., 2016)54.
This perspective is very important for an Agile Educational Leadership, especially with regard to the (higher) education sector and its complexity at all levels, because it explicitly places people at the centre, emphasises their self-organisation and yet clearly establishes the connection to the system and to complexity.
Integrating through shared values
Although this chapter began with the differentiation between management and leadership, the presentation of the various approaches shows that it is sometimes less about the chosen term and more about what is meant by an approach or concept and the ideas behind it, as well as its theoretical foundation. The questions of person-orientation and the image of people and their role in the system are essential here.
What became clear in all perspectives on leadership, management or leadership is that differentiation should be made along guiding values and ideas about value-based joint action, rather than along their names, methods or tools used. It also seems to me that values are the best way to promote connections and commitment and acceptance for different types of work in an organisation with a view to organisational ambidexterity. However, this idea is more strongly associated with the idea of leadership. Therefore, until further notice, leadership is also referred to here as the most far-reaching approach to a value-orientated view. At the same time, leadership with an agile focus in the sense of flexibility and adaptability is forward-looking, as agile leadership can also develop in line with future requirements. As adaptation must always be considered in the logic of agility, we will refrain from assuming a post-agile perspective or speaking between a 1.0 or 2.0 version of agility until further notice (e.g. Hofert, 202055; 202156 ). Although the motives for looking beyond agility for better approaches are understandable (see, for example, post-agile thinking, which ultimately remains at the level of appropriately selected agile practices57 ), agility itself will continue to be used and adapted here as a basic idea in the course of Agile Educational Leadership until, for example, the need arises from a deeper theoretical examination to develop and use a better and sometimes even consistently alternative term in the sense of Agile Educational Leadership.
At the moment, the value framework that establishes agility in the sense of being agile is a suitable point of reference for further developing the perspective of personal ambidexterity, including constructivist-oriented basic assumptions. At the same time, the perspective of agile leadership for the (higher) education sector takes precisely the freedom that one has when one does not need to feel committed to any of the approaches, but can combine the tendencies that appear meaningful and appropriate for the specific (higher) education context — and thus bring together the best of the leadership perspectives.
Agile Educational Leadership therefore stands for a framework for dealing with the complex requirements of the (higher) education system not only situationally, but also from a fundamental leadership perspective along agile values with a view to corresponding, specific practices and remaining capable of action. This also requires recognizing the current context for action as a VUCA world and dynamic environment in which it is possible to act in a value-based manner using agile practices. It also means recognizing that good leadership takes place at all levels and should not be tied solely to one or very few people and their positions.
An integrative perspective on specific agile leadership in the (higher) education sector takes a decentralised and horizontal approach in the next step in order to improve the system with the people themselves and transfer it in line with the times or accompany it on its transformation journey, as Appelo formulates it as a practice. And here it seems crucial to emphasise once again that good leadership in an agile environment first requires clear self-leadership (see i.e. Sieroux et al., 2020, p. 19 ff.58, who emphasize “that the agile willingness for self-reflection, continuous improvement and realignment must start with the individual. Especially if he or she wants to take on leadership with and for others” (ibid., p. 19, translated with DeeplPro)58 ). This is essential for the development of each person’s personal ambidexterity for personal agency under uncertain conditions. A look at Snowden’s Cynefin framework for dealing with uncertainty in complexity can be just as helpful as an examination of Scharmer’s Theory U and its encouragement of change or learning from the future, which is already here.
With the knowledge of the approaches to contemporary leadership and management outlined here, which see their reference point in the future rather than the past, the question arises once again: Do we want everything to remain as it is? What do we want the future of education to look like – and what framework is needed for this today?
- Spayd, M. K., & Madore, M. (2020). Agile Transformation: Using the Integral Agile Transformation Framework to Think and Lead Differently. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional. [↩]
- Licence: https://de.freepik.com/psd/mockup”>Mockup PSD by Vectorium — de.freepik.com; book-cover by Kerstin Mayrberger, Lizenz CC BY 4.0 [↩]
- Kotter, J. P. (2001[1991]). What Leaders Really Do. Harvard Business Review, 79, 85 – 98. [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2017). Agil und erfolgreich führen – Neue Leadership-Kompetenzen: Mit einem agilen Mindset und Methoden Ihre Führungspersönlichkeit entwickeln (1. Auflage). Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. [↩]
- Anders Y., Daniel HD., Hannover B., Köller O., Lenzen D., McElvany N., Seidel T., Tippelt R., Wilbers K. & Woessmann L. (2021). Führung, Leitung, Governance: Verantwortung im Bildungssystem. Gutachten des Aktionsrates Bildung . Hrsg. von der Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft. Münster: Waxmann DOI: 10.31244/9783830994008 [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Kleimann, B. (2016). Universitätsorganisation und präsidiale Leitung. Führungspraktiken in einer multiplen Hybridorganisation . Wiesbaden: Springer VS-Verlag. [↩]
- Kleimann, B. (2016). Universitätsorganisation und präsidiale Leitung. Führungspraktiken in einer multiplen Hybridorganisation . Wiesbaden: Springer VS-Verlag. [↩]
- see also Kleimann, 2016, S. 31 den Verweis auf Kompetenzerwartungen an Leitungen in überkomplexen Systemsituationen, wie es im Bildungsbereich der Fall sei [↩]
- Zellweger, F. (2016). Wer führt lateral? Mittleres Management an Hochschulen. In G. Thomann & F. Zellweger (Hrsg.), Lateral führen – Aus der Mitte der Hochschule Komplexität bewältigen (S. 20 – 36). Bern: hep Verlag. [↩]
- Amtmann E. & de Fontana O. (2020) Verantwortung und Macht im schulischen Führungshandeln. In: Fahrenwald C., Engel N. & Schröer A. (Eds.) Organisation und Verantwortung. Organisation und Pädagogik (p. 111 – 124). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 26248-8_9 [↩]
- Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung (Eds.). (2020). Bildung in Deutschland 2020. Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung in einer digitalisierten Welt . Bielefeld: wbv. DOI: 10.3278/6001820gw [↩]
- Kotter, J. P. (2015). Accelarate. Strategischen Herausforderungen schnell, agil und kreativ begegnen. München: Vahlen. [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2020). Ready for Transformation – Neue Arbeitswelt, digital und agil. Wie Sie als Führungskraft, UnternehmerIn und Change-Agent die Transformationsreise erfolgreich begleiten und die Organisation in eine gute Zukunft führen. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. https://www.managerseminare.de/Verlagsprogramm/Ready-for-Transformation,271508 [↩]
- Kotter, J. P. (2015). Accelarate. Strategischen Herausforderungen schnell, agil und kreativ begegnen. München: Vahlen. [↩]
- Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper Perennial. [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2017). Agil und erfolgreich führen — Neue Leadership-Kompetenzen: Mit einem agilen Mindset und Methoden Ihre Führungspersönlichkeit entwickeln (1. Auflage). Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. [↩]
- Anders Y., Daniel HD., Hannover B., Köller O., Lenzen D., McElvany N., Seidel T., Tippelt R., Wilbers K. & Woessmann L. (2021). Führung, Leitung, Governance: Verantwortung im Bildungssystem. Gutachten des Aktionsrates Bildung . Hrsg. von der Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft. Münster: Waxmann DOI: 10.31244/9783830994008 [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2020). Ready for Transformation – Neue Arbeitswelt, digital und agil. Wie Sie als Führungskraft, UnternehmerIn und Change-Agent die Transformationsreise erfolgreich begleiten und die Organisation in eine gute Zukunft führen. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. https://www.managerseminare.de/Verlagsprogramm/Ready-for-Transformation,271508 [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2020). Ready for Transformation – Neue Arbeitswelt, digital und agil. Wie Sie als Führungskraft, UnternehmerIn und Change-Agent die Transformationsreise erfolgreich begleiten und die Organisation in eine gute Zukunft führen. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. https://www.managerseminare.de/Verlagsprogramm/Ready-for-Transformation, 271508 [↩]
- Greßer, K., & Freisler, R. (2020). Ready for Transformation – Neue Arbeitswelt, digital und agil. Wie Sie als Führungskraft, UnternehmerIn und Change-Agent die Transformationsreise erfolgreich begleiten und die Organisation in eine gute Zukunft führen. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. https://www.managerseminare.de/Verlagsprogramm/Ready-for-Transformation, 271508 [↩]
- see https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Leadership&oldid=206563873 for an overview [↩]
- Dombrowski H., & Bogs N. (2020). ((Dombrowski H., & Bogs N. (2020). Digital-Leadership-Index – Führung im digitalen Umfeld anschaulich und messbar machen. In: Dahm M. & Thode S. (Hrsg.). Digitale Transformation in der Unternehmenspraxis (pp. 103 – 125). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 28557-9_6 [↩]
- Berninger-Schäfer, E. (2020). Digital Leadership – Die Digitalisierung der Führung. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags. https://www.managerseminare.de/Verlagsprogramm/Digital-Leadership,265416 [↩]
- Kühl, (2017). Laterales Führen. Eine kurze organisationstheoretisch informierte Handreichung . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. 10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 13429‑7 [↩]
- Zellweger F. & Thomann G. (2019). Lateral führen an Hochschulen. In: Kels P., Kaudela-Baum S. (Hrsg.). Experten führen. uniscope. Publikationen der SGO Stiftung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 23028-9_4 [↩]
- Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press. [↩]
- Pawar, A., Sudan, K., Satini, S., & Sunarsi, D. (2020). Organizational Servant Leadership: A Systematic Literature Review for Implications in Business. International Journal of Educational Administration, Management, and Leadership, 1(2), pp. 2580 – 1309. DOI: 10.51629/ijeamal.v1i2.8 [↩]
- Hasenbein M. (ed.) (2020). Digitale Führung. In M. Hasenbein (ed.), Der Mensch im Fokus der digitalen Arbeitswelt. Wirtschaftspsychologische Perspektiven und Anwendungsfelder (S. 97 – 126). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑662 – 61661-1_6 [↩]
- Diehl, A. (2021). Servant Leadership – Führung als Dienstleistung. Accessed 28.07.2021, from https://digitaleneuordnung.de/blog/servant-leadership/ [↩]
- Endres, S., & Weibler, J. (2019). Plural Leadership — Eine zukunftsweisende Alternative zur One-Man-Show. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 27116‑9 [↩]
- Endres, S., & Weibler, J. (2019). Plural Leadership – Eine zukunftsweisende Alternative zur One-Man-Show. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 27116‑9 [↩]
- Endres, S., & Weibler, J. (2019). Plural Leadership – Eine zukunftsweisende Alternative zur One-Man-Show. Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 27116‑9 [↩]
- Gloger, B., & Rösner, D. (2017). Selbstorganisation braucht Führung – Die einfachen Geheimnisse agilen Managements. (2. Aufl.). München: Carl Hanser Verlag. [↩]
- Sieroux, S., Roock, S., & Wolf, H. (2020). Agile Leadership. Führungsmodelle, Führungsstile und das richtige Handwerkszeug für die agile Arbeitswelt. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag. [↩]
- see also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agile_leadership&oldid=1021744237 [↩]
- see https://www.scrum.org/resources/blog/what-do-agile-leaders-do as an example [↩]
- Kotter, J. P. (2015). Accelarate. Strategischen Herausforderungen schnell, agil und kreativ begegnen. München: Vahlen. [↩]
- Scharmer, O. C. (2019). Essentials der Theorie U: Grundprinzipien und Anwendungen. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0 – Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional. [↩] [↩] [↩]
- Lipkowski, S. (2016). Leadership thinker Otto Scharmer in an interview: ‘Only your own self is reliable’.ManagerSeminare, 225, 26 – 32. [↩]
- Hellwig C. (2020). Coaching – ein spezielles Format. In C. Hellwig (Hrsg.), Personzentriert-integrative Gesprächsführung im Coaching (S. 75 – 99). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978 – 3‑658 – 29118-1_4 [↩]
- Rauen, C. (Hrsg.). (2021). Handbuch Coaching (4. Aufl.). Göttingen: Hogrefe. [↩]
- https://www.presencing.org/aboutus/theory‑u [↩]
- Scharmer, O. C., & Käufer, K. (2008). Führung vor der leeren Leinwand. OrganisationsEntwicklung, 2, 4 – 11. [↩] [↩]
- Kühl, S. (2015). Die blinden Flecken der Theorie U von Otto Scharmer. Die Rekonstruktion einer (Change-)Management-Mode. systeme. Interdisziplinäre Zeitschrift für systemtheoretisch orientierte Forschung und Praxis in den Humanwissenschaften. 29(2), 190 – 202. [↩]
- Scharmer, O. C., & Käufer, K. ((2008). Führung vor der leeren Leinwand. OrganisationsEntwicklung, 2, 4 – 11. [↩]
- Lipkowski, S. (2016). Leadership thinker Otto Scharmer in an interview: ‘Only your own self is reliable’. ManagerSeminare, 225, 26 – 32. [↩]
- Appelo, J. (2011). Management 3.0 — Leading Agile Developers, Developing Agile Leaders. Boston: Addison-Wesley Professional. [↩]
- Appelo, J. (2016). Managing for Happiness — Games, Tools & Practices to Motivate Any Team. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [↩]
- “The general practice in companies is that they are controlled like machines and employees are treated like cogs and gear levers. I call this Management 1.0.” Appelo, 2016, p. 6, translated with DeeplPro [↩]
- “In a Management 2.0 organisation, everyone recognises that ‘people are the most important asset’ and that managers need to develop into ’servant leaders’ while steering the organisation at the top. These are certainly interesting ideas, but unfortunately managers often take the wrong approach. They rightly understand that optimising the whole company cannot be achieved by improving the individual parts alone. But at the same time, they stick to hierarchical structures and tend to forget that people do not respond well to top-down control and mandated ‘improvements’.” Appelo, 2016, p. 7, translated with DeeplPro [↩]
- Appelo, J. (2016). Managing for Happiness – Games, Tools & Practices to Motivate Any Team. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [↩]
- Appelo, J. (2016). Managing for Happiness — Games, Tools & Practices to Motivate Any Team. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [↩]
- Oswald, A., Köhler, J., & Schmitt, R. (2016). Projektmanagement am Rande des Chaos. Sozialtechniken für komplexe Systeme. Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg. [↩]
- Hofert, S. (2020). Führen in die postagile Zukunft — Die Arbeitswelt sinnvoll gestalten und mutig vorangehen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. [↩]
- Hofert, S. (2021). Zukunft der Führung: Die postagile Arbeitswelt. ManagerSeminare, 277, 55 – 59. [↩]
- https://medium.com/clear-left-thinking/are-we-moving-towards-a-post-agile-age-7751379fa1e2 [↩]
- Sieroux, S., Roock, S., & Wolf, H. (2020). Agile Leadership. Führungsmodelle, Führungsstile und das richtige Handwerkszeug für die agile Arbeitswelt. Heidelberg: dpunkt.verlag. [↩] [↩]
