Newcastle University

Entrepreneurial School Leadership Literature Review

Research Centre for Learning and Teaching, Newcastle University, UK 1.3.2015

1

Entrepreneurial School Leadership: the State of Play

The aim of this summary report is to provide an overview of the literature and policy

directives which reflect, critique and are shaping current understandings of

entrepreneurial school leadership and training. The starting point for the overview

was a search of two key data bases for relevant journal articles, using the search terms

outlined below:

Search terms\databases Timeframe: 2000-2015

Web of Knowledge Scopus

Educational AND entrepreneurialism

21 74

The edupreneur 0 0

Entrepreneurial AND school AND leadership

24 31

Characteristic AND entrepreneurial AND school AND leaders

0 0

Entrepreneurial AND school AND leaders

19 14

Entrepreneurial leadership AND training

1 31

Entrepreneurial leadership AND teaching

15 19

Entrepreneurial leadership AND practice AND schools

15 44

[Examination of the abstracts revealed that many of the journal articles identified in this

initial search were not relevant to the field of SCHOOL leadership. These were filtered

out.]

Citations within these articles were followed up and further journal articles, books,

policy directives and projects identified. All of the sources were analysed by two

Research Associates from P1. The analysis involved the identification of themes and

sub-themes across the texts and these have in turn provided the structure and content

of this summary. Where applicable the themes/sub-themes have been further

categorised according to the four key areas of Entrepreneurial Competence: Strategic

Thinking & Visioning; Team Building, Personnel Management & Development;

Communication & Negotiation Skills and Financial Resources Mobilization &

Optimization.

This summary is structured as follows:

1. Entrepreneurial School Leadership : Definitions

2. Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Drivers

2

3. Characteristics/behaviours of Entrepreneurial School Leaders

4. The challenges/constraints facing entrepreneurial school leaders

5. Training: provision and methodologies

Limitations:

We acknowledge that the sources underpinning this summary were only those

accessible in English. The partners will be asked to identify key literature which has

been published in their own home languages which could feed into this summary at a

later date. In addition the results of the audit of provision will add detail regarding

current entrepreneurial leadership training programmes in the partner countries.

Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Definitions

Entrepreneurship mainly fits contexts which are new and cannot be dealt with by

means of experience or routine. Entrepreneurship is leadership in exceptional

circumstances

(Czariawska-Joerges and Wolff, 1991)

Entrepreneurship: an individual's ability to turn ideas into action, to be innovative, take the initiative, take risks, plan and manage projects with a view to achieving objectives.

Lisbon Treaty: Promoting entrepreneurship in schools and universities 2006

[…..] the predisposition to and practice of achieving valued ends by creating, taking

or pursuing opportunities for change and innovation and finding new resources or

utilising in new ways existing resources ( financial, material and human).

(Woods et al, 2007p. 237)

Any discussion regarding the concept of entrepreneurial leadership rests on an

assumption that it can in some way be ‘differentiated from other forms of leadership’

(Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007 p.146). The terminology which appears across the

literature as defining this type of leadership is:

Visionary (Hentschke and Caldwell 2007; Borasi and Finnigan 2010; Roomi and

Harrison, 2011; Pihie 2014)

Innovative (Gupta et al 2004; Currie at al 2008; Xaba and Malindi 2010)

Risk-taking (Gupta et al 2004; Hentschke and Caldwell 2007; Borassi and

Finnigan 2010)

Problem-solving (Currie at al 2008; Borasi and Finnigan 2010)

Creative (Currie at al 2008; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011; Pihie 2014a)

Networkers (Smith 2003 ; Borasi and Finnigan 2010; Scott and Webber 2015

3

Resourceful (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010)

Having a local-global perspective (Smith 2003; Scott and Webber 2013)

Woods et al (2007, 2009), in their study of the Academy Schools Programme in England

have identified four distinct types of entrepreneurialism:

Business entrepreneurialism: achieving competitive advantage and success as defined in

business culture- innovation with a competitive mission

Social entrepreneurialism: reducing disadvantage, deprivation and social exclusion-

innovation with a social mission.

Public entrepreneurialism: sustaining and advancing the presence, values and aims of a

public ethos, including community welfare, social justice and democratic participation

and accountability- innovation with a democratic and community-oriented mission

Cultural entrepreneurialism: advancing ideas and values that give purpose to individual

and social action- innovation with a mission to bring meaning.

This typology provides a useful foundation for considering the multiplicity of roles that

an entrepreneurial school leader may have to enact and the tensions that may be faced

as a result of having to reconcile different ‘missions’. However, a key underlying feature

of all of the ‘types’ identified above, is the outward-looking perspective required, a need

for entrepreneurial school leaders to utilise what Pashiardis and Savvide (2011) refer to

as ‘the creative use of external networks and resources in order to aid the

implementation of the school mission’ (p. 415). After examining leadership styles within

primary schools in Cyprus, they identified two ‘domains of practice for successful school

leadership’: Instructional and Entrepreneurial. (p.424). The domain of practice for

entrepreneurial leadership stresses the need for leaders to develop relationships and

networks with the wider school community.

Pashiardis and Savvide (2011) p. 424

This view is supported by the findings from the EU funded project ‘Leadership

Improvement for student achievement’ (LISA). Through collaborative research

undertaken with leaders in six EU countries, the project concluded that the

entrepreneurial style of leadership involved: ‘

encouraging relations between the school and the community and parents,

promoting cooperation with other organisations and businesses, discussing

school goals with relevant stakeholders, utilizing appropriate and effective

4

techniques for community and parental involvement, promoting two-way

communication between the school and the community, projecting a positive image

to the community, building trust within the local community, communicating the

school vision to the external community (LISA 2009 p. 11 and 12)

Entrepreneurial School Leadership: Drivers

As Hentschke and Caldwell (2007) state: ‘conditions of compulsory schooling have

changed in ways that are encouraging more entrepreneurs to enter the field and to

behave entrepreneurially’ (p. 146). The literature identifies a range of reasons to

explain the necessity for school leaders to develop entrepreneurial leadership skills:

A rapidly changing world

We live in an ‘era of complexity’ where ‘the only stable factor is constant change’ and

where ‘paradox, ambiguity, and uncertainty are becoming the norm’ (LISA 2009, p.9).

School leaders need to be able to manage crisis, uncertainty and complexity (Pihie et al,

2014a, p. 4).

Increasing accountability

There is an ‘increasing global emphasis on accountability’ (Walker et al, 2013, p. 407),

manifested at both national and international levels.

At the national level school leaders are becoming increasingly accountable to their

‘stakeholders’ – the students, the parents, governing bodies, the community, their

governments (Levin, 2003; Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011; Scott and Webber, 2013,).

Some countries, for example the UK (England), also publish national league tables which

compare schools on their exam performance.

At the international level, it is the results of the OECD’s Pisa test (the Programme for

International Student Assessment) which Governments use as a means to identify

underperformance and hold school leaders accountable.

The Pisa tests - the Programme for International Student Assessment –have

become the most influential rankings in international education, based on tests

taken by more than 500,000 secondary school pupils (BBC News, 2015)

At the same time Germany was in a Pisa shock

(LISA 2009 p 4)

The impact of the performativity and accountability measures has led to what Currie et

al (2008) refer to as ‘a quasi-market framed by performance indicators’ (p.988). Schools

are often in competition with one another, with parents able to make choices over

where to send their child.

5

Decentralisation

Increasingly regional and national governments are devolving decision-making powers

with respect to budgets, curriculum, staffing etc. to school leaders, recognising that

individual context is important and that leaders need to make decisions based on the

needs of their stakeholders.

The logic of decentralization assumes that changes in governance are key to

improved performance of schools; that local bodies are in the best position to define

and make necessary changes; and that parents especially have important

knowledge about how the educational enterprise should best be carried out

(Levin, 2003, p. 170-171)

The impact of this policy shift has led to an increase in expectations with regard to what

it means to be a school leader (Pashiardis and Savvides, 2011, p. 414). It requires

‘increased sophistication’ (Fromm et al, 2003 p. 302) as educators will be required to

understand ‘the ‘business model’ as well as the ‘education model’ of any organization’

(ibid).

Improved performance in teaching and learning

One of the key drivers towards a need for a more entrepreneurial style of leadership is

that the quality of teaching and learning needs to be such that it creates a ‘citizenry with

a capacity to compete successfully in the global village’ (Scott and Webber, 2013, p.113).

The EU Commission report ‘Improving competences for the 21st Century: An Agenda for

European Cooperation on Schools’ (2008) identifies the need for students to be equipped

with ‘the competences and motivation to make learning a lifelong activity’ (p.3); and for

schools to be able to ‘respond to each pupil's individual learning needs’ through changes

to curricula, school organisation and the roles of teachers (p.5). The overarching aim is

for school systems to ‘contribute to supporting long-term sustainable economic growth

in Europe’ and to be able to ‘respond to the need to promote equity, to respond to

cultural diversity and to reduce early school leaving’ (p.4).

This view is supported by the Thematic Working Group on Entrepreneurial Education

who state in their final report (2014) that ‘For Europe to compete globally, we need

future generations to have the mind-set and skills to be entrepreneurial in society.

Europe needs citizens who are creative, socially responsible, can spot opportunities,

understand and take risks, and can work in teams and solve problems. (p.7).

In short, school leaders need to equip their students for a complex and uncertain the

future.

6

Entrepreneurial School leaders: Characteristics and Behaviours

In acknowledging that entrepreneurial leadership is a distinct and therefore identifiable

style of leadership, it must also hold true that it can be recognised in terms of

characteristics and behaviours. Whilst some argue that entrepreneurial leaders should

be defined in terms of their ‘opposition to “managerial” leaders and not in terms of a set

of skills that can be learnt or taught’ (Roomi and Harrison, 2011, p.5); others (Gupta et

al, 2004) ‘look at entrepreneurial leadership not as a collection of traits (i.e. who one is),

but as a set of behaviours (i.e. what one does) (Roomi and Harrison, 2011, p. 5). The following section explores the characteristics and behaviours of entrepreneurial

school leaders that have been identified in the literature. These have been categorised

according to the four key areas of Entrepreneurial Competence: Strategic Thinking &

Visioning; Team Building, Personnel Management & Development; Communication &

Negotiation Skills and Financial Resources Mobilization & Optimization.

Strategic Thinking & Visioning

Driven by a vision (Smith, 2003;Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007; Borasi and

Finnigan, 2010, Pihie et al 2014a)

Outward –looking (Smith, 2003, p.318; LISA, 2009,Pashiardis and Savvide 2011).

Within the global context entrepreneurs seek ongoing access to information

from their own contexts and also from around the world’ (Scott and Webber

2013, p. 129)

Risk-takers (Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007 Pihie et al 2014a, Gupta et al 2004,

Woods et al 2009; Xaba and Malindi, 2010).

However it is acknowledged that risk-taking in public sector organisations needs

to be ‘well-calculated and prudent’ (Pihie et al 2014a, p.3) and ‘qualified’ (Currie

at al, 2008, p. 1002). The reason for this is that the acceptance of failure which is

typically associated with entrepreneurial behaviour, is not tolerated by the

public (ibid) with respect to public service. Risk-taking therefore needs to be

‘balanced’ (ibid).

‘innovative’- (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010;

Good time- management skills (Scott and Webber, 2013, p.117)

Creative and able to recognise opportunities (Pihie et al, 2014a) rather than

problems (Hentschke and Caldwell, 2007) – particularly with respect to

overcoming bureaucratic structures (Currie at al, 2008, p1002)

A good understanding of the social and political landscape (Scott and Webber,

2015)

These characteristics can be summarised in terms of Gupta et al’s concept of

‘scenario enactment’ (2004) - the ability to envision the future and create a scenario

of innovative possibilities, to develop ‘various entrepreneurial opportunities and

take the risks to enact the vision (Pihie et al, 2014a, p.3-4).

7

Team Building, Personnel Management & Development

The ability to create a culture which fosters entrepreneurial activity amongst

staff. In a study by Currie et al, 2008, they found that this could be achieved

through acting as ‘change agents’ (p.1001) and ensuring distributed leadership

The ability to appoint key people and build a team that is committed to enacting

the vision -what Gupta et al, 2004 refer to as ‘cast enactment’.

The ability to ‘bring people on board’ (Currie et al, 2008, p.1003) – and this

refers to all stakeholders. ‘They build coalitions that knit together public and

private interests’ (Currie et al, 2008, p.098)

The ability to resolve conflict and build relationships(Scott and Webber, 2013,

p.117)

Communication & Negotiation Skills

masters at creative networking- locally, nationally and internationally

(Pashiardis and Savvide,2011)

They clearly articulate their vision (Woods et al, 2009)

Financial Resources Mobilization & Optimization.

Not constrained by resources (Borasi and Finnigan 2010)

The creative use of resources in order to aid the implementation of the school

mission’ (Pashiardis and Savvide,2011, p. 415)

Ready to seize opportunities (Borasi and Finnigan 2010)

The challenges/constraints facing entrepreneurial school leaders

It is important to highlight the particular challenges and constraints facing

entrepreneurial leaders working within the education sector. These have been

identified within the literature as having a potentially limiting effect on the ability of

leaders to act ‘entrepreneurially’.

The individualism of entrepreneurialism versus the democratic governance of

schools

The bureaucracy inherent in the public sector

Being answerable to a range of stakeholders- students, parents, governors,

sponsors, governments etc. This has the potential to impose incompatible

demands on school leaders.(Currie et al, 2008)

Performativity and accountability agendas- targets, inspections, league tables

Working within education systems around the world where Head Teachers have

limited autonomy over resources, staffing, curriculum

8

Training: Provision and Methodologies

Overview

As the preparation and training of effective school leaders is increasingly placed high on

many educational reform agendas (Bryant et al., 2013), the development of high-quality

school leadership programmes is attracting increasing attention (Barber et al., 2010).

However, the literature notes a dearth of research investigating best practices in the

provision of entrepreneurial leadership training (Roomi and Harrison, 2011). Although

educators are increasingly expected to become ‘agents for change’, they generally

receive little formal preparation or training to help them effectively initiate change

(Borasi and Finnigan, 2010). In their report on how different school systems build

leadership capacity, Barber et al. (2010: 9) note three types of approaches used by

schools to unlock and develop leadership talent:

1. Self-identification by potential leaders and informal mechanisms by which

potential leaders are coached and given opportunities to develop within schools.

2. Providing opportunities for potential leaders to take courses or join programmes

to build their capacity and interest in leadership.

3. Proactively guiding the careers of potential leaders so that they gain

progressively greater leadership experience through new roles taken on within

their schools with guidance and support.

A key theme in the literature is the diverse range of understandings of the concept of

‘entrepreneurial leadership’. For example, a survey of 131 UK higher education

institutions by Hannon (2007) revealed a high degree of variability across the country

in conceptualising ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘leadership’, and a similar variability in terms

of design of development/training programmes. A number of authors highlight:

a. The paucity of literature on entrepreneurial leadership in general (e.g. Bagheri

and Pihie, 2010)

b. A lack of investigations into how best to teach it

For example, Roomi and Harrison (2011: 9) note that “…very little attention is paid to

how entrepreneurial leadership behaviours are learnt, whether they can be taught, and

how this might be done.” Similarly, on a European level, the Thematic Working Group

on Entrepreneurship Education (2014: 4) concluded in its final report that,

Educators and education leaders in Europe are not sufficiently trained in

entrepreneurship education, which negatively impacts on the potential for

entrepreneurship to become embedded in education systems.

Although there is an increasing body of research on entrepreneurship education in

general (e.g. Galloway and Kelly, 2009; Hannon, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006; Wilson et al.,

2007), only few studies within this work focus specially on the leadership dimension.

While some studies do touch on the central role of leadership in entrepreneurship (e.g.

Chell et al., 2007; Muzychenko and Zalan, 2008), there is little elaboration on how to

9

actually teach/learn the competency of entrepreneurial leadership (cf. Roomi and

Harrison, 2011). Some argue that this might be because research is yet to establish

which leadership patterns are specific to entrepreneurship (Vecchio, 2003).

Where investigations into the teaching/training of entrepreneurial leadership

competencies have been conducted, these remain largely limited to ‘western’ contexts.

This body of research points to a strong convergence across different locations in terms

of the content of leadership training programmes (Walker et al., 2013), although

national and local circumstances (e.g. national agendas, school culture etc.) may impact

on the operation of leadership training programmes (see Bryant et al., 2013; Leithwood

and Levin, 2008).

For example, in a comparative study of leadership preparation programmes in Canada,

the USA, and England, Bush and Jackson (2002), found a shared emphasis on finance,

curriculum, and external relations. Research also suggests that an increasingly common

feature across leadership training programmes are university-school partnerships

which support action-oriented enquiry, and provide mentoring/support structures (e.g.

Darling-Hammond et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2011; Piggot-Irvine, 2011). Partnerships of

this kind are increasingly recognised as key to the success and effectiveness of

leadership training programmes (Darling-Hammond et al., 2010), allowing participants

to link theory and practice (Sanzo et al., 2011). In sum, recent research strongly

suggests a swing towards the involvement of academics in developing and delivering

leadership training programmes (Bryant et al., 2012; Huber, 2004; MacBeath, 2011).

Content and Delivery Methods

A number of recent studies have documented features/characteristics of high-quality

leadership training programmes more generally (e.g. Darling-Hammond et al., 2010;

Huber and West, 2002; Peterson, 2002; Pounder, 2011). A focus on entrepreneurial

leadership aspects in this literature is less common. However, in a recent study on

preparing change-agents in education, Borasi and Finnigan (2010) raise two key

questions for entrepreneurial leadership training provision:

1. What should educators learn about entrepreneurship?

2. How can these learning goals be best achieved?

They propose two key elements for the design of entrepreneurial leadership training for

educators:

1. Support educators to appreciate the value of entrepreneurship in terms of

making them ‘agents for change’

2. Develop an understanding in educators of entrepreneurial concepts and

practices

In relation to these core elements, they put forward several possible

methodologies/training approaches:

10

Introducing conceptualisations of entrepreneurship, and examples of practice, to

educators to enable them to realise the application of entrepreneurship to

education. This could include:

o Focusing on specific areas of practice (i.e. visioning, decision-making,

problem-solving, dealing with resources, risk-taking, networking, dealing

with growth, initiating innovation)

o Getting participants to identify micro and macro-level factors in their

contexts which could impact upon entrepreneurial activity

o Considering characteristics/traits of entrepreneurial educators

Introducing concrete examples of how entrepreneurial skills have made

educators successful. Examples of methodologies can include:

o The use of in-depth portraits, stories, profiles (cf. Fisher and Koch, 2004;

Leisey and Lavaroni, 2000), i.e. ‘entrepreneurship-in-action’

o Inviting entrepreneurial educators as guest speakers

o Getting participants to interview entrepreneurial educators of their

choice

Further methodologies for training suggested in the literature include:

The use of entrepreneurial leaders’ autobiographies, critical incidents, and

structured group activities (Taliadorou and Pashiardis, 2015)

Workshops and skill development activities that focus on particular skills such as

the ability to recognise entrepreneurial opportunities i.e. ‘entrepreneurial

alertness’ (Roomi and Harrison, 2011)

Critical reflection (Densten and Gray, 2001)

Active and experiential learning (Kempster and Cope, 2010)

Simulations and case studies (Walker et al., 2013)

The use of models and typologies (Walker et al., 2013). Examples include Eyal

and Inbar’s (2003) Multidimensional Model for School Entrepreneurship,

Leithwood and Levin’s (2008) Leadership Development Typology, Sergiovanni’s

(1984) Five Forces of Leadership, and Gardner’s (2008) Five Minds for the Future

In a recent study, Roomi and Harrison (2011: 20-27) put forward a number of possible

design elements for entrepreneurial leadership training programmes, including (a) the

entrepreneurial mind-set, (b) influencing strategies such as coalition forming and

assertiveness, (c) the ability to communicate a shared vision, (d) interpersonal and

teamworking skills, (e) the ability to deal with adversity and disappointment, (f) ethics,

and (g) the ability to empower and motivate an entrepreneurial team. While this is not

exclusively focused on training provision for school leaders, it might well provide a

useful template.

Example of leadership training provision for school leaders focusing on

entrepreneurial leadership:

Columba 1400 Head Teacher Leadership Academy: Developing Enterprise Culture

11

For head teachers and deputy head teachers from primary and secondary schools in

Scotland: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2005/03/20533/50078

A study by Deakins et al. (2005) reported changes in head teachers who had taken part

in the Leadership Academy, including an increased willingness to develop links with

local businesses and the local community, and the inclusion of enterprise activities in

school development plans.

Final thoughts

In a meta-analysis of the published articles from the International Study of the

Preparation of Principals Programme (ISPP) – a collaborative programme made up of

14 participating countries – the authors conclude that whilst there are ‘similarities in

the learning needs for educational leaders across cultures’ there are important

differences in how these are manifested. (Scott and Webber, 2015, p.126). As a

consequence, entrepreneurial leadership training must allow for ‘the unique features of

each context’ and shared experiences and common terminologies must not ‘mask

significant contextual differences.’ (ibid, p.132)

References

Bagheri, A., & Pihie, Z. (2010). Entrepreneurial Leadership Learning: In Search of Missing Links. Procedia, 7, 470-479.

Barber M., Whelan F., & Clark M. (2010). Capturing the leadership premium: How the

world’s top school systems are building leadership capacity for the future. Report of

McKinsey and Company. Available at:

http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/schoolleadership_final.

pdf

BBC News (December 2013) Pisa tests: UK stagnates as Shanghai tops league

tablehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997 [accessed on 26/2/2015]

Borasi, R and Finnigan, K. (2010) Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Behaviors that Can

Help Prepare Successful Change-Agents in Education The New Educator Vol 6 No. 1

Bryant DA, Walker A, & Lee M (2013). The impact of international, national, and local

forces on the enactment of quality leadership preparation programmes. In: Brundrett. M

(ed.) Principles of School Leadership. London: SAGE, 279-308.

Bush T., & Jackson D. (2002) A preparation for school leadership: international

perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 30(4): 417–429.

Chell, E., Karata-Özkan, M., & Nicolopoulou, K. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship

Education: Policy, Core Themes and Developmental Competencies”, International

Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 5: 143-162.

12

Currie, G., Humphreys, M., Ucbasaran, D. and McManus, S (2008) Entrepreneurial

Leadership in the English Public Sector: Paradox or Possibility? Public Administration

Vol 86 No. 4

Czariawska-Joerges, B., and Wolff, R ( 1991) Leaders, managers, entrepreneurs on and

off the organizational stage Organization Studies Vol 12, No. 4

Darling-Hammond L., Meyerson D., LaPointe M. et al (2010). Preparing Principals for a

Changing World: Lessons From Effective School Leadership Programmes. San Fransisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I., & Wyper, J. (2005). Enterprise Education: The Role of

Head Teachers. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 241-263.

Densten, I. L., & Gray, J. (2001), “Leadership development and reflection: what is the

connection?, The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(3): 119-124.

Eyal, O., & Inbar, D. (2003). Developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory: Theoretical conceptualization and empirical examination. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, 9(6), 221-244.

EU Commission (2008) Improving competences for the 21st Century:

An Agenda for European Cooperation on Schools

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52008SC2177&from=EN [accessed on 26/2/2015]

Fisher, J. L. & Koch, J. V. (2004). The entrepreneurial college president. Westport, CN: Praeger.

Galloway, L. & Kelly, S. (2009). Identifying entrepreneurial potential? An investigation of

the identifiers and features of entrepreneurship. International Review of

Entrepreneurship, 7(4):1-24.

Gardner H (2008). 5 Minds for the Future. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Gupta, V., MacMillan, I.C. and Surie, G. (2004) Entrepreneurial Leadership: Developing

and Measuring a cross-cultural construct Journal of Business Venturing Vol 19

Hannon, P. D. (2006). Teaching Pigeons to Dance: sense and meaning in

entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 48(5): 296-308.

Hannon, P. D. (2007). Enterprise for all? The fragility of enterprise provision across

England's HEIs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2): 183-210.

Hentschke, G.C. and Caldwell, B.J. (2007) Entrepreneurial leadership in Davies, B. (Ed)

The Essentials of School Leadership Paul Chapman Publishing

Huber SG (ed.) (2004). Preparing School Leaders for the 21st Century: An International

Comparison of Development Programmes in 15 Countries. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Huber SG, & West M (2002). Developing school leaders: A critical review of current

practices, approaches and issues, and some directions for the future. In: Leithwood K,

13

Hallinger P (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and

Administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1017–1002.

Johnson, D., Craig, J. B. L. & Hildebrand, R. (2006). Entrepreneurship Education:

Towards a discipline-based framework. Journal of Management Development, 25(1): 40-

54.

Kempster, S. and Cope, J. (2010). Learning to lead in the entrepreneurial context.

International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 16(1): 5 - 34.

Leisey, D., & Lavaroni, C. (2000). The educational entrepreneur: Making a difference. San

Rafael, CA: Edupreneur Press.

Leithwood K, & Levin B (2008) Understanding and assessing the impact of leadership

development. In: Lumby J, Crow G, Pashiardis P (eds) International Handbook on the

Preparation and Development of School Leaders. New York: Routledge, 280–300.

Leithwood K, Day C, Sammons P et al. (2006) Successful School Leadership: What it Is

and How it Influences Pupil Learning. Nottingham: National College for School

Leadership.

Levin, B. ( 2003) Educational Policy: Commonalities and Differences in Handbook of

Educational Leadership Davies, B. and West-Burnham J. ( Eds) Pearson Longman

MacBeath J (2011). No lack of principles: leadership development in England and

Scotland. School Leadership and Management, 31(2): 105–121

Muzychenko, O. and Zalan, T. (2008). Developing Competencies for International

Entrepreneurship: The Role of a Global Mindset. International Journal of

Entrepreneurship Education, 6(4): 217-240.

Pashiardis, P. and Savvides, V. (2011) The Interplay between Instructional and

Entrepreneurial Leadership Styles in Cyprus Rural Primary Schools Leadership and

Policy in Schools Vol 10

Perez LG, Uline CL, Johnson JF, Jr, et al (2011). Foregrounding fieldwork in leadership

preparation: the transformative capacity of authentic inquiry. Educational

Administration Quarterly 47(1): 217–257.

Peterson K (2002) The professional development of principals: innovations and

opportunities. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(2): 213–232.

Piggot-Irving E. (2011) Principal development: self-directed project efficacy.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(3): 283–295.

Pihie, Z.A.L., Asimiran, and S Bagheri,A. (2014a) Entrepreneurial leadership practices

and school innovativeness South African Journal of Education Vol 34 no 1

Pihie, z.A.L., Bagheri,A. and Asimiran, S (2014b) Entrepreneurial leadership behaviour

among school principals: perspectives from Malaysian Secondary School Teachers

Social sciences and Humanities Vol 22 No.3

14

Pounder DG(2011) Leader preparation special issue: implications for policy, practice

and research. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(1): 258–267.

Roomi, M .A. and Harrison P. (2011) Entrepreneurial Leadership: What Is It and How

Should It Be Taught? International Review of Entrepreneurship Vol 9 No. 3.

Sanzo KL, Myran S, Clayton JK (2010-2011) Building bridges between knowledge and

practice. Journal of Educational Administration 49(3): 292–312.

Scott, S. and Webber, C.F. (2015) Entrepreneurialism for Canadian Principals:

Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow Journal of Research on Leadership Education Vol 8 No.

1

Sergiovanni TJ (1984) Handbook for Effective Department Leadership: Concepts and

Practices in Today’s Secondary Schools. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Smith, K. (2003) Educational entrepreneurs and the capital gap in Handbook of

Educational Leadership Davies, B. and West-Burnham J. ( Eds) Pearson Longman

Taliadorou, N., & Pahiardis, P. (2015). Emotional intelligence and political skill really

matter in educational leadership in K. Beycioglu and P. Pashiardis (Eds.),

Multidimensional perspectives on principal leadership effectiveness (pp. 228-257).

Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Thematic Working group on Entrepreneurial Education: Final report November 2014

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDo

c&id=17016&no=1

Walker, A., Brynat, D and Moosung L. (20130 International Patterns in Principal

Preparation: Commonalities and Variations in Pre-service programmes Educational

Management Administration and Leadership Vol 41 No. 4

Wilson, F., Kickul, J. and Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy, and Entrepreneurial Career Intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577-598.

Woods, P.A, Woods, G.J and Gunter, H. (2007) Academy Schools and Entrepreneurialism

in Education Journal of Education Policy Vol 22, No. 2

Woods, P.A, and Woods, G.J. (2009) Testing a typology of entrepreneurialism

Management in Education Vol 23 No 3

Vecchio, R. P. (2003). Entrepreneurship and leadership: common trends and common threads. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2): 303-327

Xaba, M. and Malindi, M (2010) Entrepreneurial orientation and practice: three case

examples of historically disadvantaged primary schools South African Journal of

Education Vol 30

15

Additional sources of information:

1) Information and articles provided on the OECD Improving School Leadership

web page:http://www.oecd.org/education/school/improvingschoolleadership-

home.htm

2) Information and articles provided on Leadership Improvement on Student

Achievement (LISA) web page

http://www.leadership-in-education.eu/index.php?id=235

3) EUROPA Summaries of EU legislation Education, training, youth, sport

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_lear

ning/c11090_en.htm

4) International Study of the Preparation of Principals (ISPP)

http://ucalgary.ca/ispp/

5) National College for Teaching and Leadership

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-college-for-teaching-

and-leadership