business and education leaders

How Business Leaders Can Strengthen American Schools

Business has long recognized the connection between an effective school system and a qualified workforce—by some estimates, the private sector invests $4 billion annually in efforts intended to improve public education.

So why isn't that investment paying off?

"Business leaders today are engaged in education in ways that are generous, well-intended, effective at alleviating the symptoms of a weak education system, and thoroughly inadequate to help strengthen the system," says Harvard Business School Professor Jan W. Rivkin , a leader with University Professor Michael Porter of the School's U.S. Competitiveness Project . Rivkin is the Bruce V. Rauner Professor of Business Administration.

“Study after study has shown that a country's long-term prosperity depends on the quality of its human capital”

Rivkin and fellow HBS faculty Allen S. Grossman and Kevin W. Sharer have joined forces with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Boston Consulting Group to determine how business leaders can partner more effectively with educators to support America's students and schools.

"Study after study has shown that a country's long-term prosperity depends on the quality of its human capital," says Rivkin. "So if we're really falling down in that arena, we have an economic problem so important that business leaders can't sit on the sidelines."

On the positive side, this could be a promising moment for American education. Rivkin points to developments such as improved teaching and leadership talent, the use of technology in personalized learning, the Common Core State Standards Initiative, wider school choice, and a dramatic upgrade in the quality and use of data analytics to determine what is working in education and what isn't.

So where do business leaders fit in? The group's recently published work identifies three areas that capitalize on business's strengths and result in the greatest returns:

• Influencing policy. "We know that policy often stands in the way of innovation and education," says Rivkin. "Business leaders can wield a great deal of influence in policy—especially local policy—and local policy is where all the action is in education." In Denver, for example, business leaders partnered with educators to lobby for an increase in taxes to support education.
• Building on proven innovation. "There's no shortage of success stories in particular schools and districts," Rivkin says. "The problem is that they tend to get bottled up in individual localities." Since business leaders are often adept at scaling up innovations that work, why not leverage that expertise? ExxonMobil, a founding sponsor of the National Math and Science Initiative, helped to scale two projects: one focusing on improved training for science, technology, and math teachers, the other on improving advanced placement test results in the same areas.
• Reinventing the local education ecosystem. Many communities have programs to support children and education—but they're often not coordinated, resulting in gaps and redundancies in service. This a fertile area for collaboration. "What you see in some places are business, civic, and education leaders partnering to create a strategy to support kids from cradle to career," says Rivkin. In Cincinnati, the Strive Partnership serves as a central clearing house for aligning goals with the metrics and decisions to meet those goals. "This fosters a sense of collective responsibility but individual accountability," says Rivkin. As another example, the GE Foundation sponsors Developing Futures, a program that partners with seven school districts where GE has major operations to upgrade management talent and processes at the district level.

Obstacles To Overcome

So what's the likelihood that these sorts of partnerships will become more prevalent? The private sector's $4 billion per year investment in education is a drop in the bucket when you consider the $600 billion total spent annually on US K-12 education. But it is still a significant sum with high-impact potential. Unfortunately, no clear, aggregate data exist to indicate how that money is spent, or its effectiveness.

The U.S. Competitiveness Project and its partners surveyed business leaders and school superintendents to gain a clearer understanding of the two groups' interactions.

The picture that emerges is a mixed one. On the plus side, 95 percent of superintendents could point to some form of business engagement in their districts. But on closer examination, much of that engagement can be characterized as "checkbook philanthropy" in the form of donated money, goods, and scholarships.

"These are noble efforts that are effective in their own way," says Rivkin, "but they don't result in positive, lasting improvements to the system."

Superintendents are happy with this sort of interaction, the survey showed, and 80 percent would welcome more collaboration, with a majority indicating openness to new types of engagement.

The two groups had very different perceptions of the effectiveness of K-12 education, however: Business leaders characterized the system as "poor and deteriorating" compared to other advanced nations' while superintendents saw it as "strong and keeping pace."

Another potential barrier to productive partnership: Business leaders tend to give themselves more credit for being informed about education than superintendents do.

Rivkin notes that in the survey of superintendents, the qualitative comments section also showed a clear undercurrent of distrust and lack of respect. "The gist was that a business leader would come in and say, 'I know how to run my business so I know how to run your school.'" The attitude that superintendents desired of business leaders was quite different: "I'm going to learn first, you're the professionals when it comes to education," Rivkin summarizes. "I'll have my ideas, but we're going to do this together."

The group's ongoing efforts currently include several publications available for download at the U.S. Competitiveness Project's website , including Lasting Impact: A Business Leader's Playbook for Supporting America's Schools and Partial Credit: How America's School Superintendents See Business as a Partner.

"There are some good, evidence-based programs that business leaders can start getting behind," Rivkin says, "but there's no question that we need a better understanding of what actually works."

The partnership between business and education must be long term, he adds. "The problems that we've seen in the education system and in our approach to human capital have been a generation in the making, and it will take a generation to set them right. Most businesses have an approach to partnering with educators that made sense in the past but is not adequate for the needs or the opportunities of the future."

• 24 Jan 2024

Why Boeing’s Problems with the 737 MAX Began More Than 25 Years Ago

• 25 Jan 2022
• Research & Ideas

More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

• 25 Feb 2019

How Gender Stereotypes Kill a Woman’s Self-Confidence

• 22 Apr 2024

When Does Impact Investing Make the Biggest Impact?

• 15 Apr 2024

Struggling With a Big Management Decision? Start by Asking What Really Matters

• North & Central America
• United States

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Doctor of Education Leadership

Additional Information

• Download the Doctoral Viewbook
• Admissions & Aid

America needs transformative leaders in preK–12 education whose passion for education quality and equity is matched by a knowledge of learning and development, the organizational management skills to translate visionary ideas into practical success, and a firm grasp of the role of context and politics in shaping leadership. Graduates of the three-year, multidisciplinary Doctor of Education Leadership (Ed.L.D.) Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education will be prepared to become those leaders.

The Ed.L.D Program — taught by faculty from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, the Harvard Business School, and the Harvard Kennedy School — will train you for system-level leadership positions in school systems, state and federal departments of education, and national nonprofit organizations. Ed.L.D. is a full-time, three-year program built on a cohort learning model. Cohorts consist of up to 25 students from diverse professional backgrounds (including district/charter management leaders, nonprofit directors, principals, teachers, and policy researchers) who progress through the program together.  

All Ed.L.D. students receive a full tuition funding package plus stipends, work opportunities, and a paid third-year residency at a partner organization. 

The Ed.L.D. Program prepares graduates to do work for the public good in the American public education sector, whether that be at the system or state level. Specifically, the program is designed to accelerate the progress graduates make toward achieving meaningful impact in influential roles and/or crossing boundaries in the following spaces in the public education sector: 

• PreK–12 district or CMO leadership roles : superintendent of schools, chief academic officer, and/or deputy superintendent
• Foundation/philanthropy roles:  director, president and CEO, senior fellow
• Education nonprofit roles : president or executive director of backbone or collective impact organizations which support preK–12 schools. Ed.L.D. graduates will lead education nonprofits that explicitly focus on improving outcomes and opportunities for children, families, and communities.
• State or federal education leadership roles : commissioner or deputy commissioner roles. Could also include public education advocacy or education policy advisers to senior government officials.
• Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation roles:  Founder, CEO, president

Curriculum Information

The Ed.L.D. curriculum is a balance of multidisciplinary coursework and practice-based learning. Core courses and electives are taught by recognized leaders from across Harvard’s graduate programs in fields like data-based education reform, organizational change and innovation, and effective leadership strategies for urban schools. You will develop and test your leadership skills through team projects and an immersive third-year residency.

All students in the cohort take the same classes in four foundational content areas: learning and teaching, leadership and organizational change, politics and policy, adult development, and leadership inside and out (including one-on-one executive coaching). Courses taken during the first-year focus on practice-based learning and serve as the framework of your first-year experience.

Sample HGSE Courses

• Leading Change
• How People Learn
• Ed.L.D. Proseminar
• Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Learning
• Race, Equity, and Leadership
• Practicing Leadership Inside and Out
• Sector Change
• The Workplace Lab for System-Level Leaders

View  all courses  in the Academic Catalog.

Each cohort member works with program advisers to choose an individualized sequence of electives from any of the Harvard graduate schools. You will work closely with the program faculty and staff during your second year to determine the best match with a partner organization for your third-year residency. Matches are driven by mutual interest between the resident and the partner organization, and each student's career and learning goals and geographic preferences.

• Second Year Practicing Leadership Inside and Out
• Driving Change 
• Education Sector Nonprofits
• Negotiation Workshop
• Coaching with Equity in Mind
• Ethnic Studies and Education
• Deeper Learning for All:  Designing a 21st Century School System
• Institutional Change in School Organizations, Systems, and Sectors

You will take part in a 10-month paid residency at one of our partner organizations. There, you will work on a strategic project which synthesizes your experience and learning into a written Capstone project. You will stay connected to your Ed.L.D. cohort and HGSE through technology and by returning to Harvard periodically for intensive workshops.

Paid Residency 

Our partner organizations include school systems and departments of education, as well as some of the nation's most influential and dynamic nonprofit, mission-based for-profit, and philanthropic organizations.

You will be intentionally pushed out of your comfort zones and asked to work systemically and make a significant contribution to the partner organization. In addition, the residency will provide you with the professional mentoring, practical experiences, and network of connections they need to position themselves as future leaders in the education sector. 

Strategic Project 

You will define (with supervisors from your partner organization) a strategic project on which to focus. You will have the opportunity to lead one or two major efforts on behalf of the organization, such as the creation or implementation of current initiatives. The project allows you to practice and improve leadership skills, add important value to the mission and strategy of the partner organization, work systemically, and hold high-level accountability.

During the residency period, you will produce a written Capstone. The Capstone is a descriptive, analytic, and reflective account of your third-year leadership contributions to a strategic project within an Ed.L.D. partner organization. It is a demonstration of your ability to engage others, develop strategy to successfully address and diagnose challenges, work toward a vision and goals, and learn from the results.

Sample Topics

• Accountability, Coherence, and Improvement: Leadership Reflection and Growth in the Los Angeles Unified School District
• Leadership Development for Entrepreneurial Education Leaders Working to Build Public & Private Sector Support
• Disrupting Teacher Preparation: Lessons in Collaboration and Innovation Across the Learning to Teach Community of Practice
• Pursuing Educational Equality for English Language Learners

Sample Summaries 

• Breaking Down Silos in a School District: Findings from an Ed.L.D. Project in Montgomery County
• Expanding Students' Access to Meaningful STEM Learning Opportunities Through Strategic Community Partnerships
• Developing a New Teacher Leadership and Compensation System in Iowa: A Consensus-Based Process
• Finding Great Teachers for Blended-Learning Schools

GSE Theses and Dissertations from Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH)

Program Faculty

Ed.L.D. students learn with renowned faculty from the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard Business School, and Harvard Kennedy School. Faculty from the three schools share their individual expertise in the Ed.L.D. Program and work collaboratively to provide a challenging and coherent experience for students. Faculty who teach in the Ed.L.D. core curriculum and advise Ed.L.D. students include:

Faculty Director

Frank D. Barnes

Frank Barnes is faculty director of the Doctor of Education Leadership Program. He has over 30 years experience as an educator, researcher, and organizer. As a chief accountability officer, he led turnaround efforts for large public school districts, including Boston Public Schools and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.

Kathryn Parker Boudett

Ebony N. Bridwell-Mitchell

Jennifer Perry Cheatham

Elizabeth City

Candice Crawford-Zakian

Marshall Ganz

Adria D. Goodson

Deborah helsing.

Monica C. Higgins

Deborah Jewell-Sherman

Lisa Laskow Lahey

Mary Grassa O'Neill

Irvin Leon Scott

Catherine Snow

Michael L. Tushman

Martin west.

How is the third third-year residency determined? Will I get to choose where I go and for whom I work?

You will work closely with Ed.L.D. Program faculty during your second year to determine the best partner organization match for your third-year residency. In ascertaining a match, faculty take a number of factors into account, including a students' career goals and geographic preferences. The program expects that the current list of partners will continue to grow based on organizational and student interest.

The Ed.L.D. Program has partnered with organizations that are pushing the boundaries of what is possible in American preK–12 education. The partners are school systems, nonprofit organizations, mission-based for-profit organizations, and government agencies, all pursuing a common goal of ensuring that every child has the opportunity to achieve their full potential. You will work directly with partner organizations in the third-year residency and have some exposure to partner representatives in the first two years of the program. Your work with our partner organizations will be encapsulated in a Capstone, which is descriptive, analytic, and reflective account of the your leadership and contributions to a strategic project. Summaries of Capstones by several members of the first cohort of Ed.L.D. graduates are available in the curriculum section.

Partner Organizations

Below is a sample list of current and/or previous Ed.L.D. partner organizations:

• Bellingham Public Schools
• Big Picture Learning
• Boston Public Schools
• Denver Public Schools
• Education First
• Harlem Children's Zone
• Jobs for the Future
• John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
• Madison Metropolitan School District
• New Haven Mayor’s Office 
• New Schools for Baton Rouge
• New Schools Venture Fund
• New York City Department of Education
• The Leadership Academy
• Phi Delta Kappa/Educators Rising
• Providence Public Schools
• Rhode Island Department of Education
• South Carolina Public Charter School District
• Virginia Department of Education

Student Directory

An opt-in listing of current Ed.L.D. students with information about their interests, research, personal web pages, and contact information:

Doctor of Education Leadership Student Directory

Introduce Yourself

Tell us about yourself so that we can tailor our communication to best fit your interests and provide you with relevant information about our programs, events, and other opportunities to connect with us.

Program Highlights

Explore examples of the Doctor of Education Leadership experience and the impact its community is making on the field:

Combatting Chronic Absenteeism with Family Engagement 

As post-COVID absenteeism rates continue unabated, a look at how strong family-school engagement can help

Math, the Great (Potential) Equalizer

How current practices in math education around tracking and teaching can be dismantled to achieve the promise of equity in math classrooms

• Arts & Culture
• Civic Engagement
• Economic Development
• Environment
• Human Rights
• Social Services
• Water & Sanitation
• Foundations
• Nonprofits & NGOs
• Social Enterprise
• Collaboration
• Design Thinking
• Impact Investing
• Measurement & Evaluation
• Organizational Development
• Philanthropy & Funding
• Current Issue
• Sponsored Supplements
• Global Editions
• In-Depth Series
• Stanford PACS
• Submission Guidelines

Transforming the Role of Business in Education

An intensive one-day conference hosted by FSG, the Shared Value Initiative, and Stanford Social Innovation Review  

October 29, 2014 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. paul brest hall munger building 4 555 salvatierra walk stanford, ca.

Click here to learn more about the Shared Value Initiative  

Event Hosts:  

Sponsor: .

Quick Links Program Overview  | Conference Sessions  | Schedule  | Confirmed Speakers |  What Your Conference Fee Includes | Facilities and Location | Lodging | Rates and Registration | Privacy Policy | Contact Information | Co-Sponsors and Partner

Program Overview

Companies across industries—including technology, financial services, agriculture, and more—are beginning to play a new role in education. These companies are tackling education issues through their core business strategy and operations. In doing so, they are finding new ways to become essential partners for schools, nonprofits, and governments in helping to raise levels of student and workforce achievement.

This one-day conference, hosted by the Shared Value Initiative, FSG, and Stanford Social Innovation Review , will bring together business, education, and nonprofit leaders eager to explore new models to help address the world's educational needs. Through this conference, attendees will:

• Explore trends driving companies to engage in education in a new way.
• Discover how business, nonprofits, schools, and governments can create partnerships that improve education at scale.
• Gain practical recommendations for how corporate, government, and civil society leaders can work together to create greater value for society.

To learn more about how companies can create shared value in education, click here .

Conference Sessions

Morning General Sessions

Keynote Address: Introducing the New Role of Business in Education Sir Michael Barber, Chief Education Advisor, Pearson

The opening keynote will explain why we’ve come together to discuss the new role of business in education. The keynoter will review how traditional corporate engagement in education has left value on the table for both business and society and illuminate the trends that are driving business to engage in education in a new way. He will then discuss how Pearson is making this shift and argue why this transformation is critical to meeting our global education needs.

Panel: Can Companies, Government, and Educators Create Shared Value in Education? Dr. James Applegate, Executive Director, Illinois Board of Higher Education; Karen Cator, CEO, Digital Promise; Dean Florez, President and CEO, The 20 Million Minds Foundation Moderator: Eric Nee, Managing Editor, Stanford Social Innovation Review

This panel will explore how business, government, and education leaders can work together to improve the effectiveness of education systems at scale. Speakers will discuss two distinct approaches to shared value creation— building the workforce of the future and innovating for student success—and why these models are particularly worthy of our attention. Speakers will weigh the benefits and trade-offs of these approaches, and offer recommendations for how to effectively leverage the power of business to help improve educational outcomes.

Afternoon Breakout Sessions (Running Concurrently)

Breakout Session I:  Innovating for Student Success Diane Tavenner, CEO, Summit Public Schools; James Bernard, Senior Director, Global Strategic Partnerships, Microsoft Education

This session will focus on the shift that education and technology companies around the world are making to deliver products and services that have a measurable, proven impact on learners’ lives. Speakers will discuss the benefits and challenges of adopting this approach, and explore what it will take for more companies to integrate student success into their business strategy moving forward. Audience members will then engage in small roundtable discussions to further unfold these questions, and the session will conclude with speaker Q&A.

Breakout Session II: Building the Workforce of the Future Suzanne Fallender, Director, Global Girls and Women Initiative, Intel Corporation; Eric Johnson, Workforce Development Lead, Office of Education, USAID

This session will focus on how companies can evolve from passive consumers of talent to catalysts for developing a skilled workforce—and, in doing so, increase employability and economic mobility in their communities. Speakers will discuss the key ingredients needed to undertake this shift, from taking a broader view of workforce needs, to building cross-sector collaboratives, to aligning curricula with the skills needed for employment. Audience members will then engage in small roundtable discussions to further unfold these questions, and the session will conclude with speaker Q&A.

Afternoon General Session

Plenary: A Call to Action Bill Goodwyn, CEO, Discovery Education; Dr. Juan "Kiko" Suarez, Vice President of Communications and Innovation, Lumina Foundation; Jamie McAuliffe, CEO, Education for Employment Moderator: Mark Kramer, Cofounder and Managing Director, FSG, and Senior Advisor, Shared Value Initiative

The afternoon plenary will offer a vision for how companies and their partners can open up entrepreneurial and innovative solutions to addressing educational issues and realize opportunities to impact education through new thinking, new business models, and cross-sector collaboration. The speakers will share their stories of creating quality education for all and answer questions from the moderator and audience.

Closing Keynote David L. Kirp, James D. Marver Professor of Public Policy, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley

Networking Reception and Cocktails We will end the day with an open reception for networking and knowledge sharing.

TOP OF PAGE

Wednesday, October 29, at Paul Brest Hall:

Confirmed Speakers

Dr. James L. Applegate, Executive Director, Illinois Board of Higher Education

Sir Michael Barber, Chief Education Advisor, Pearson

James Bernard,  Senior Director, Global Strategic Partnerships, Microsoft Education

Karen Cator, CEO, Digital Promise

Rick Cruz, Director, FSG

Suzanne Fallender, Director, Global Girls and Women Initiative, Intel Corporation

Dean Florez, President and CEO, The Twenty Million Minds Foundation

Bill Goodwyn, CEO, Discovery Education

Eric Johnson, Workforce Development Lead, Office of Education, USAID

David L. Kirp, James D. Marver Professor of Public Policy, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley

Mark Kramer, Cofounder and Managing Director, FSG

Jamie McAuliffe, President and CEO, Education for Employment

Eric Nee, Managing Editor, Stanford Social Innovation Review

Dr. Juan "Kiko" Suarez, Vice President of Communications & Innovation, Lumina Foundation

Diane Tavenner, CEO, Summit Public Schools

Matt Wilka, Associate Director, FSG

What Your Conference Fee Includes

• A full day of sessions and networking in a beautiful conference center
• Delicious, primarily organic and locally grown food: Breakfast buffet, gourmet boxed lunch, afternoon networking reception
• A list of conference attendees with contact information
• Access to additional post-conference resources and photos on sharedvalue.org
• Free Wi-Fi at conference center
• Free shuttle from the Sheraton Palo Alto hotel and Caltrain to the conference location
• Discounted parking

Conference Facilities and Location

The program will be held at Paul Brest Hall, a state-of-the-art facility located on Stanford University's campus.  View a Google map of the Stanford campus with the conference venue pinpointed.

Stanford is located between San Francisco and San Jose in the heart of Silicon Valley. The campus's 8,100 acres reach from the rural foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto. Stanford is conveniently located between two major airports—25 miles south of San Francisco International Airport and 20 miles north of San Jose International Airport. Mass transit is available from both airports to the Stanford campus and area hotels: Find information about the free Stanford Marguerite Shuttle here. Find information about Caltrain here. Find information about Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) here.

The campus and surrounding areas offer a myriad of opportunities for recreation and sightseeing. World-class shopping and dining are located only a mile away at the Stanford Shopping Center . A half hour drive north brings you to San Francisco . A two hour drive south brings you to Carmel-by-the-Sea , where you can take in breathtaking views of the Pacific Ocean. To find out more, visit Stanford’s Visitor Information Services .

The Sheraton Palo Alto The room block reserved for attendees at the Sheraton Palo Alto is no longer available. 

The Sheraton Palo Alto is conveniently located next to the Palo Alto Caltrain stop. Paul Brest Hall is a 30 minute walk or a short, free shuttle ride away by taking the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle "Y" from the Caltrain station (next to the Sheraton) to campus. View a list of other nearby lodging with a variety of price ranges. We do not have room blocks at these locations.

Conference Rates

Registration for this conference is now closed.

_________________________

Important Registration Dates July 22: Registration opens September 26: Early Bird rate deadline September 27: Regular rate begins October 22: Deadline to request refund with cancellation October 26: Last day to register online  

Transfers, Cancellations, and Refunds: A registration fee for the program may be transferred to another person one time with no penalty. A refund charge of twenty percent of the registration fee will be assessed for any cancellations received by October 22, 2014. Effective October 23, there will be no refunds for cancellation. Refund requests must be submitted in writing by October 22 and will not be processed until after the event. To speak to SSIR about transferring or cancelling your registration, please contact Devin Briski at [email protected] or call (650) 497-7620.  

Privacy Policy

Stanford Social Innovation Review,  FSG, and the Shared Value Initiative are committed to your right to privacy and to the ethical use of information online. We adhere strictly to the following privacy practices. We do not rent, sell, give, exchange, or otherwise share contact information with unrelated third parties.

This conference may be audio or video recorded, podcast, photographed, published, and archived. As such, participants and speakers grant  SSIR,  FSG, and SVI permission for recording and use of images.

Contact Information

If you have questions about registration, the program, or logistics: Devin Briski Stanford Social Innovation Review Email: [email protected] Phone: (650) 497-7620

Carrie Pogorelc Stanford Social Innovation Review Email: [email protected] Phone: (650) 724-3309

Co-Sponsors and Partner

FSG  is a mission-driven nonprofit organization specializing in research, strategy consulting, and evaluation. Through its field-building activities, such as the Shared Value Initiative and the Collective Impact Forum, FSG works to advance knowledge and practice among a global community of partners dedicated to accelerating social progress. Learn more at www.fsg.org .

The Shared Value Initiative is a global community of leaders who find business opportunities in societal challenges. Guided by FSG and a global network of funders, the Initiative was created in 2012 to drive the adoption and implementation of shared value strategies by organizations around the world. The Initiative connects practitioners in search of the most effective ways to implement shared value through four primary activities: peer-to-peer exchange; market intelligence; strategy & implementation; and advocacy. sharedvalue.org

Stanford Social Innovation Review ( SSIR ) is an award-winning magazine and website that covers cross-sector solutions to global problems. SSIR is written for and by social change leaders in the nonprofit, business, and government sectors who view collaboration as key to solving environmental, social, and economic justice issues. Published at the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society, SSIR bridges academic theory and practice with ideas about achieving social change. SSIR covers a wide range of subjects, from microfinance and green businesses to social networks and human rights. Its aim is both to inform and to inspire. www.ssireview.org

Partner The Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society (Stanford PACS) develops and shares knowledge to improve philanthropy, strengthen civil society and effect social change.  Stanford PACS is a research center for students, scholars and practitioners to explore and share ideas that create social change. Its primary participants are Stanford faculty, visiting scholars, postdoctoral scholars, graduate and undergraduate students, and nonprofit and foundation practitioners.  As publisher of SSIR , Stanford PACS informs policy and social innovation, philanthropic investment, and nonprofit practice. pacscenter.stanford.edu

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

• MBA Experience
• Executive Education
• Alumni Engagement
• Faculty & Research
• Frequently Asked Questions
• For Organizations
• Academic Programs
• BAKER LIBRARY
• HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW
• INITIATIVES
• MAP / DIRECTIONS

K–12 Education

In 2003, HBS launched an MBA elective course focused on entrepreneurship in education reform and cofounded the Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) in collaboration with the Harvard Graduate School of Education. This multiyear research project focuses on the management levers needed to create and sustain high-performing K–12 public school districts in the United States. These efforts have resulted in more than 30 case studies focused on adapting and applying management concepts within urban school systems to drive improved performance and on using entrepreneurial strategies to effect systemic change in K–12 education.

Publications

Helping Children Catch Up: Early Life Shocks and the PROGRESA Experiment

By: Achyuta Adhvaryu, Theresa Molina, Anant Nyshadham and Jorge Tamayo

January 2024 | Economic Journal

Pratham 2.0: Sustaining Innovation

By: Brian Trelstad, Samantha Webster and Malini Sen

March 2023 (Revised June 2023) | Faculty Research

EducationSuperHighway 2.0

By: William A. Sahlman, Allison M. Ciechanover and Emily Grandjean

October 2022 | Faculty Research

School Choice Increases Racial Segregation Even When Parents Do Not Care About Race

By: Kalinda Ukanwa, Aziza C. Jones and Broderick L. Turner Jr.

August 30, 2022 | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Featured MBA Course

Transforming education through social entrepreneurship.

This course (formerly Entrepreneurship in Education Reform) explores the central role that education plays in our economy and society and is designed for students who want to take an active role in shaping the future workforce, bringing about a more equitable society, and improving the trajectories of our nation’s youth.

For Practitioners

Certificate in school management and leadership.

The Certificate in School Management and Leadership (CSML), an online, multi-course certificate program for PreK-12 school leaders, is an innovative collaboration between the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Harvard Business School. Bridging the fields of business and education, CSML integrates world-class faculty and research in managing teams and organizations with best practices in educational leadership, to provide school leaders with frameworks, skills, and knowledge to effectively lead and drive change improvement in schools. The CSML certificate is comprised of four courses, which can be taken independently or completed together in any order to earn a comprehensive certificate.

Public Education Leadership Project (PELP) Summer Institute

Taught by a team of faculty members from Harvard Business School, Harvard Graduate School of Education, and Harvard Kennedy School, PELP Executive Education programs feature a wide range of leadership cases and materials curated especially for K-12 system leaders in partner organizations. The PELP Summer Institute focuses on system level leadership at the superintendent level.

Accelerating Board Capacity (ABC) Institute

The ABC Institute is a Harvard Business School Executive Education custom program focused on governance in large urban districts. This program has been exclusively designed by Council of the Great City Schools and PELP for school board members and superintendents in member districts of the Council of the Great City Schools.

Impact Stories

Tools of the Trade

A Broad Spectrum of Opportunities

Ripple Effect

Initiatives focus on societal challenges that are too complex for any one discipline or industry to solve alone..

• Author Rights
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

• JOLE 2023 Special Issue
• Editorial Staff
• 20th Anniversary Issue
• Getting Down to Business: A Look at Leadership Education in Business Schools

Matthew Sowcik, Ph.D., Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. 10.12806/V12/I3/TF3

In the past twenty-five years, leadership training, education, and development has become a priority for public, private, and governmental organizations (Fulmer, Gibbs & Goldsmith, 2000). Leadership education is often communicated as a strategic advantage that will result in a better- prepared workforce that is ready to meet the ever-increasing demands of a global economy. Research supports these assertions and as DeRue, Sitkin and Podolny (2011) report, “leadership development and succession are the top priorities for organization across the globe” (p. 371). Today, organizations in the United States spend approximately 12.5 billion dollars on leadership development training each year (Avolio & Hannah, 2008; O’Leonard, 2010; DeRue et al., 2011). These programs focus on senior executives, middle managers and emerging leaders alike. From a delivery standpoint, they run the gamut and may be highly individualized (executive coaching) or designed for the masses (online learning platforms). However, despite growing insight into the importance of leadership education and the abundance of resources allocated to the development of leaders within organizations, there continues to exist below average confidence in business leaders (Rosenthal, 2012).

This growing emphasis on leadership development in organizations has also significantly impacted business school curricula over the past ten years. In 2003, Doh suggested that “more than three fifths of the top 50 U.S. business schools, as defined by the 2002 U.S. News and World Report rankings, publicized that they offer some course work in leadership” (p. 55). In line with these rankings, our own review of the top 50 business schools indicated a significant increase in the number of schools offering “some” coursework in leadership. In 45 of the top 50 schools (as defined by the 2014 U.S. News and World Report rankings), at least one leadership course was offered in the business school curriculum. In 40 of the top 50 schools, the leadership course(s) were part of the core curriculum. Furthermore, in more than half of the programs, two or more leadership classes were offered throughout the program’s curriculum. For instance, Harvard Business School has two required courses and four elective courses that focus on the topic of leadership (www.hbs.edu).

In addition to courses, many business schools now strategically address the importance of leadership in their mission statements. For example, the mission statements from the top 5 U.S. business schools (as defined by the 2014 U.S. News and World Report rankings) all include the education of leaders as a central tenet:

• Harvard Business School : We educate leaders who make a difference in the world.
• Stanford University : Our mission is to create ideas that deepen and advance our understanding of management and with those ideas to develop innovative, principled, and insightful leaders who change the world.
• University of Pennsylvania : Prepare business leaders to fuel the growth of industries and economics on a global scale.
• Northwestern University : Our purpose is to educate, equip and inspire leaders who build strong organizations and wisely leverage the power of markets to create lasting value.
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology : The mission of the MIT Sloan School of Management is to develop principled, innovative leaders who improve the world and to generate ideas that advance management practice.

In line with these mission statements, many of the top 50 business schools are building infrastructure to support their mission within and outside the classroom. Business schools across the United States are building programs, centers, and executive education offerings to achieve their objectives of developing leaders. No longer do educators and managers debate the merits of leadership as a core function of business – but rather, the more relevant challenge today is in developing models that truly develop leaders . Riggio (2008) suggests, “There is every reason to believe that leadership development in organizations, particularly in the United States and Europe, must get better” (p. 390).

To sum, leadership education and development is widely discussed as a core tenant of business schools and while courses have been added and centers are being built, there are still some significant challenges ahead. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges and issues facing leadership education in the context of business education. First, we explore some structural challenges. Second, we highlight three foundational issues related to leadership. Third, we investigate two research-related issues. In addition, we identify several opportunities to address these challenges and discuss how the National Leadership Education Research Agenda (NLERA) can spark research that will legitimize our work not only in business, but across disciplines (Andenoro, Allen, Haber-Curran, Jenkins, Sowcik, Dugan, & Osteen, 2013). As Perruci and McManus (2013) suggest, “It is time for leadership to inform other disciplines, as opposed to only the other way around” (p. 51).

Structural Challenges in the Context of Business Education

Acceptance by aacsb & aom.

The two most influential bodies in management education, The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and The Academy of Management (AOM) view leadership and perhaps the priority of leadership development as a “sub-topic” despite the expressed mission of so many institutions. For instance, AACSB (2005) suggests “The management education experience creates leaders capable of inspiring greater benefit from the work of individuals of developing organizations that are more effective at fulfilling their purpose” (p. 11). However, the organization also suggests, “In addition to mastering technical skills, students must acquire knowledge of ethics, social responsibility, law, and public policy, along with skill development in communication, leadership, and critical thinking” (p. 6). So although “developing leaders” is a priority, leadership as a topic may be on the same level as communication skills and critical thinking – not accounting, finance, organizational behavior, marketing, and so forth. In fact, in the AACSB’s (2013) Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation it is suggested that:

Traditional business subjects include accounting, business law, decision sciences, economics, entrepreneurship, finance (including insurance, real estate, and banking), human resources, international business, management, management information systems, management science, marketing, operations management, organizational behavior, organizational development, strategic management, supply chain management (including transportation and logistics), and technology management. (p. 9)

While the organization does not claim the list to be exhaustive, it’s clear that many in management education feel that leadership is a topic under the banner of management, organizational behavior, or “soft skills.” While AACSB has hinted at the importance of topics such as leadership, without the expressed and systemic support of AACSB, “leadership” will likely stay in its current position within business education. As one author suggests,

if the AACSB’s rhetoric and standards are ever going to turn into reality, it is critical that this institution undergo some internal reflection to determine just exactly why it has failed to effect the appropriate changes. One possible answer is that it has become more of a group of foxes guarding the MBA henhouses than a beacon of leadership and force for catalytic change. (Navarro, 2008, p. 120)

Another organization with great influence over management education is The Academy of Management. The Academy of Management’s expressed mission is “To build a vibrant and supportive community of scholars by markedly expanding opportunities to connect and explore ideas” (Vision, Mission, Objectives & Values, 2013). The Academy is divided into 25 management disciplines (called divisions) such as organizational behavior, operations management, management history, human resources, healthcare management, careers, and conflict management. Leadership is not included as a distinct management discipline or division. There is a “Network of Leadership Scholars,” but again, our assumption is that many would see leadership as a sub-topic of many of the above-mentioned divisions.

Given the relative youth of leadership as an area of inquiry, it may not yet be elevated to what would be widely considered as a discipline. Although programs in leadership studies have become popular in recent years, they do not often find homes in schools of business. Likewise, “leadership” would not be considered a “profession” as would accounting, human resources, or marketing. To elevate our status, we may in fact need a codified base of knowledge, recognized set of behaviors, appropriate methods for inquiry, and so forth. Of course in an applied field such as leadership, this will take time.

While it is not our purpose to suggest that leadership should be housed in a school of business, it’s interesting to note the topic’s lack of legitimacy in the larger system of business education. Perhaps this occurs in other domains such as education, agriculture, and psychology as well. Thus, one ultimate objective of our work is a sense of legitimacy within the larger Academy. This will be the byproduct of relevance and rigor. As the NLERA (Andenoro et al., 2013) introduction states:

This charge was approached with consideration for the fundamental problems and issues within the broad context of leadership education that should be addressed at the higher education level through research in the next five years and under the auspice of achieving the two overarching goals of the agenda: 1) Provide research priorities that can guide applied scholarship contributing to the development of future leaders and managers through higher education, and 2) Provide key elements that further define Leadership Education as a discipline. (p. 2)

We believe that the NLERA provides direction for our research which is needed. One opportunity is that although the NLERA has received support from several organizations, it may be interesting to explore other partnerships with influential organizations outside of leadership and student affairs, such as Network of Leadership Scholars (Academy of Management) or the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

The Issue of Silos

A second structural challenge has to do with silos on college campuses, which occur on multiple levels. For the purpose of this paper, we will explore three that specifically impact leadership education. The first level is programmatic. On most college campuses, there are a number of individuals and departments conducting leadership development. These can include academic departments that offer major and minors, programming in business schools, student affairs efforts, and training in Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). More often than not, there is little coordination and communication across the institution to align these programs, initiatives and learning opportunities. Within each of these areas, the knowledgeable program architect needs to be skilled in a number of disciplines such as training and development (instructional design, learning theory, and program evaluation), psychology (identity development, information processing, decision making, expertise, learning and cognition) leadership (theory), and other topics such as critical thinking, interpersonal communication and so forth. As a result, many instructors have to make sense of the literature on their own and they naturally search within their own disciplines (agriculture, education, military science, business, psychology, student affairs). Many find that there is no clear template or starting point like in other areas of practice such as accounting, medicine or law (Riggio, 2008). Ask 10 theorists or program developers the starting point for curriculum and you will likely get 10 different answers. This becomes problematic because a template for appropriately scaffolding a curriculum does not exist. So even the most basic question, such as “what skills does one need to learn prior to higher order or more complex adaptive competencies” (Day, Harrison, & Halpin, 2009) is answered largely based upon the silo in which the program architect exists. If the program architect is in student affairs, they turn to the work of Susan Komives and if they are in Army ROTC they turn to AR- 350-1.

The second level of silos occurs within the various schools within each institution. For instance, even within business schools, there are silos that often create barriers between the economists, organizational behaviorists, and accountants. There have been calls for integration to remove the silos that exist within business schools, but according to some, little has been done to do so (Navarro, 2008; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). In reality, a business executive does not focus on accounting or marketing in a silo and is often charged with managing interdisciplinary teams working on the same problem or innovation. However, a challenge within business schools is that all too often, students and professors alike do not view a marketing class as an opportunity to practice leadership or hone their skills. As a result, we miss several opportunities to more intentionally develop the leadership skills of our students.

Silos also occur at the institutional level. Interestingly, the Carnegie Foundation recently released a report calling for an increased level of collaboration between the liberal arts and business (Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, & Dolle, 2011). While this may seem far-fetched to some, it’s worthy to note that management education has its roots in the liberal arts. As AACSB (2005), suggests:

Management education is an extraordinary model of a liberal education. It is steeped in intellectual traditions drawn from theories and concepts representing a wide range of social sciences including economics, sociology, psychology, mathematics and statistics. The disciplines of organizational behavior, business strategy and finance, for example each trace their intellectual roots to these social sciences. (p. 6)

For an interdisciplinary topic such as leadership this is true as well. However, this reality can be problematic because there is no clear “home” as there would be for physics, chemical engineering, operations management, and the like. Unlike other topics, leadership logically fits in a number of departments on campus. The topic of leadership lends itself to true interdisciplinary work because it has been informed by education, student affairs, anthropology,

psychology, sociology, biology, neuroscience, history, political science, philosophy, communication, English, organizational behavior, ethics, and religion, among others. The disciplines we have highlighted both inform and can be informed by the topic of leadership.

The NLERA (Andenoro et al., 2013) directly addresses the issues of silos and calls for an intentional focus on aligning the best research and scholarship from multiple domains. While building our own streams of scholarship, priority must be placed on the scholarship of integration (Boyer, 1990). The intentional development of interdisciplinary connections is essential for the advancement of Leadership Studies. Connections to topics such as instructional and curricular design, program assessment, information processing, student development, competency-based learning, training & development, and identity development have the potential to inform our work and can have powerful implications for leadership education.

Foundational Issues Related to the Context Business Education

Leadership [training, education, development, studies, learning…].

Like other domains, there continues to be a lack of clarity around even the most basic definitions of our work as leadership educators. This is perhaps even more prevalent in the management literature where management development and leadership development are consistently and at times intentionally used interchangeably (Mintzberg, 2005). Terms such as: leadership development (Allen & Roberts, 2012; Brungardt, 1996; Day, 2001; Roberts, 1981), leader development (Day, 2001), leadership training (Allen & Roberts, 2012; Brungardt, 1996; Roberts, 1981), leadership education (Allen & Roberts, 2012; Brungardt, 1996; Roberts, 1981), leadership learning (Allen & Roberts, 2012; Hirst, Mann, Bainc, Pirola-Merlod, Richver, 2004), leadership studies (Sowcik, 2013), competency development (Boyatzis, Leonard, Rhee & Wheeler, 1996), management education (Albanese, 1990), management development (Mabey & Lees, 2007), managerial leadership development (Collins & Holton, 2004), managerial skill building/training (Bigelow, 1995; Pagalis, 2013), strategic management development (Brown, 2003), and leadership self-development (Reichard & Johnson, 2011; Orvis & Ratwani, 2010) lack widely accepted definitions.

This reality is problematic for a few reasons. First, one of the first tasks anyone engaged in the process of theory building, is defining the “what.” According to Whetten (1989), the “what” represents, “Which factors (variables, constructs, concepts) logically should be considered as part of the explanation of the social or individual phenomena of interest” (p. 490). Although Whetten is describing a different level, it would seem that a good theory of leadership or management development would also contain a definition of what is, and is not, under consideration. Of course these clear and coherent definitions help to promote research that follows consistent streams of inquiry. How does our field develop, mature and grow without a clear and coherent understanding of basic terminology? Likewise, consistent definitions serve as a foundation for leadership & management educators as they work to develop knowledge, skills and abilities.

The NLERA (Andenoro et al., 2013) specifically calls for clarity on definitions and suggests that this is: essential to advance a cohesive body of scholarship that can be effectively translated to practice across fields and disciplines. It is particularly important to clarify the term Leadership Education to aid in the functionality of the research priorities outlined in this agenda. (p. 3)

Clarifying the above will help individuals more intentionally build learning opportunities that achieve their objectives. As Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk (2011) suggest, “it is unreasonable to expect a consistent level of understanding and behavioral responses related to a body of knowledge that has not yet been codified, trained, and reinforced in the first place” (p. 586).

What Should We Develop and How Do We Know Development Has Occurred?

One consequence of a lack of clear definitions is the inherent disagreement as to “what” is being developed. Depending on who is asked, the output of our efforts to develop leaders and managers will be vastly different. For instance, in the management realm, the authors of the widely used (Brown, Charlier, Rynes, Hosmanek, 2013) text, Management Skills Development, suggest that the necessary topics include: developing self-awareness, managing personal stress, solving problems analytically and creatively, building relationships by communicating supportively, motivating others, managing conflict, empowering and delegating, building effective teams and teamwork, and leading positive change (Whetten & Cameron, 2010). Lord & Hall (2005) suggest that skills connected to leadership development include: task skills, emotional skills, social skills, meta-monitoring skills, and values. Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) suggest a different set of foci which include: intrapersonal skills, interpersonal skills, leadership skills, and business skills. If we turn to specific theorists such as Bruce Avolio, he suggests introducing the Full Range Model of Leadership Development (transformational leadership) (Avolio, 1999). However, it is likely that proponents of emotional intelligence would suggest beginning there…

Even after we have determined what we want to develop, a challenge that has puzzled scholars in the managerial skills domain is what expertise looks like and how this is graded or judged (Bigelow, Seltzer, van Buskirk, Hall, Schor, Garcia, & Keleman, 1999) in the context of an academic environment. Lord & Hall (2005) have identified “knowledge content emphasis of different leadership skill levels” (p. 605) which serve as potential markers as individual moves from novice to intermediate to expert. However, this process occurs over a period of years versus one or two semester-long courses. A semester-long course is not enough time to develop expertise (Lord & Hall, 2005; Mumford, Friedrich, Caughron, Antes, 2009). Ericsson (1996) suggests that effective learning “requires a well-defined task with an appropriate difficulty level for the particular individual, informative feedback, and opportunities for repetition and correction of errors” (pp. 20-21). It is apparent that on campus and in industry, leader development lacks a number of Ericsson’s requirements for developing expertise.

Area Two of the NLERA is dedicated to exploring the “what” of our efforts and suggests that “it is absolutely critical to consider the content and the learner with respect to the transfer of leadership learning within the leadership education context” (Andenoro et al., 2013, p. 12). Likewise, the NLERA (Andenoro et al., 2013) document emphasizes the importance of measurement in Priority One and calls for:

A common set of questions is a necessary step for furthering research in leadership education, but that is not enough. We also need to learn more about assessment of our efforts (Riggio, 2008); more specifically, the appropriate research methods, paradigms, and data collection procedures. (p. 7)

We will know the NLERA has had an impact on the field of leadership if in five years, we have greater clarity on definitions, content and measures of development.

Assessment & Evaluation

A lack of clearly defined constructs and topics for development lends itself to challenges with assessment and evaluation. Increased attention has been paid to programmatic assessment and evaluation over the past ten years in both leadership education and business schools. In 2003, AACSB adopted a new set of standards for accreditation and reaccreditation (Pringle & Michel, 2007). Although AACSB had required assessment prior to 2003, a small percentage of the criteria for assessment were attributed to assessment. After the adoption of the new standards, one-third of the accreditation criteria are directly related to assessment (Pringle & Michel, 2007).

At the same time, a dialogue concerning formalized program review was occurring in leadership education, which drove the creation of evaluation resources like the International Leadership Association’s (2009) Guiding Questions: Guidelines for Leadership Education Programs and the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership – Institutional Survey (Dugan & Komives, 2007). More recently, the interest in discussing leadership program evaluation options like formalized program review, certification, and accreditation prompted the creation of the Formalized Program Review Task Force , appointed by the chair of the International Leadership Association. The task force explores and recommends options related to formalized program review including key points that address many of the challenges involved in moving towards a formalized evaluation process (Sowcik, Lindsey, & Rosch, 2013).

The growing interest in programmatic assessment and evaluation can be attributed to a number of factors. In business schools, an increased emphasis on assessment is credited to greater need for accountability to state legislators, parents, students, taxpayers, donors, and organizations (Pringle & Michel, 2007). In Leadership Studies, a much newer field of study, assessment is a growing concern. As Riggio (2008) suggests, Those of us involved in efforts to develop leadership need to be very concerned about evaluation of our programs. We need to demonstrate the effectiveness of what we are doing and, in short, justify our existence. Organizations should be assured that their investment in leadership development does indeed pay off. (p. 389)

Due to the growing need to justify institutional resources, it is discouraging that there is not more emphasis placed on evaluation in leadership education research and practice (Riggio, 2008). The need to address deficiencies in both the research and evaluation resources is outlined in the National Leadership Education Research Agenda (Andenoro et al., 2013). Over the next five years, it will be critical for leadership education, both within and outside of business schools, to better address these shortcomings to justify institutional resources and increase the perception of credibility throughout higher education.

The National Research Agenda (2013) also asserts that “it would be wise of us within the field to reach out to other established academic disciplines to better understand assessment practices” (p. 11). To begin this process, we will address some of the major challenges of assessment in leadership education as highlighted by the NLERA (Andenoro et al., 2013) and benchmark this with evaluation in business education. As suggested above, the AACSB has created one model of accreditation, which has addressed many of the issues that are outlined in the NLERA.

The first challenge addresses the question, how do we begin to provide and apply common programmatic assessment across the field, especially with skepticism that such a diverse field could be evaluated by a common program evaluation practice ? This is increasingly difficult with the numerous types of leadership programs within higher education. Leadership education includes leadership studies programs (e.g., certificate, minors, majors), graduate programs (e.g., certificates, masters, doctoral work), and co-curricular efforts (e.g., student affairs, ROTC). In addition, when evaluating similar types of programs, such as two undergraduate minors in leadership, the programs may vary based on their mission, vision, values, conceptual framework, structure, and context. These differences make programmatic assessment practices difficult across the field.

This is not a unique concern that leadership educators alone face. As Romero (2008) suggests, “AACSB accredited schools offer 1,700 different kinds of undergraduate programs and 740 specialized master’s programs (e.g., luxury brand management, pharmaeconomics)” (p. 248). To address this diversity in program evaluation, the AACSB model acknowledges the difference and turns to a school’s mission statement to determine evaluation expectations and appropriate learning goals (Romero, 2008). The association’s report, Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation , adopted April 8, 2013, suggests:

AACSB remains deeply committed to diversity in collegiate management education, recognizing that a wide variety of missions and strategies can lead to quality. One of the guiding principles of AACSB accreditation is the acceptance, and even encouragement, of diverse paths to achieving high quality in management education. Accreditation decisions are derived through a process that relies on the professional judgment of peers who conduct reviews that are guided by the business school mission. (p. 2)

This model, supported by AACSB, and the recommendation to focus evaluation of a program’s learning goals on the business school’s mission, is similar to the recommendations presented by the 2012 ILA Formalized Program Review Task Force . The task force suggested that each leadership education program should establish a unique conceptual framework, which is consistent with the context of the institution. A formalized program review would then be based on the degree to which the program’s content, teaching, student learning, and assessment (including evaluation and outcomes) relate to the program’s unique mission (Sowcik et al., 2013). The suggestion from the task force places responsibility on program architects to identify the conceptual framework and deliberately build a leadership curriculum that takes both mission and context into account. As stated by the task force, “this approach avoids excessive standardization and reduces the danger of driving out program creativity and autonomy” (Sowcik et al., 2013, p. 70).

A second challenge is more administrative in nature— how do we develop a process that does not end up leading to largely unnecessary bureaucratic constraints on the leadership education programs going through the review process? This concern applies directly to leadership education programs, which are new and/or limited in terms of resources. This is also a major criticism of the AACSB accreditation process (Pringle & Michel, 2007). At times the requests from AACSB can seem so burdensome that those working in business schools wish they had more time to figure out better ways to educate students and spend less time on matters which relate to accreditation. Likewise, more and more business schools are being asked to engage in two or more assessment programs (collect different sets of measures and write up different reports annually) that result from discipline-specific accreditation and institutional accreditation efforts. As Pringle and Michel (2007) report, “Our survey showed that 26% of the U.S. – based responding (business) schools must operate two assessment programs and write two different reports annually as a result of these (both school/major and institutional) dual requirements” (p. 207). This is certainly not a burden that individuals supporting a more formalized program review process in leadership studies want to put on anyone within or outside business schools that offer leadership education.

However, this criticism may not fall completely on AACSB. As Romero (2008) points out,

Evidence of performance is consistent with the strategy implementation process used in industry. It is hard to imagine any organization that would reward the accomplishment of major performance goals without verifiable evidence. The reporting required for AACSB accreditation is conceptually analogous to corporate reporting to shareholders. (p. 250)

Also, in a survey that was conducted by Pringle & Michel (2007), respondents indicated that without AACSB, regional accrediting agencies, and university pressures, considerably less assessment activity would take place. In fact, Pringle & Michel (2007) found that only 17% of respondents would engage in assessment at the same level if the assessment was not required by an entity outside their school. These findings in the field of business may provide some insight into the lack of assessment in the field of leadership education.

Finally, the field of leadership education relies heavily on both indirect and direct measures of assessment including comprehensive exit exams, class projects, portfolios, surveys of students, alumni, and employers, pre-test and post-tests, and scores on locally developed assessments. However, AACSB shows a strong preference for direct measures of student learning (Shaftel & Shaftel, 2007; Pringle & Michel, 2007). This difference in perception concerning what is an appropriate assessment measure may also contribute to the scarcity of leadership evaluation in business schools. It is clear that research over the next five years should focus both on ways to influence business school assessment as it relates to leadership education and learn from business school accreditation to positively impact evaluation in the field of leadership education.

Research Issues in the Context of Business Education

Actionability of our research: the theory & practice gap.

A current internal debate among business scholars has to do with the actionability of our research. As Pearce & Huang (2012) suggest, “It cannot be good for any field to move further and further away from generating new knowledge that those outside ivory towers might use— particularly so for an applied field like management” (p. 260). And while some strongly disagree with the opinion of Pearce & Huang, it’s an interesting question to wrestle with. If one steps back and tries to determine or locate a leadership theory with widespread corporate acceptance and academic rigor (at the highest levels), one may be hard pressed to find a model that fit the bill. In academia, transformational leadership was heralded as “the model” for a couple of decades but did not achieve the widespread appeal of situational leadership in the corporate domain. Situational Leadership, on the other hand, was reportedly used by 400 of fortune 500 over the years, but received mixed support in the academic realm (Fernandez & Vecchio, 1997; Graeff, 1983). This has been the case for other trade publications such as Primal Leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2004) , Good To Great (Collins, 2001) and Strengths Based Leadership (Rath & Conchie, 2009).

The trade publications mentioned above are often born out of management consulting firms. These firms (e.g., Gallup, Inc., Korn/Ferry International, Center for Creative Leadership, Development Dimensions International) have experienced great success developing resources and programming designed to assist practitioners for at least two reasons. First, these organizations conduct research and develop resources with the consumer in mind. Of course many academics would challenge the rigor of their work because it can be difficult to replicate or confirm their findings. Regardless of rigor, is their research more actionable in the mind of the consumer? A second reason may be rooted in marketing. Busy practitioners desire models, systems and programming that is delivered in a user-friendly manner. Terms like leader member exchange , idealized influence , management by exception, motivation to lead, leader self-efficacy, identity development, metacgonitive ability, psychological mindedness, self-concept, and reflective judgment have little use to the middle manager in corporate America, whether she is at work or sitting in her MBA course. Jim Collins spoke the language of the busy executive. So did Ken Blanchard.

We are not suggesting that all research must be actionable. Nor are we diminishing the role of rigor. However, we are promoting relevance and rigor (AACSB, 2002). As leadership educators, we have an opportunity to focus our work on research that is actionable. That is, someone (academic or practitioner) can take the method, model or process and readily adopt it in their own organizations. Better yet, scholars and practitioners could partner to better witness the impact we are having on individuals. These field studies are needed as we further explore how to conduct research that truly can impact the masses.

According to AACSB (2008), “Scholars focusing on contributions to practice and/or pedagogy often suffer from a lack of respect, integration, and advancement opportunities in academic environments” (p. 27). The NLERA has a clear emphasis on pedagogical priorities or the applied nature of leadership education (Andenoro et al., 2013). Each of these are highly relevant to practitioners. However, for the NLERA (2013) to truly advance the field in the next five years, we need to increase our level of rigor so we truly understand the process of development and in turn, increase our legitimacy. Three aspects of the National Leadership Education Research Agenda (Andenoro et al., 2013, p. 5) will help our research become more actionable:

• Explore the Capacity & Competency Development Process for the Leadership Education Learner
• Explore the Role of the Individual Learner in Leadership Education
• Explore Curriculum Development Frameworks to Enhance the Leadership Education Transfer of Learning

The Long Haul

In addition to research that is actionable, there is a need for longitudinal research. In 2002, Ployhart, Holtz and Bliese, discussed the lack of longitudinal research in the field of leadership. The authors suggested, “While leadership theory clearly incorporates time as a dimension, it is difficult to find leadership research that is truly of a longitudinal nature” (p. 456). Almost, a decade later, Riggio and Mumford (2011) echoed this sentiment in The Leadership Quarterly’s special issue – “Longitudinal Studies of Leadership Development.” The National Leadership Education Research Agenda, once again addresses the need for longitudinal research; however, in the area of leadership education. The NLERA (2013) asserts, “to understand the long term effects of leadership education upon student behavior and learning outcomes, research is needed that follows students participating in leadership programs” (p. 7).

The expressed need of longitudinal research is not unique to the field of leadership education. Other fields of study in business have similar objectives. For instance, Avey, Luthans, and Mhatre (2008) called for increased longitudinal research in positive organizational behavior. Likewise, researchers discussed the need for a significant increase in the longitudinal research to inform the field of entrepreneurship (Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001; Low & MacMillian, 1988). Similar to leadership education, the first call for increased longitudinal research in the field of entrepreneurship came in 1988 (Low & MacMillian, 1988). However, a little over a decade later, Davidsson, Low, and Wright (2001) reported “that only 7% of studies were true longitudinal studies with data collected at two or more points in time, frequent interviewing or multi-year analysis of data” (p. 13).

The National Leadership Education Research Agenda’s call for increased focus on longitudinal research prompts the question, “what are the challenges in conducting leadership education longitudinal research in business schools?” From 50,000 feet, “perceived difficulty in collecting and analyzing longitudinal data are probably among the most important factors prohibiting longitudinal leadership research” (Ployhart, Holtz, & Bliese, 2002, p. 708). On the ground, this translates into a lack of longitudinal studies due to “demands of tenure dissuade researchers from investing considerable effort in long-term projects that may bear little fruit” (Davidsson, Low, & Wright, 2001, p. 12). Likewise, resources in the form of time, money, and lack of access to longitudinal data are also seen as challenges to increasing the number of longitudinal studies in leadership education over the next five years.

However, with increased attention being paid to longitudinal research by the National Leadership Education Research Agenda (Andenoro et al., 2013), now might be the perfect time to address many of these concerns. Organizations, like the Association of Leadership Educators (ALE) and the International Leadership Association (ILA), could look to establish presentation opportunities/tracks at their annual conferences for those proposals which address the NLERA and, more specifically, longitudinal research. Journals that feature leadership education research, like The Journal of Leadership Education (JOLE), can give priority to those articles that address research utilizing longitudinal data. In both of these cases, researchers who invest time and resources into this method of conducting research will be rewarded for their efforts.

Additionally, faculty now have a resource in the NLERA (2013) that helps make the case to stakeholders for the time and resources, which will provide avenues to conduct this particular type of research.

Clearly, leadership development is important to business schools. Likewise, leadership development is important to alumni of business schools. For instance, in one study, alumni rated “interpersonal, leadership, and communication skills as highly important in the business world, yet they often rate these skills as among the least effective components of business school curricula” (AACSB International, 2002, p. 19). This would suggest that like other domains, business schools struggle with many of the same issues as others interested in developing leaders and there is a clear need for business schools to think more intentionally about how they are defining and living their visions of developing leaders (DeRue, Sitkin, Podolny, 2011).

Our purpose has been to highlight some of the structural challenges, foundational issues and research related problems in the context of business education. The good news is that we feel the NLERA can truly addresses some of these challenges in business education and the other domains discussed in this special issue. Addressing issues of legitimacy, clarifying definitions, making intentional interdisciplinary connections, and actionable research that is longitudinal will surely play a role in shaping the field of leadership education over the next five years. Although in many fields of study, the five year span covered in the NLERA seems insignificant, a great deal of progress can be made in a short amount of time and we look forward to contributing to this important work.

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2008). Final report of the AACSB International Task Force on Impact Research. Tampa: Author.

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2002). Management Education at Risk . St. Louis: Author.

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2005). Why Management Education Matters . Tampa: Author.

AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2013). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation . Tampa: Author.

Academy of Management. Vision, Mission, Objectives & Values. Retrieved on August 21, 2013 from http://aom.org/About-AOM/Vision,-Mission,-Objectives—Values.aspx

Albanese, R. (1990). Competency-based management education: Three operative and normative issues. Journal of Management Education, 14 , 16-28.

Allen, S. J., & Roberts, D. (2011). Leadership learning: Crucial conversations, next steps & thoughts for consideration. Journal of Leadership Studies , 52 , 65-70.

Andenoro, A. C., Allen, S. J., Haber-Curran, P., Jenkins, D. M., Sowcik, M., Dugan, J. P., & Osteen, L. (2013). National leadership education research agenda 2013-2018: Providing strategic direction for the field of leadership education . Retrieved from Association of Leadership Educators website: http://leadershipeducators.org/ResearchAgenda

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2008). A call for longitudinal research in positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 (5), 705-711.

Avolio, B. (1999). Full leadership development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Avolio, B. J., & Hannah, S. T. (2008). Developmental readiness: Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60, 331–347.

Baldwin, T. T., Pierce, J. R., Joines, C. J., & Farouk, S. (2011). The elusiveness of applied management knowledge: A critical challenge for management educators. Academy of Management Learning and Education , 10 (4), 583–605.

Bigelow, J. D. (1995). Teaching managerial skills: A critique and future directions. Journal of Management Education, 19 , 305-325.

Bigelow, J., Seltzer, J., van Buskirk, W., Hall, J. C., Schor, S., Garcia, J., & Keleman, K. (1999). Management skills in action: Four teaching models. Journal of Management Education, 23 (4), 355-376.

Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED326149&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no &accno=ED326149

Brungardt, C. (1997). The making of leaders: A review of the research in leadership development and education. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 3 (3), 81– 95.

Brown, K., Charlier, S. D., Rynes, S. L., & Hosmanek, A. (2013). What do we teach in organizational behavior? An analysis of MBA syllabi. Journal of Management Education, 37 (4), 447-471.

Brown, P. (2003). Seeking success through strategic management development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 27 (6), 292-303.

Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, B., & Dolle, J. (2011). Rethinking Undergraduate Business Education: Liberal Learning for the Profession . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t . New York: Harper Business.

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15 (2), 217-248.

Day, D. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11 (4), 581-613.

Day, D. V., Harrison, M. M., Halpin, S. M. (2009). An integrative approach to leader development: Connecting adult development, identity, and expertise . New York: Routledge.

Davidsson, P., Low, M., & Wright, M. (2001). Editors’ introduction: Low and MacMillan ten years on–achievements and future directions for entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , 25 (4), 5-16.

DeRue, D. S., Sitkin, S. B., Podolny, J. M. (2011). From the guest editors: Teaching leadership– issues and insights. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10 (3), 369-372.

Doh, J. P. (2003). Can leadership be taught? Perspectives from management educators. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2 (1), 54-67.

Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students: Findings from a national study. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Retrived from http://leadershipstudymsl.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/mslreport-final.pdf

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games (pp. 1-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fernandez, C. F., & Vecchio, R. P. (1997). Situational leadership theory revisited: A test of an across-jobs perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8 (1). 67-84.

Fulmer, R.M., Gibbs, P.A., & Goldsmith, M. (2000). Developing Leaders: How Winning Companies Keep on Winning. Sloan Management Review , 49-59.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence . Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership theory: A critical view. The Academy of Management Review, 8 (2), 285-291.

Hirst, G., Mann, L., Bain, P., Pirola-Merlo, A., & Richver, A. (2004). Learning to lead: The development and testing of a model of leadership learning. The Leadership Quarterly , 15 (3), 311-327.

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2003). Educating the modern manager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2 (1), 74-84.

International Leadership Association (ILA). (2009). Guiding questions: Guidelines for leadership education programs . Retrieved from: http://www.ila- net.org/communities/LC/GuidingQuestionsFinal.pdf

Lord, R. G., & Hall, R. J. (2005). Identity, deep structure and the development of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 , 591-615.

Low, M. B., & MacMillan, I. C. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management , 14 (2), 139-161.

Mabey, C., & Lees, T. F. (2007). Management and leadership development . London: Sage.

Mintzberg, H. (2005). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development . San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Mumford, M. D., Friedrich, T. L., Caughron, J. J., Antes, A. L. (2009). Leadership development and assessment: Describing and rethinking the state of the art. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.), The development of professional expertise: Toward measurement of expert performance and design of optimal learning environments (pp. 84-107). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in failure? Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 (1), 108–123.

O’Leonard, K. (2010). The corporate learning factbook: Statistics benchmarks, and analysis of  U.S. corporate training market . Bersin & Associates.

Orvis, K. A., & Ratawani, K. L. (2010). Leader-self development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation. The Leadership Quarterly, 21 , 657-674.

Pagalis, L. L. (2013). A review of managerial skills training in the classroom. Journal of Management Education, 37 (4), 472–498.

Pearce, J. L., & Huang, L. (2012). The decreasing value of our research to management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11 (2), 247–262.

Perruci, G., & McManus, R. M. (2012). The State of Leadership Studies. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6( 3), 49-54.

Pfeffer, & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1 (1), 78-95.

Ployhart, R. E., Holtz, B. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). Longitudinal data analysis: Applications of random coefficient modeling to leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 13 (4), 455-486.

Pringle, C. & Michel, M. (2007). Assessment practices in AACSB-accredited business schools. Journal of Education for Business , 82 , 202–211

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders, great teams, and why people follow. Gallup Press: New York, NY.

Reichard, R. J., & Johnson, S. K. (2011) Leader self-development as organizational strategy. The Leadership Quarterly , 22 , 33-42.

Riggio, R. (2008). Leadership development: The current state and future expectations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60 (4), 383–392.

Riggio, R. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). Introduction to the special issue: Longitudinal studies of leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly , 22 (3), 453-456.

Roberts, D. (Ed.). (1981). Student leadership programs in higher education . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University/American College Personnel Association.

Romero, E. (2008). AACSB Accreditation: Addressing Faculty Concerns. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7 (2), 245-255.

Rosenthal, S. A. (2012). National Leadership Index 2012: A National Study of Confidence in Leadership. Center for Public Leadership, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Shaftel, J. & Shaftel, T. L. (2007). Educational assessment and the AACSB. Issues in Accounting Education. 22 (2), 215-232.

Sowcik, M. (2012). A review and critique of guiding questions: Guidelines for leadership education programs. Journal of Leadership Education, 11 (2), 192-213.

Sowcik, M., Lindsey, J.L. & Rosch, D. M. (2013). A collective effort to understand formalized program review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 6 (3), 67-72.

Whtten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review , 14 (4), 490-495.

Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. (2010). Developing Management Skills , (8th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Governance and Leadership

Vol. 24, No. 2

Bringing Business Leaders Back to School

James A. Peyser

In 1988, Xerox CEO David Kearns co-authored a book titled Winning the Brain Race: A Bold Plan to Make Our Schools Competitive. Three years later, Kearns became deputy secretary of education under President George H. W. Bush. Three years after that, IBM CEO Lou Gerstner co-authored Reinventing Education: Entrepreneurship in America’s Public Schools , a book summarizing and synthesizing promising programs and practices developed by schools that had received innovation grants from RJR Nabisco. In 1996, Gerstner hosted the National Governor’s Association (NGA) at IBM’s headquarters in New York for an education summit where 43 governors, each accompanied by a CEO from their home states, discussed K–12 education standards. A direct outgrowth of that gathering was the creation of Achieve, a joint education reform project of the NGA and corporate executives, which Gerstner co-chaired until 2002. In 2003, Gerstner established and chaired the Teaching Commission, composed of education and business leaders, which published the report Teaching at Risk: A Call to Action.

Viewed through the prism of 2024, this brief retrospective on the engagement of two prominent CEOs in national K–12 education improvement and reform feels like a dim memory from a distant past. This is not to say there aren’t CEOs today who care deeply about education quality and equity, especially when it comes to career readiness. As just one example, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, has been a committed advocate and supporter of career pathways and work-based learning through the company’s New Skills for Youth initiative. But there are few if any voices from the C-suite who have committed their own time and their company’s brand and resources to the broad-based challenges that continue to confront our public school system.

The K–12 education challenges we face today and their implications for the long-term health of the economy are just as important as they were 40 years ago, maybe even more so. Yet corporate leaders are largely missing in action, and the silence is deafening.

To be sure, wealthy entrepreneurs and investors played an outsized role in the education reform movement of the 1990s and early 2000s, but mostly through their personal philanthropy and the resources of their family foundations, not their corporations. People such as Bill Gates, Mike Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Michael Dell, John Walton, Mark Zuckerberg, John Doerr, and Julian Robertson mobilized billions of dollars to support national and local initiatives such as small high schools, charter schools, academic standards, digital learning, alternative pathways to teaching, and performance-based compensation.

Many of these investments have had a meaningful and lasting positive impact, but others were false starts or dead ends, and some drew significant blowback from teachers unions and civil rights activists. Although these funders remain engaged in improving public education, they have generally lowered their profiles, re-evaluated their strategies, and narrowed their focus.

Era of Engagement

In the aftermath of the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, business leadership was not just a hallmark of the national education-policy landscape; it was also a crucial driver of state and local school reforms. In my home state of Massachusetts, Jack Rennie, CEO of Pacer Systems, formed the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education. At first, MBAE set out to highlight the low levels of achievement and improvement in the commonwealth’s public schools, especially in low-income urban neighborhoods, and to develop a set of policy recommendations based on effective practices from across the country and around the world, culminating in a 1991 report titled Every Child a Winner.

But Rennie didn’t just write a report. He organized his peers from around the state, in collaboration with other CEO-led organizations, such as the Massachusetts Business Roundtable and Associated Industries of Massachusetts, along with major employers such as State Street Bank and Raytheon, to launch a relentless campaign to pass what became the Education Reform Act of 1993. Equally important, Rennie kept the organization alive after the law’s passage to ensure the legislature and administration followed through on their commitments to develop state standards, student assessments, and school accountability systems, and to increase overall state funding, especially to the commonwealth’s highest-need communities.

Preceding MBAE, but with a more local focus, was the Boston Private Industry Council. Originally established to implement federal job-training programs, the Council soon became a forum for broader business engagement with the Boston Public Schools, ultimately leading to the signing of the Boston Compact in 1982, through the leadership of State Street chairman Bill Edgerly. The Compact, which committed local businesses to hiring more of Boston’s public school students and graduates in exchange for improvements in education quality, gave the city’s business leaders a seat at the table in setting and implementing district priorities. Ten years later, Edgerly walked the halls of the Massachusetts State House to ensure that a charter school provision was included in the landmark Education Reform Act.

Similar stories of active and effective engagement by key business leaders in public education were not uncommon in the not-too-distant past. A 1998 study from the National Education Goals Panel, a presidential advisory body, highlighted the impact of the business community on the strong learning gains in Texas and North Carolina, which posted the nation’s biggest increases in NAEP scores between 1990 and 1997. The study found that rising academic achievement in both states was tied to their systems of standards-based accountability, combined with a relaxation of many state mandates and the transfer of more decisionmaking to the school level. Crucial to the adoption and implementation of these reforms was support from business leaders.

“In both states the business community played a critical role in developing the strategic plan for reform, forging compromises whenever possible with the education interests, and passing the necessary legislation,” wrote authors David Grissmer and Ann Flanagan in the panel’s report. The sector’s influence stemmed from the efforts of “a handful of businessmen in each state who devoted considerable time and energy to learning the education issues, forming relationships with key stakeholders and remain[ing] involved over long time periods.”

The active involvement of business in education policymaking during the 1980s and ’90s was a revival from an earlier age. The mid- to late-1960s and the 1970s saw a precipitous withdrawal, but before then, business leaders were seen as key stakeholders in the public education system at all levels, working to increase overall education attainment and develop vocational programs as well as serving on and often leading local school boards. Business engagement intensified during the Cold War, as post-Sputnik America placed new urgency on strengthening the overall quality of public schools, and especially science education.

With the onset of school desegregation and other broad cultural shifts, however, business leaders began to revisit their cost-benefit calculations and concluded that the risk of political controversy outweighed the potential for positive effect. According to a 1991 study from the Committee for Economic Development, “over a period of only a few years business’s influence was eclipsed, and its representatives were less and less prominent in the deliberations about local educational policy and rarely involved in the development of important new state and federal educational roles.”

The retreat from education didn’t last, however, as rapid technological change and growing global competition, especially from Japan, put the shortcomings of public schools back onto the front pages of the business magazines. Concerns about competitiveness re-engaged business leaders, which in turn got the attention of politicians. When the idea for creating a blue-ribbon commission on education was first surfaced within the Reagan administration in 1981, the White House reportedly wanted no part of it. But by the time A Nation at Risk was issued two years later, with its dire warning that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people,” the president was fully on board.

“Knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce,” the report asserted. “If only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system.”

Retreat from Public Involvement

Forty years later, the nature and extent of global competition has only increased, now with China (a geopolitical adversary) rather than Japan (an ally) as the leading challenger to American dominance. Similarly, the pace of technological change and diffusion has only accelerated, and the centrality of knowledge-based workers to the innovation that drives economic growth and wealth creation is beyond dispute. Equally important, the ongoing Baby Boomer retirement wave and growing diversity of the American workforce has sharpened the business case for closing persistent achievement and attainment gaps.

At the same time, in the wake of Covid-19 the country is facing an unprecedented education crisis that has produced the most precipitous decline in academic achievement we’ve ever seen, which is likely to reverberate throughout the economy for years to come.

And yet, with all of these factors threatening the long-term health of the American economy, today’s business leaders tend to shy away from public involvement in the core challenges of K–12 education. The causes of this disengagement vary from company to company and place to place, but some patterns have emerged.

One factor is simply generational change in corner offices. The cohort of senior executives who were involved in the early days of the current education-reform movement retired years ago, and the memory of pre-reform conditions is gone with them. As a result, today’s business leaders have little understanding of what K–12 education would look like if the basic architecture of standards-based reform were to fade away.

Compounding the problem is the consolidation and globalization of many industries that previously had a stronger local presence and a concomitant dependence on a local workforce. Companies whose histories and identities had once been deeply rooted in a state or region now have headquarters in other parts of the country or in different countries altogether. The banking industry, which has traditionally played a leading role in business-government relations at a state and local level, has been especially affected by this trend, resulting in a 70 percent reduction in the number of independent banks since 1990.

CEOs who had once been pillars of communities where they had grown up and raised their families have been replaced by senior vice presidents and general managers who are recent arrivals, without the relationships or long-term commitments that motivate and enable effective public engagement. Equally important, as managers of subsidiaries or divisions, the current generation of local business leaders may simply lack the authority to act on their own.

This consolidation has not produced a new generation of respected national business leaders who have credibility with the American public, the way earlier CEOs like Kearns and Gerstner did. Americans have always had a love-hate relationship with corporate executives, but as the “commanding heights” of industry have shifted from hardware and manufacturing to software and social media, the average citizen has taken an increasingly jaundiced view of their good intentions. According to a recent Gallup poll gauging Americans’ confidence in institutions, only 14 percent of the public has “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in big business, down about half since the beginning of this century and lower than all other institutions except the U.S. Congress.

Another reason that K–12 education has drifted down the list of priorities for business leaders is that there is no compelling and actionable policy agenda around which they can coalesce and mobilize. This is in part a result of past success. The foundations of education reform that the business community embraced in the 1980s and ’90s are largely still in place, even though they may be under threat or fraying around the edges. Advocating for programs or practices that have the potential to improve student outcomes is a less comfortable role for business leaders to play, since they typically believe the details of teaching and learning should be left to the experts and educators.

The other side of the coin is the frustration that many executives feel at the slow pace of change and improvement. Some of the major recommendations from A Nation at Risk and subsequently from the business community—such as longer school days and school years, merit-based pay for teachers, and certifications in high-demand STEM fields—have not been implemented at any meaningful scale. The reforms that have been adopted, such as common academic standards, statewide student assessments, and school accountability systems, are widely perceived to have not moved the needle, even though a closer look at the data suggests they have had a significant positive effect.

According to Tom Kane, professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and director of the Center for Education Policy Research, standards-based education reform has produced achievement and equity gains that may amount to “the most important social policy success of the last half century.” Still, the results have not met the unrealistic expectations of many reform advocates, funders, and policymakers.

The perception of underwhelming progress has led some wealthy business leaders to shift their personal attention more toward expanding parental choice, through mechanisms such as charter schools and vouchers, rather than investing more time and resources with school districts, often out of a growing skepticism that significant systemic change is even possible. These outside-the-system strategies are seen as having a more immediate and sustainable impact on student outcomes, especially in low-income urban communities, with the potential to generate productive competitive pressure over time on neighboring school districts.

Perhaps the most important factor driving the retreat of the business community has been the end of the spirit of bipartisanship that was the hallmark of education policy for almost 30 years, which had created a safe space for business leaders to stand. If George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy can join hands to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, then surely there’s little risk to a business in joining the team. Unfortunately, the era of good feelings didn’t last, with the last straw for many being the controversy surrounding Race to the Top and Common Core.

Things have since gone from bad to worse, with education not only dividing politicians along party lines but dividing friends and neighbors over issues such as remote learning, Covid vaccines, mask mandates, and culture wars related to race and gender identity. In some instances, these flashpoints have even created internal management challenges for corporate executives or generated protests and boycotts from otherwise loyal customers.

The bottom line is that most business leaders and business associations no longer believe the rewards of getting involved in K–12 education policy are worth the risk.

This does not mean that employers have walked away from education entirely. Instead, they have tended to focus on less-controversial aspects that have a greater direct impact on business or that speak to specific areas of expertise. For example, businesses have actively supported development of tech-enabled innovations in digital learning and have promoted expansion and improvement of project-based, hands-on STEM programs, including computer science, at all grade levels. They have also championed investments in vocational-technical high schools and the development of career pathways with work-based learning experiences and industry-recognized certifications. Most of these initiatives place a priority on so-called “durable skills,” an updated version of “21st century skills,” which concern nonacademic domains such as communication, problem solving, and teamwork.

Businesses have also shifted their attention to both ends of the K–12 spectrum by supporting increased funding for childcare and the strengthening of post-secondary or so-called “last mile” skill-based credential programs. The former addresses the growing needs of the post-Covid hybrid workforce, with many working parents in need of affordable day care. The latter aims to create a talent pipeline for specific high-demand occupations—neither of which has much impact on public schools.

These issues are worthy of attention from the business sector, and many of them align closely with the interests of individual businesses and the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, there is a risk that by avoiding direct engagement with the core of K–12 education, business leaders will just be doing damage control rather than supporting and sustaining the broad-based change and improvement that’s needed.

Even more problematic is the possibility that while employers are trying to work around the system’s weaknesses, the increasingly shaky support for standards-based reform that has held over the past several decades will crumble under fire from opponents.

Exhibit A is a pending union-led ballot initiative in Massachusetts that would eliminate the 10th-grade standardized exam from the state’s graduation requirements. Although the ballot question would not repeal all state testing requirements, it would be the first step in rolling back the standards-based accountability system that was enshrined in the 1993 Education Reform Act. If this proposal succeeds at the ballot box or in the legislature, the Massachusetts Teachers Association predicts “the 30-year experiment with test, punish and privatize will end.”

A similar movement is afoot in Oregon, where the state board of education has extended through 2029 its Covid-era suspension of statewide assessments as part of the high school graduation requirements. The legislature has further mandated that all families be informed of their right to withdraw their children from state testing, resulting in one-third of Oregon’s juniors opting out.

An Urgent Need

Notwithstanding these unsettling trends, the basic components of education reform remain popular with the general public. For example, over 70 percent of Americans still favor annual testing in reading and math, according to the 2022 Education Next opinion survey. But that support is becoming more uneven and more divided along partisan lines—which is to say, the pragmatic center is holding, but it’s tenuous.

At the same time, legislators and other policymakers who were “present at the creation” are now long gone, as is the institutional memory of what life was like pre-reform. Many newer public officials have heard little but the steady drumbeat of opposition, mainly from teachers unions and superintendents but also from critics on the right who were activated by the curriculum controversies during the Obama administration and who continue to be skeptical of government mandates.

Even many of the education and advocacy organizations that were established in the wake of the reform movement have faded into the background of public discourse, partly in response to the changing priorities of their philanthropic funders but also out of deference to those who have caricatured education reform as either another brick in the wall of structural racism or an obstacle to parents’ rights.

In other words, there is a mismatch between broad public opinion and the mobilized constituencies. Since it’s the advocates who walk the halls of power, show up at hearings, and hold signs on street corners, many elected officials hesitate to expend political capital defending a system they did not create.

Recently, reform-minded organizations have tried to revive the bipartisan consensus that characterized education policymaking until the last decade. The most notable example is the Building Bridges Initiative, which in 2023 produced an updated call to action titled A Generation at Risk. In addition, policy and advocacy organizations such as 50CAN, Education Reform Now, the PIE Network, the Fordham Institute, ExcelinEd, The Education Trust, and the National Parents Union are continuing to fight the good fight. Nevertheless, there is a large hole in the ecosystem that only the business community can fill.

More specifically, there is an urgent need for business leaders, CEOs in particular, to re-engage at the national and local level and reprioritize K–12 education, especially with regard to state policy. The first order of business will be to affirm the basic architecture of academic standards, statewide student assessments, and performance-based accountability, in order to prevent backsliding and a return to the pre-reform conditions described in A Nation at Risk. Essential to this defense is countering the popular narrative that standards-based reform has been a failure by pointing to the strong evidence of its efficacy and positive impact.

Equally important is expanding the business community’s programmatic focus beyond STEM and career-oriented education to include a broader set of scalable initiatives across the K–12 spectrum, including both district and charter schools, such as:

Addressing the post-Covid student absenteeism crisis through enforcement of attendance policies, effective communications with parents and the general public, and proactive strategies for re-engaging students.

Improving early literacy through the science of reading, including systematic phonics and vocabulary instruction, along with exposure to a broad base of content knowledge.

Accelerating learning gains and closing achievement gaps through high-dosage reading and math tutoring embedded in the school day.

Increasing post-secondary access and success through early college cohort pathways (more than just individual dual enrollment), focused on first-generation students.

Expanding and improving out-of-school time learning through academic “acceleration” programs during school vacations and intentional summer experiences that combine learning with fun, enrichment, and work.

Deepening and diversifying the pipeline of well-prepared teachers and school leaders.

Investing in innovation and research to drive evidence-based continuous improvement in our schools.

One of the lessons of the past several decades is that policy solutions by themselves are not enough to fuel continuous improvement and reduce disparities in achievement; changes in practice are also required, and business needs to have a seat at the table as one of the public education system’s key stakeholders and customers—not just as a cheerleader, but as a full partner.

I don’t mean to suggest that these are the simple answers to a complex problem or that these initiatives are easy to implement with fidelity and high-quality at large scale. But they are a place to start, with a strong body of evidence supporting their efficacy and growing interest and support on the part of educators, students, and families.

As an added benefit, by advocating for doing more of what’s working, business leaders may be able to revive a sense of optimism about what public schools can do—and give policymakers and parents something to talk about other than the cultural battles that have roiled legislatures and school boards across the country.

Re-engagement must include working collaboratively with local public schools and districts to add value in the classroom or the back office, not only to make a positive and practical contribution, but also to affirm good faith, because unfortunately, many educators view businesses with suspicion and assume some hidden agenda.

It also means getting involved in policymaking at the local level, through active engagement with municipal or county officials and school boards, to make sure they know that school quality matters to local businesses and that employers are prepared to publicly support education leaders or, if necessary, call them out.

But local efforts are not enough, because state governments control much of education policy and many resources. Critical to an effective state-level re-engagement is strengthening and expanding the network of state-based, business-led education coalitions, such as the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, Colorado Succeeds, and Tennessee SCORE, which not only cut across industry sectors but also work in close partnership with community-based organizations and parent groups.

Of course, collaboration is never easy, even among businesses in the same industry, let alone across a diverse regional economy. Throw in the added complexity of working with grassroots advocates and nonprofit organizations, and you can see why many corporate executives would prefer to focus on meeting next quarter’s earnings forecast. At the same time, collective action can provide safety in numbers to mitigate some of the risks while greatly improving the chances for success.

Although most of the action in education occurs in the states, there is a critical role for business leadership at the national level: to create a broader public agenda and narrative, mobilize resources, and help support and coordinate local initiatives. A new generation of leadership is needed to galvanize and guide executives around the country in making K–12 education a top priority in their own communities, just as David Kearns and Lou Gerstner did in the 1980s and ’90s.

Public education is not a business. It’s an inherently political institution whose educators and leaders have to play by a set of rules they don’t control and answer to multiple stakeholders, including elected officials, who often have sharply conflicting ideas and interests. Public education is not susceptible to quick changes in strategy or structure, let alone quick fixes. And it’s not for people who have thin skin or are looking for the thanks of a grateful nation.

All in all, the value proposition may not sound too good to business leaders. But at the end of the day, there may be no more important long-term contribution these men and women can make to their communities and the economy than to get involved, get organized, and get back into the K–12 arena.

James A. Peyser served as secretary of education for Massachusetts from 2015–2022 and as chairman of the state board of education from 1999–2006. He is currently a senior adviser with Bellwether and America Achieves.

This article appeared in the Spring 2024 issue of Education Next . Suggested citation format:

Peyser, J.A. (2024). Bringing Business Leaders Back to School . Education Next , 24(2), 38-45.

Last Updated

License this Content

Latest Issue

Spring 2024, we recommend you read.

Settle for Better

How overpromising undercut the education reform movement, and what to do about it

by James A. Peyser

In the News: Online Education Startup, Byju’s, Becomes Chan Zuckerberg Initiative’s First Investment in Asia

by Education Next

In the News: Gates Foundation Announces New $1.7B for K-12

4 Traits of Innovative Business Educators

Explore more.

• Experiential Learning
• Interactive Learning
• Perspectives
• Student Engagement

B usiness schools are tasked with developing the leaders of the future—those who can thrive in a world of exponential change, deal with ever-increasing complexity, drive continuous transformation, and value much more than just the single bottom line. However, business education, like education in so many other fields, simply hasn’t kept up with the pace of change that the world has been experiencing and that today’s students are expecting.

To catch up, business schools need to reemphasize the importance of teaching and prioritize it at the same level as—if not higher than—research and publication. And this teaching can’t be passive. It requires engaging, active, learner-centered pedagogies that provide truly transformative learning experiences. Research in cognitive neuroscience demonstrates that we learn and retain material much better when we are actively engaged in our learning experiences, not when we are passive listeners of content being pushed to us.

“Business schools need to reemphasize the importance of teaching and prioritize it at the same level as—if not higher than—research and publication.”

Yet, under the “publish or perish” pressure that’s all too common in academia, few business professors have the time or mental space to truly focus on innovating their teaching and trying new approaches that make a difference in their students’ lives. Nevertheless, and despite all of these challenges, we know there are educators around the world who put in the effort and resources to push their teaching to the next level to make learning truly life changing for their students. Many times, these teachers stay under the radar, as they usually don’t find the time—or have the platform—to share their work with a wider audience.

TOP 10 BUSINESS EDUCATION INNOVATIONS

The Business Education Innovations Report, released in late June 2021, describes 10 inspiring business education innovations from professors around the world, including how they developed their teaching approaches, how their approaches engage students, and the valuable lessons the professors learned along the way. The report, which details the innovations briefly cited throughout this article, can be a great resource for business educators looking to inject creativity and engagement into their teaching. Inspiring Minds readers can access the report for free here .

4 Characteristics of Innovative Business Educators

In reviewing the teaching practices of hundreds of innovative professors from business schools around the world, we observed the following trends.

1. Innovative educators find a multitude of ways to actively engage students in their learning to help them develop twenty-first-century skills such as autonomy, creativity, and effective collaboration. Certain active pedagogies, such as game-based learning, experiential learning, and art-based learning, are on the rise—and are evolving. Here are some examples:

In game-based learning (see page 16 of the report), students not only play games, but are also asked to create their own games. These range from games aimed at making online collaboration tools (such as Zoom or Mural) more interactive, stimulating, efficient, and fun to serious games developed in collaboration with the International Labor Organization to support organizations with issues related to COVID.

In experiential learning (see page 27 of the report), students are working with local companies to learn job-ready skills that allow them to land their post-MBA job.

In art-based learning (see page 29 of the report), theater and clowning practices are used to train students to have difficult conversations at work.

2. Innovative educators innovate not only to teach content more effectively, but also to create personally and professionally transformative learning experiences that can only be found in their classrooms and learning environments. In doing so, these educators are creating courses and experiences that are unique differentiators—they’re key components of what justifies the price of a business school education over a multitude of other options (such as massive open online courses) where students might otherwise go for learning content.

We’re seeing these transformative experiences come in many shapes and forms. Some examples include the following:

An immersive field trip to an organization in the sustainable fashion industry that mixes self-development, experiential learning, and hands-on practice and leaves some students crying at the end.

A board-game-based business course that gives students the confidence to make mistakes and test different styles of leadership.

An art-based learning course (see page 8 of the report) in which business students engage in an intense process to create an actual art piece and exhibit it in well-known museums.

Many educators teaching these transformative courses talk about “the light in their students’ eyes” as a sign that they know they’re making an impact. This isn’t something typically attributed to business schools—but it signals a lasting impact through an internal shift in students. It’s higher learning and retention through deep engagement.

“Many times, innovative teachers stay under the radar, as they usually don’t find the time—or have the platform—to share their work with a wider audience.”

3. Innovative educators put more and more effort into personalization of experiences so that every student can maximize their learning according to their own needs. As Dan LeClair, CEO at Global Business School Network and jury member for our call on business education innovations, noted, “I was thrilled to see so many efforts to personalize learning, helping each and every student get the most out of a course or experience.”

These efforts include strategies for engaging students in designing the course or experience, deepening reflection, creating and implementing individual professional plans, and generating performance data so students can immediately see the results of their digital strategies. For example, in Hélène Michel’s game-based learning course, students use LEGO Serious Play (see page 17 of the report) to define the specific pain point they want to focus on—for instance, the loneliness felt by online students—and then develop a game to address that pain point.

4. Innovative educators increase the integration of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) topics into their course design. The push to evolve from purely shareholder-focused management to an approach that takes into account the business impact on all key stakeholders has been underway for years . ESG criteria are no longer just nice to have; they are a critical part of any modern company. Innovative professors are using different approaches—such as art installations that teach students about sustainability, projects that engage students with their local community, and role-playing activities—that help students understand the wider range of stakeholders and concerns they will be addressing.

4 Ways Business Educators Can Up Their Innovation Game

Given these four trends, what can business educators looking to innovate do? Based on our evaluation of 150+ innovative business education ideas, we offer the following advice for anyone looking to get more innovative in their teaching.

1. Build the courage to try new approaches. We heard from many professors who said that, when trying to innovate their teaching, one of the most important barriers to overcome was a fear of failure. Ty Shepfer, a senior lecturer at the Max M. Fisher College of Business at The Ohio State University, runs a crisis simulation course with 1,000+ students. He recommends, “Just like our students, we learn by doing. And it took a little bit of courage to try this, but it’s been one of the most rewarding things I’ve done during my time at Ohio State. Be willing to try things out—like everybody, you’re going to fail occasionally. But it’s the failures we tend to learn from the most.”

“To shape the leaders the world so desperately needs, educators must create active, transformative learning experiences that will prepare their students—personally and professionally—to tackle tough social, environmental, and business challenges.”

2. Let your passion be your guide. We also heard from many professors that a key element in their own journeys was to start from what they themselves were passionate about. Improvisational theater, sports, Dungeons and Dragons, or fashion can all be valid areas to build a course on. Passion helps professors build the non-obvious connections between topics and provides the motivation to try new approaches.

3. Get creative; innovation doesn’t always require a big budget. It’s true that some of the innovations we’ve seen are time-intensive and expensive to replicate. But most of the innovations surfaced through this effort used practical, existing tools and products, such as learning management systems or even classic board games. For educators looking to innovate their teaching, the limitation is mostly not about financial resources—rather, it’s finding difficulty in trying new approaches and getting creative in finding frugal, innovative solutions.

4. Seek out partners. Almost all the professors we evaluated had a variety of partners who made their approach possible; these innovations were rarely done alone. Whether it’s local companies and organizations opening up their social media and ad accounts for students to manage, large organizations like the Olympics committee for supporting innovation projects, a group of teaching assistants who help manage real-time crisis management responses, or internationally renowned museums that agree to display business students’ artwork, partners play a critical role in making these teaching approaches a success.

And it’s not just external partners. Some of the most critical allies in this process are fellow business educators. In general, we find that educators who develop innovative pedagogical practices are happy to share their approach and help fellow teachers. We invite educators looking to innovate to reach out to colleagues—both in and beyond their own school—to get inspired and get help developing their approach.

Time to Level Up

Now more than ever, the business world needs well-rounded, visionary, and capable human leaders ready to tackle the tough social, environmental, and business challenges they—and the world—will face. Business schools and educators have a critical role to play in this future.

To shape the leaders the world so desperately needs, educators must create active, transformative learning experiences that will prepare their students personally and professionally for these challenges. It’s time for business education to actively take on this challenge and push itself to the next level. Let these teaching innovations , and not a “publish or perish” mindset, serve as inspiration.

Svenia Busson is a learning-innovation explorer, speaker, and consultant to education institutions. She has traveled to 19 countries to find the most innovative teaching and learning practices. She is the author of  Exploring the Future of Education , a book about education innovations from Europe. She also founded two industry associations, Edtech France and the European Edtech Alliance, and is the program manager of the Female Edtech Fellowship.

Kivanc Cubukcu is cofounder at LearnSpace . He has been working on innovative learning and teaching models since 2015, drawing learnings from a spectrum of experiences including business, social finance, improv theater, and nonviolent communication. He has 10+ years of experience leading and managing a wide range of projects and teams, including as a manager at McKinsey & Company.

Related Articles

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience, including personalizing content. Learn More . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies and revised Privacy Policy .

Educational Leadership: What Is It and Why Is It Important?

When it comes to the success of students and positive outcomes for whole families and communities, educational leadership can play a critical role. 

Communities and whole societies are changing at a rapid pace, creating a tremendous need for practical-minded leaders who can innovate new ways of learning and meet the needs of diverse communities. Whether in traditional school settings, nonprofit organizations, or large corporations, thoughtful and skillful educational professionals in leadership roles can make all the difference. 

Take Danielle Keane, a principal in the South Bronx, who dedicated herself to making the school “a place that people wanted to be” when the 2021 school year began. Throughout the summer, she hosted small in-person middle school graduations and facilitated “homecoming” sessions twice a week where families could come back to the school building and hear about safety measures, scheduled comedy nights and literacy classes. She hosted a movie night in the park and a back-to-school carnival. And when school started, she welcomed back 90% of the school’s students to in-person learning, well over the city’s average.

Educational leaders like Keane can transform whole communities through their meaningful work. 

If you’re looking to take on an educational leadership role, you must first envision what is involved. There are many key qualities and skills a leader must incorporate into the many situations of the workplace. Depending on your skillset, you will be eligible for different career paths, salary levels, and opportunities . 

No matter which academic or career path you choose, there are few callings more rewarding than that of a leader in education. In this blog, you can learn:

• What is Educational Leadership?
• Why Educational Leadership is Important
• Educational Leadership Qualities
• Educational Leadership Skills
• The Top Considerations of an Educational Leader
• Equity and Educational Leadership
• Educational Leadership Jobs
• Educational Leadership Doctoral Programs: PhD vs. Ed.D.

What is educational leadership?

Educational leadership is built on the premise of constructing and applying knowledge in ways that make a positive difference. Through collaboration and communication, professionals in educational leadership work with diverse communities and build partnerships to promote positive outcomes by setting and meeting transformative goals. 

While many educational leadership professionals have advanced degrees and can work in academic settings, they are practitioners who work in applied positions. By connecting theory to real-world projects and contexts, educational leaders take a comprehensive, evidence-based, relational approach to problem-solving.

Request Your Free EdD Program Guide

Why educational leadership is important

The impact of educational leadership is felt throughout schools, nonprofits, and private sector organizations.

School Principals

A recent study by The Wallace Foundation reported that effective school leaders make both a stronger and broader positive impact on the schools they lead than research had previously shown. The study:

• Estimates that replacing a school principal in the 25th percentile of effectiveness with one in the 75th percentile of effectiveness would result in approximately three months of additional math and reading learning gains each year for students in that school
• Suggests that the impact of an effective principal on student learning is nearly as great as the impact of an effective teacher
• Finds that the way school principals approach educational leadership has a direct relationship with school outcomes and test scores

Higher Education Administrators

Leaders of educational institutions stand to influence everything from curricular decisions to public perception of their campus. Studies have found that the approach higher educational leaders take in making various decisions can have a powerful ripple effect throughout their faculty members, students, and even the broader community. For example:

• Higher education leaders’ positive attitudes toward diversity and inclusion efforts cultivate greater awareness of bias among employees who are less likely to experience the negative impacts of bias, thereby increasing the likelihood of those employees endorsing inclusion efforts.
• Leadership was found to be the most crucial enabler of agility in higher education institutions. 
• Higher education institutions whose leaders have implemented disability-related supports see significantly higher rates of student persistence among students with disabilities.

Nonprofit Leaders

Studies show that nonprofit organizations with poor leadership negatively affect the staff working with them, the clientele they serve, and even the public at-large. Poor leadership in the nonprofit sector erodes public trust . 

Conversely, nonprofit executives who receive relevant training in the knowledge and skills they need in order to effectively lead an organization experience positive personal outcomes (such as their mindsets) and improve their organization’s practices. Likewise, nonprofit leaders who guide their organizations in accountability, communication, and advocacy can help bring about more positive public perceptions of nonprofit organizations. 

Human Resources Directors

HR professionals with a post-grad education degree are especially skilled at strategic collaboration with diverse audiences and stakeholders and promoting change across diverse organizational settings. Those abilities can promote meaningful change in human resources roles. 

Effective human resources directors can make a noticeable difference in company culture, employee morale, and even the bottom line. Check out just a few statistics from McKinsey on the benefit of good human resources professionals:

• Organizations with human resources departments that facilitate a positive employee experience are 1.3 times more likely to report that they outperformed their organizational goals.
• Companies with cultures that rank in the top-quartile of the McKinsey Organization Health Index post a return to shareholders that is 60 percent higher than median companies and a staggering 200 percent higher than companies that rank in the bottom quartile.

Educational leadership qualities

While anyone can strive to become a successful educational leader, there are some common qualities that are found in professionals who tend to gravitate toward educational leadership: compassion, vision, and perseverance. 

The role of an educational leader is, at its core, a role that seeks to meet the needs of others. Rachael George, an elementary school principal, spoke to the role of compassion in educational leadership in “ Leading with Compassion ,” a blog post for the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) in which she discusses the impact of two colleagues in leadership roles:

“Creating bonds and intentionally fostering relationships with your community is the foundation for academic achievement. As three educational leaders, we strive to show genuine love for those in our community. That deep care is likely one of the reasons why our students have been successful, with each of our schools blasting through average scores on state assessments.”

Leadership roles involve goals and metrics, but they’re also about culture, creating a sense of belonging, and empowering people through connection. People who naturally come by compassion and seek to cultivate it in their lives have one of the key qualities of educational leaders—and, as George’s example shows, an emphasis on compassionate care for others often leads to positive outcomes and impressive metrics, as well.

Successful educational leaders tend to be people who can evaluate past challenges and policies where they work and develop a better way forward . Not only that—they can see, or collaborate in seeing, what it will take to get to that future place. Their ability to imagine and creatively plan, for example, can directly correlate to student success .

Take a look at a few examples of visionary leadership in an academic setting, nonprofit organization, and the private sector:

• A 2020 study found a positive relationship between visionary leadership in school principals and teacher performance. 
• Nonprofit leaders report that visionary leadership improves raising of funds as well as recruitment of volunteers.
• Visionary leadership is identified as one of five leadership styles that are components of an optimistic leadership style that can determine successful, future-driven leadership .

Perseverance

Educational leaders are faced with many challenges. They are often called upon when social and cultural issues arise , when injustice dominates current events, and when individuals and communities are suffering. Attempting to develop long-term fixes for systemic problems while responding to immediate, pressing needs can be a tightrope to walk.

That’s why perseverance matters so much for educational leaders. For example, DonorBox ranks “resilience and stamina” as the number one quality of a successful nonprofit founder :

Hardship is a daily reality for most nonprofit leaders. The Greater Good Science Center defines resilience skills as being able to minimize the impact of stress, which in turn helps us avoid burnout. Nonprofit founders need to be flexible, willing to adapt, and able to move forward despite setbacks— demonstrating persistence.

Educational leadership skills

Professionals who are trained in educational leadership are equipped with many of the top skills that employers are looking for in the modern workplace. Some of the most important educational leadership skills, which correlate with some of the most-wanted skills among recruiters, schools, and companies, are analytical thinking, collaboration, and leadership. 

Analytical Thinking

The World Economic Forum named “analytical thinking and innovation” as the number one skill for 2025 in “The Future of Jobs Report 2020 .” As more and more data becomes available in every sector, from education to the corporate world, leaders with strong analytical thinking skills are more necessary than ever when it comes to asking the right questions of the data set before them. 

Consider just a few examples of how analytical thinking has made a positive difference in organizations led by educational leaders :

• School administrators are applying analytical thinking to student data to improve their return on investment for technology purchases and to highlight best practices that lead to better student outcomes. For example, a charter school administrator analyzed data and discovered that one biology teacher specifically outperformed the other biology teachers in the school. So the leader designated that teacher as the biology mentor for all charter schools in their system. 
• Human resources directors are cutting through their cognitive biases and experiencing new insights in existing company cultures as they apply analytical thinking in minimizing bias and increasing fairness.
• Community college administrators find that good data analysis helps them to make more informed decisions and present compelling evidence to key stakeholders.

Collaboration 

Educational leaders often spend a great deal of time speaking to others—whether those they are serving, those who work within their organizations, or community partners. By collaborating with diverse audiences and stakeholders about organizational research, practices, and theories, educational leaders can make collaborative strategic plans that lead to positive outcomes. 

Here are some examples of how educational leaders have fostered collaboration to create positive effects:

• Ten liberal arts colleges in Pennsylvania partner to facilitate faculty development, study abroad programs, and compliance and risk management.
• Community organizations in rural north central Wisconsin collaborated to serve over 1000 immigrant families and provide them with information about the COVID-19 pandemic in their preferred language.
• A school district, a pair of agencies serving homeless youth, and a group of local philanthropists in Texas repurposed an abandoned school into a shelter that serves approximately 4,000 unhoused students.

The top considerations of an educational leader

Professionals in educational leadership roles will perform a multitude of tasks based on their specific positions, which is to say that a superintendent’s day may look quite different from a human resource director’s day. But, if we peel back the layers just a bit, we’ll see that many of their decisions and approaches are likely shaped in similar ways and based in similar issues faced by educational leaders, including:

• How to answer questions of equity, ethics, and social justice 
• What it looks like to bring about solutions to complex problems
• The way to make a positive difference in a community or culture
• How to make and measure a positive impact in a given setting, person, or group

Equity and educational leadership

One of the highest callings of educational leaders is fostering diversity, inclusion, and equity among the people they lead. As a practitioner, the role of the educational leadership professional is not one of theory or distance from real communities. As people who work with people, educational leadership professionals are embedded every day in real-world circumstances that deal with questions of social justice, ethics, and equity.

Educational leaders may pursue greater equity for the people they serve through community partnerships, advocacy, or educational opportunities.

Educational leadership jobs

Careers in educational leadership range from small schools to huge corporations. Educational leadership often refers to administrative positions in schools, school districts, and universities. Many educational leadership professionals work as principals or assistant principals, instructional coordinators, and academic deans. These individuals help to meet the needs of students, families, and teachers so that each person has the opportunity to reach their goals and experience positive outcomes. 

But, as we’ve discussed, school settings are not the only place where educational leadership is important. Educational leadership is also put into practice in the corporate setting, such as in the case of human resources directors, chief learning officers, and trainers. In the nonprofit sector, educational leadership professionals work as program directors, executive directors, and community organizers. Educational leadership professionals who are interested in policy may work as education policy analysts for school systems, in think tanks, or for lobbying organizations.

Educational leadership doctoral programs: PhD vs. EdD

For those who are interested in educational leadership programs, there are several options. Some people will go with a masters degree, others a PhD, and others an EdD. While professionals with master’s degrees can have successful careers in educational leadership, those with doctorates will experience more open doors and greater potential for the careers they want. 

So then, what are the differences between a doctorate of education and PhD in education ? Before we get there, let’s note the similarities. Both degrees

• Are terminal degrees (the highest a student can go on that academic path)
• Focus on enhancing professional knowledge in various environments
• Make candidates more marketable and increase their salary potential
• Benefit graduates’ employers
• Prepare candidates for roles in administration, supervision, training, development, curriculum, instruction, and teaching 

From that common ground, some differences emerge. Let’s take a look at what they are. 

A PhD usually pursues a teaching career in academia and does first-hand research to help inform best practices. This allows candidates primary exploration of their field.

A PhD is likely to take on the role of an academic in higher education. PhD candidates are likely to publish original research in academic journals and present research papers at conferences.

An EdD program is designed to develop scholarly practitioners for applied positions in real-world settings. The research is oriented around making a local impact and developing a better understanding of a local context. An EdD will feature a substantial core curriculum in leading an organization, ethical leadership and social justice, and implementing organization change. 

Because of its emphasis on real-world application, the EdD leads to more opportunities for its graduates. While PhD graduates will largely work in research and theory, which may limit the workplace opportunities for them, EdD graduates can apply their leadership knowledge in nearly any setting . It’s difficult to think of any workplace that wouldn’t benefit from visionary leadership, an emphasis on meaningful change and transformative partnerships. With an EdD, leaders can bring about impactful change in schools, nonprofits, government agencies, and businesses that support whole communities.

Become an effective educational leader with an EdD from Marymount University Online

Are you ready to foster strategic collaboration, empower meaningful change, and innovate in ways that make a direct, positive impact in schools, communities, or organizations? If so, an EdD from Marymount University Online may be an ideal fit for you.

The degree program is designed for working professionals who want to bring elevated skills to their current organizations or find new opportunities for leadership. With no GRE requirement and a path to completion that’s less than three years long, active professionals can prepare for educational leadership while maintaining their current personal and professional responsibilities. 

Imagine your future in education administration, corporate leadership, nonprofit management, or policy analysis. You can take a step toward that future today. Prepare to use transformative leadership to promote change across diverse instructional and organizational settings. With our rigorous, practitioner-focused degree, you’ll be ready to effect change that matters.

Learn more about the EdD from Marymount University Online from our students .

Connect With Us

Complete the form to access our comprehensive program guide with more details about our:

• World-class faculty
• Application process
• Unique student support

An admissions advisor will be in touch to answer your questions and help determine if Marymount is right for you.

Complete The Form

Out-of-State Students

Clinical placement requirements are unique for each state. Please see our list of program offerings by state or contact us to determine whether our programs fulfill your state requirements.

CCNE Accreditation

The baccalaureate degree program in nursing at Marymount University is accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education, 655 K Street, NW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20001, 202-887-6791.

Requirements Not Met

To proceed with either the BSN to MSN FNP or the BSN to DNP FNP or the BSN to DNP PMHNP or the MSN PMHNP, you are required to have a bachelor’s degree and hold your RN license.

To proceed with either the PMC-FNP or the PMC-DNP or the PMC-PMHNP, you are required to have a master's degree and hold your RN license.

To proceed with the ABSN, you are required to have a bachelor's degree.

If you don’t meet these requirements but would still like further information, please contact us .

To proceed with the EdD in Educational Leadership and Organizational Leadership degree, you are required to have a master’s degree.

If you don’t meet this requirement but would still like further information, please contact us .

To proceed with the Doctor of Business Administration - Business Intelligence degree, you are required to have a master’s degree.

X Close Box

© 2024 Marymount University • All Rights Reserved • Privacy Policy • California Privacy Notice

• Schedule an Appointment
• Request Info

Education Leadership Conference 2024

Redefining resilience: elevating stories of k-12 education leadership.

Friday, Apr 19 2024 at 7:30 am - 5:00 pm EDT

165 Whitney Avenue New Haven , CT 06510 United States

On April 19th, 2024, the Education Leadership Conference returns to the Yale School of Management to convene policymakers, thought leaders, and practitioners to reflect on the evolution of global education since the COVID-19 pandemic and to highlight and uplift the challenges and opportunities facing today’s educators. Our theme this year is Redefining Resilience: Elevating Stories of K-12 Education Leadership where we will be asking how have education leaders navigated the challenges and forged resilience within their schools and school systems? Join us as we explore the strategies employed by K-12 leaders to assess the disruption, reimagine their systems, and spearhead innovations. We'll delve into critical issues such as managing an influx of education technology tools, evaluating innovative assessment policies, reckoning with enrollment declines, building a resilient workforce, and nurturing the social, emotional, and academic well-being of students.

Milwaukee School of Engineering

MBA in Education Leadership

The right candidate for the MSOE MBA in Education Leadership program is committed to improving student achievement and has been identified as a high-potential leader. He or she is ready for the next step and wants to learn about being an administrator through a different lens.

The program develops best business practices including vision setting, finance and project management. It provides opportunities for practical applications of these skills outside of the classroom, and places a focus on the values that help leaders develop strong character among their students, colleagues and the greater community. The MBA in Education Leadership program helps transform educators into motivated and influential community builders.

The MBAEL program is endorsed by Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) for the WI Administrator – Principal (5051) license.  If you will be seeking a principal license, eligibility for a Wisconsin teaching license is required.  For more information about this requirement please review information on DPI’s website linked  here .  If you have any questions regarding this requirement, please contact the program director. 

Apply to MSOE

Ready to learn more about Milwaukee School of Engineering and our MBA in Education Leadership degree? Filling out the application is fast and easy!

Carolina Hernandez

Sapphire Canser

Peter Reynolds

Elijah Nicks

Building leaders. Transforming futures.

MBA in Education Leadership Program Details

Read more about MSOE's MBA in Education Leadership graduate degree.

Meet our Faculty

Get to know our distinguished Rader School of Business faculty.

Kiesha Johnnies Founding Principal, Hope Christian School: Caritas

Administrator Licensing Information

Learn about the components required to be endorsed for a Wisconsin administrative license in the areas of Principal, Director of Instruction and/or Business Administrator.

Pay Enrollment Deposit

Deposits may be paid with a credit card or checking account.

Have additional questions? We can help with that! Send us an email and we'll be sure to get right back to you.

Class of 2020

Barb dilosa.

Class of 2019

Lauren bremer.

Class of 2022

Scott hanson, accreditation, contact information, graduate admissions, graduates in leadership roles within the first year.

More than half of the MSOE MBA EL graduates are in leadership roles within the first year of graduation.

Connect With MSOE

Build professional connections through targeted one-on-one networking at Mentoring Monday

• Updated: Apr. 25, 2024, 8:21 a.m. |
• Published: Apr. 25, 2024, 8:10 a.m.
• Advance Media New York

Mentoring Monday is a women-centric networking event that brings together area business leaders and upcoming professionals, to connect and grow the local women’s business community. Attendees can meet with executives, entrepreneurs, marketers, professionals, and risk takers from a wide variety of different businesses and backgrounds including healthcare, finance, higher education, entrepreneurs, non-profits and more. Complimentary professional headshots for all attendees are available on site. The event takes place from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on Monday April 29 at Drumlins Country Club in Syracuse.

The networking event brings together mentees and executives, entrepreneurs, marketers, professionals, and risk takers from more than 40 different businesses and backgrounds including healthcare, finance, higher education, non-profits and more. View the full list of mentors and their companies here .

Why attend Mentoring Monday?

1. Build Local Connections

Syracuse is a small town. The more professional connections you have, the easier it is to make job changes or track down resources. Mentoring Monday connects ticketholders with 45+ mentors , over the course of one evening, allowing you to quickly build up your roster of local, professional contacts.

2. Take the Awkward Out of Networking

Traditional networking events have little structure. Attendees free range the networking space with fresh drinks and bathroom breaks as the only means to end a sometimes-awkward conversation. Mentoring Monday structures the evening into 7-minute networking sessions where mentees select a mentor, network for 7-minutes and then move on to the next mentor on their list. This allows attendees to maximize their networking time and makes transitioning conversations polite and seamless.

3. Complimentary Headshots to Update Your Professional Presence

Professional headshots complete your professional presentation, giving a personal touch to a resume or online profile. All mentees at Mentoring Monday receive a complimentary headshot with their ticket. With headshot sessions starting at $150 for a private session, your event admission ticket rate is a steal.

4. Professional Development Roundtables

Our moderated table discussions will be hosted by a subject matter expert who will be leading the conversation, answering questions, and more! These tables don’t follow the traditional 7-minute speed-networking structure and attendees can pop in and out of a conversation at any time. The 2024 table hosts feature several of our event sponsors and will focus on important business topics including: financial wellness, starting a business, careers in healthcare, perfecting your personal brand pitch and accelerating your job search.

5. Learn From Women Who Have Been There

Being a woman in business is a shared experience. Mentees come with candid questions about balancing work and life, navigating common workplace challenges and how to get from point A to Z on their career path. Mentors candidly pull from their past experiences to help guide the next generation of local female business leaders.

Tickets are $25 and include admission, access to free professional headshots, drink ticket, light hors d’oeuvres and access to female business leaders across Central New York.

The event takes place on Monday April 29, from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m., at Drumlins Country Club, 800 Nottingham Rd, Syracuse. Parking is free and available near the banquet entrance on the right side of the building.

Mentoring Monday welcomes women from all backgrounds, including college students, recent grads, career changers and moms re-entering the workforce. This diverse mix of women makes Mentoring Monday truly unique.

Participating event sponsors include: Sidney Federal Credit Union , Upstate Nursing , Orangetheory Fitness , Drive Research , Emergent , Build Your Path , Empower Federal Credit Union , VIP Structures , CNY Women’s Network , Central New York Magazine , CNY SHRM , WISE Women’s Business Center , This is CNY , and Advance Media New York .

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Education Leadership (online)

Graduate Program

The Master’s in Education (Ed.M.) prepares students with the skills needed to change the world through education. The online Master’s in Education Leadership is a part-time, two-year Ed.M. program from the Harvard Graduate School of Education with Higher Education and PreK-12 pathways. The program is specifically designed for working education professionals who bring at least seven years of relevant or transferrable work experience. Through this program, students will strengthen the invaluable skills they’ve already developed and develop the tools to propel themselves to new leadership opportunities and to even greater impact.

Moldova Brings Criminal Case Against Pro-Russian Gagauzia Leader to Court

Leader of Moldova's Gagauzia region Yevgenia Gutsul (Eugenia Gutul) speaks during a press conference in Moscow, Russia, April 22, 2024. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina/File Photo

By Alexander Tanas

CHISINAU (Reuters) -A criminal case against the governor of Moldova's region of Gagauzia has been sent to court, prosecutors said on Wednesday, setting up the prospect of the Kremlin ally being tried on charges of channelling funds from Russia to a pro-Moscow party.

Evgenia Gutul, who emerged out of obscurity last year to win election to head the autonomous region of Gagauzia, has fraught relations with the central government, which fears Russia and exiled oligarchs meddling in its political landscape.

Gutul is accused of channelling funds from Russia in 2019-2022 to finance the now-banned pro-Russian "Shor" party set up by Ilan Shor, an exiled pro-Russian businessman convicted of fraud in Moldova.

"Gutul... was actively involved in the systematic introduction of unaccounted financial means into the Republic of Moldova that were received from an organised criminal group, mainly from the Russian Federation," prosecutors said.

Gutul, known for her strongly pro-Russian views and for calling for closer ties with Moscow, called the case fabricated in a statement on her Telegram channel.

Photos You Should See - April 2024

She could be jailed for 2-7 years if found guilty and also banned from holding government positions, the statement said.

The small former Soviet republic led by pro-European President Maia Sandu hopes to join the European Union by 2030 and to extricate itself from Moscow's orbit.

Its relations with Russia have unravelled as the government has condemned Russia's full-scale invasion of neighbouring Ukraine, accused Moscow of plotting the government's overthrow and expelled Russian diplomats.

Moldova, one of Europe's poorest countries, has a Romanian-speaking majority and a substantial Russian-speaking minority, and its politics have oscillated between pro-Western and pro-Russian parties for decades.

Russian troops occupy Transdniestria, a pro-Russian separatist region that broke away in a brief war in the early 1990s. Gagauzia is a another small semi-autonomous region for the Gagauz, a Turkic ethnic minority.

Tensions in Chisinau appeared to be on the rise after Gutul, Shor and other pro-Russian politicians announced in Moscow last weekend the formation of a bloc dubbed "Victory" to take part in a referendum on EU membership called by Sandu for October. The plebiscite is to be held alongside a presidential election.

Fans at a packed Moldovan cup soccer match between Chisinau Zimbru and Sherif from Transdniestria unfurled two giant banners proclaiming: "Pro-Russian forces are a cancer in our land which must be removed in the national interest."

Gutul has travelled to Moscow to meet high-ranking officials in recent months and last month met Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Prosecutors also accuse Gutul of paying people to attend anti-government protests organised by the Shor party in 2022.

Gutul was earlier accused of bribing voters during local elections in 2023. She denied the accusations.

(Reporting by Alexander Tanas; writing by Yuliia Dysa; editing by Christina Fincher, Ron Popeski and Deepa Babington)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Join the Conversation

Tags: Russia , Moldova , European Union , Europe

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

A ‘Fork in the Road’ for Democracy

Lauren Camera April 24, 2024

Johnson at Columbia: ’Stop the Nonsense’

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton April 24, 2024

What to Know: Bird Flu Virus in Milk

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder April 24, 2024

High Court to Again Weigh Abortion Law

Laura Mannweiler April 23, 2024

Takeaways From Pecker’s Trump Testimony

Lauren Camera April 23, 2024

Biden, Trump: Trail v. Trial

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder April 23, 2024