This symposium explores the expanding field of Edupreneurship (Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2019). By elucidating three distinct studies (comprising a scoping review, a study with a European perspective, and a Cypriot study), our aim is to shed some more light into the leadership behaviors and actions that could be undertaken for schools to survive in today’s turbulent environments and unprecedented changes they are confronted with (Pietsch et al. 2022). As the educational landscape is undergoing a transformative shift to challenge several megatrends, conventional educational leadership frameworks struggle to adapt to these challenges, prompting the need for a novel approach. The emergence of Edupreneurs (Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2019) – entrepreneurial leaders in the field of education – becomes pivotal in navigating these complexities, necessitating a deeper examination of their role in shaping the future of education.

According to Pashiardis and Brauckmann (2019) edupreneurial leadership emerges as a hybrid as it combines the entrepreneurial with the instructional/pedagogical leadership style, which are two of the five leadership styles that make up their leadership framework (for a more detailed description of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework, please see Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2008; Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2011). The call for entrepreneurial activities in the school context aligns with the search of originality as well as strategic alliances outside the school environment. Breakthrough innovations stem from a unique knowledge search. They highlight the importance of fostering original ideas in schools for entrepreneurial relationships. Therefore, promoting originality enhances a school principal's entrepreneurial leadership (Jung & Lee 2016; Pashiardis & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz 2021). To adapt to the evolving edupreneurial leadership style, schools must embrace flexibility and accommodation. School leaders, guided by innovative thinking, should incorporate risk-taking behavior, leadership training, and experience. They need to assess the education landscape, considering autonomy, accountability patterns, and personnel readiness, to formulate effective strategies (Pashiardis & Brauckmann 2019).

Recent studies highlight the multifaceted nature of Edupreneurship. They emphasize its dynamic potential within educational institutions and explore the school principal’s entrepreneurial mindset, competencies, resources, and motives as well as the relationship between entrepreneurship and educational leadership. Yemini, Addi-Raccah and Katarivas (2015) characterize school leaders as change agents. Their study investigates school principals as institutional entrepreneurs, exploring the meaning of entrepreneurship in schools. Examining 10 identified entrepreneurial principals in Israel, it delves into their motives and resources driving entrepreneurial activities in diverse educational streams. Another study by Eyal and Kark (2004) emphasizes leadership for its impact on simplifying and reinforcing realities, while entrepreneurial activities introduce new products, services, or ideas. The study establishes a (yet) complex existing link between leadership and entrepreneurship, noting a stronger correlation of transformational leadership with proactive behavior than innovativeness. Another study by Hörnqvist and Leffler (2014) delves into the entrepreneurial mindset of school leaders, highlighting the internal and external responsibilities associated with leadership in an entrepreneurial school setting.

While existing research has made valuable contributions, a notable gap exists in comprehending how the concept of edupreneurship is understood, contextualized, or theorized, in relation to school leadership. It is also not yet clarified which long-term implications of edupreneurial initiatives by school leaders do exist. Future research should focus on unraveling the sustainability of edupreneurial practices, providing perspectives that are crucial for informing evidence-based educational policies and practices. Therefore, the symposium addresses the following research questions:

• What is known about edupreneurial acting and thinking among school leaders?
• What is the long-term impact of edupreneurial initiatives on the organizational sustainability of schools?

*This term was introduced by Stefan Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz and Petros Pashiardis.

Brauckmann, S., & Pashiardis, P. (2011). A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management 25(2), 11-32. Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004): How do Transformational Leaders Transform Organizations? A Study of the Relationship between Leadership and Entrepreneurship, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 211-235, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503715. Hörnqvist, M.-L., & Leffler, E. (2014): Fostering an entrepreneurial attitude – challenging in principal leadership, Education + Training, 56(6), 551-561, DOI: 10.1108/ET-05-2013-0064. Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2008). Introduction to the LISA framework from a social system’s perspective, LISA Conference, 2008, Budapest, Hungary. Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2019). New Public Management in Education: A Call for the Edupreneurial Leader? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(3), 485-499, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1475575. Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2021). The rise of the Edupreneur. Exploring School leadership through an evolutionary perspective, In Nir, A. E. (Ed.). School Leadership in the 21st Century: Challenges and Coping Strategies, New York: Nova Science, 47-68. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, P. (2022). Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 574-592, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945705. Yemini M., Addi-Raccah A., & Katarivas K. (2015). I have a dream: School principals as entrepreneurs, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 526-540, DOI: 10.1177/1741143214523018.