Current global megatrends, such as climate change, demographic shifts, and artificial intelligence, are pushing school leaders to rethink school development strategies (Pietsch et al., 2023). These trends necessitate the preparation of students with the skills, knowledge, and values needed to face these challenges, while also fulfilling educational goals like fostering critical thinking and sustainable development (Vare & Scott, 2007). As key agents of school improvement, school leaders must be able to identify both current and future challenges, develop innovative solutions, and engage in networked thinking. These abilities align with entrepreneurial competencies, highlighting the increasing importance of economic rationality and creativity in education (Bacigalupo et al., 2016).

In the German-speaking context, the integration of pedagogical and economic approaches in education remains controversial (Böttcher, 2001). Education (Bildung) traditionally focuses on holistic human development, promoting critical thinking and autonomy. However, the growing influence of economic rationalities has sparked debates about whether such priorities compromise educational values (Krautz, 2020). While reforms granting schools more autonomy have introduced elements like performance metrics and efficiency-focused management (Brauckmann et al., 2019), these measures often clash with the broader cultural and societal goals of education.

Innovation in education is seen as crucial for addressing efficiency challenges - balancing resources with student outcomes (OECD, 2016) - and entrepreneurship plays a key role in this process. Entrepreneurship, understood as a future skill, involves the ability to identify opportunities, take initiative, and implement innovative solutions (Samson & Gloet 2016). Within educational leadership, this approach includes social entrepreneurship (Yemini et al., 2015), which prioritizes addressing societal challenges, and sustainable entrepreneurship (Timm, 2019), which integrates economic, social, and ecological value creation. Entrepreneurial leadership incorporates these principles, focusing on fostering adaptability, innovation, and resilience in complex and dynamic environments (Leitch et al., 2013).  

This prompts the question which role entrepreneurial thinking and action can play in the development of innovative schools and in the practice of school leadership in German-speaking countries? To explore this further, the paper first traces the discourse on the economization of education in German-speaking countries such as Germany and Austria. It then examines the concept of entrepreneurship, particularly in relation to school leadership, and concludes by discussing the role of entrepreneurial thinking and action in the context of the ongoing debate about the economization of school education in these regions.

This paper has already been submitted and will hopefully be published until the ECER conference in September 2025.

In addition to a theoretical review of existing scholarly literature on entrepreneurial leadership in the context of schools, a document analysis of school leadership profiles from Germany and Austria was conducted. Document analysis is a systematic qualitative research method employed to evaluate and interpret documents with the aim of extracting meaning, developing a deeper understanding, and generating empirical knowledge. This method involves a structured process of skimming, reading, and interpreting documents through approaches such as content and thematic analysis (Blowen, 2009). In this study, the method was applied to several school leadership profiles (e.g., BMBWF, 2019; KM-NI, 2022) to uncover to what extent entrepreneurial contents or competencies are integrated into educational leadership frameworks. By examining these documents, the research sheds light on the intersection of pedagogical and entrepreneurial dimensions, contributing to the broader discourse on how school leaders can innovate and adapt to contemporary challenges.

This study examines the role of entrepreneurial thinking and action in fostering innovative schools and shaping school leadership practices within the context of the economization of education in Germany and Austria. While longstanding concerns persist about reconciling pedagogy and economics, the findings suggest these domains are not inherently incompatible. School leaders who act as social and sustainable entrepreneurs demonstrate that economic sensibilities can enhance education without undermining its pedagogical priorities. By building networks, fostering collaboration, and promoting autonomy among students and teachers (Brauckmann et al., 2019; Yemini et al., 2015), entrepreneurial school leadership aligns with principles of reflective, self-directed learning (Vare & Scott, 2007) and holistic school improvement. Empirical evidence highlights that German and Austrian school leaders possess motivations consistent with social and sustainable entrepreneurship, including innovation and a commitment to societal well-being (Cramer et al., 2021; Groß Ophoff et al., 2022). However, their capacity to foster innovation is often constrained by administrative demands and bureaucratic structures (Tulowitzki et al., 2023). To address these challenges, entrepreneurial leadership offers a pathway to balance the pressures of accountability and resource constraints with the need for adaptability and resilience. Drawing on frameworks like New Public Management (Brauckmann et al., 2019), school leaders can implement strategies such as public-private partnerships, alternative funding mechanisms, and experimental educational practices to enhance institutional effectiveness while preserving educational integrity. In conclusion, while entrepreneurial leadership may raise concerns about the economization of education, its thoughtful implementation can enhance educational systems in Germany and Austria. By integrating economic sensibilities with ethical and pedagogical values, entrepreneurial leadership offers an approach to reimagine schools as innovative and adaptive institutions, equipped to thrive in a rapidly evolving world.

Bacigalupo, M., et al. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884 Blowen, G. A. (2009). Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 BMBWF. (2019). Schulleitungsprofil: Eine praxisbezogene Orientierung für effektives Schulleitungshandeln. Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. https://pubshop.bmbwf.gv.at Böttcher, W. (2001). Ist ein Dialog zwischen Pädagogik und Ökonomie möglich? Eine Diskussion am Beispiel von Anreizsystemen und Schulentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 47(6), 893–911. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4324 Brauckmann, S., Pashiardis, P., & Kafa, A. (2019). School leadership approaches and practices under paradigm of new public management: An entrepreneurial perspective. RicercAzione, 11(1), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.32076/RA11107 Cramer, C., Groß Ophoff, J., Pietsch, M., & Tulowitzki, P. (2021). Schulleitung in Deutschland: Repräsentative Befunde zur Attraktivität, zu Karrieremotiven und zu Arbeitsplatzwechselabsichten. DDS – Die Deutsche Schule, 113(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.31244/dds.2021.02.02 Groß Ophoff, J., Brauchle, G., & Pfurtscheller, J. (2023). Schulleitungsmonitor Österreich 2022–Kurzbericht zur Studie. Pädagogische Hochschule Vorarlberg. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PGA6T KM-NI (2022). Berufsbild Schulleitung. https://www.mk.niedersachsen.de/startseite/schule/unsere_schulen/schulleitung/berufsbild-schulleitung-213884.html. Krautz, J. (2020). Ökonomisierung als Steuerung von Schule, Bildung und Demokratie: Phänomene, Systematik, Alternativen. In G. Scheidl & H. Schopf (Ed.), Ökonomisierung und Digitalisierung: “Sargnägel” der Bildungsreform?! (pp. 9–41). Löcker. Leitch, C. M., et al. (2013). The development of entrepreneurial leadership: The role of human, social and institutional capital. British Journal of Management, 24(3), 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00808.x OECD. (2016). Innovating education and educating for innovation. The power of digital technologies and skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, P. (2023). Innovating teaching and instruction in turbulent times: The dynamics of principals’ exploration and exploitation activities. Journal of Educational Change, 24, 549–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-022-09458-2 Samson, D., & Gloet, M. (2016). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Creating new value. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Timm, J.-M. (2019). Sustainable EntrepreneurInnen: Ihr Lebensweg als Lerngeschichte und was wir von ihnen lernen können. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. Tulowitzki, P., Pietsch, M., Sposato, G., Cramer, C., & Groß Ophoff, J. (2023). Schulleitungsmonitor Deutschland: Zentrale Ergebnisse aus der Befragung 2022. Düsseldorf: Wübben Stiftung Bildung. Vare, P., & Scott, W. (2007). Learning for a Change: Exploring the Relationship Between Education and Sustainable Development, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 1(2), 191-198. https://10.1177/097340820700100209 Yemini, M., et al. (2015). I have a dream: School principals as entrepreneurs. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214523018