CHAPTER 12.

Looking across the cases: Key factors impacting entrepreneurial educators’ activity

Raffaella Borasi, Constance Flahive & David E. Miller

(with contributions from Kara Finnigan)

One of the main goals of our study has been to identify entrepreneurial practices that all educators could consider using to increase their innovations’ chances of success.  Our key findings on this topic have been reported in Chapter 11.  We also recognize, though, that there are other factors that educators engaging in innovations need to consider when deciding which of these practices to use in specific instances.

In this chapter we are going to identify some of these factors, looking at three complementary areas:  personal characteristics and preferences of the individual entrepreneurial educator, characteristics of the organization the entrepreneurial educator operates in, and characteristics of the type of innovation the entrepreneurial educator is undertaking.  When combined, these elements will reduce the set of practices appropriate to consider at specific stages of the entrepreneurial process for a specific innovation – a topic we will address in the next chapter.

12.1. Individual characteristics of entrepreneurial educators

When we looked at the characteristics of business and social entrepreneurs identified in the literature (as reported earlier in Figure 2.2), we found that many of these characteristics were shared by the entrepreneurial educators we studied – with just a few interesting exceptions.  More specifically, our findings (as documented in Table 13.1 at the end of this section) suggest that the following characteristics of business entrepreneurs well described all our case study subjects:

• Dream/vision – having a clear vision and ability to implement it.
• Devotion/passion – Passion and commitment to a mission.
• Dedication – willingness to give 100%, to do what it takes to get the job done.
• Determination/ persistency – not giving up when faced with obstacles.
• Decisiveness – not procrastinating decisions or actions.

The following characteristics also applied to most, but not all, of our subjects:

• Doer – getting satisfaction from getting things done.
• Attention to Details – making sure that all details are attended to
• Wanting to be in charge of one’s own Destiny.

In contrast, we do not believe that the last two characteristics of business entrepreneurs identified by Bygrave (2004) (i.e., using money as a motivation and measure of success, and distributing ownership with key employees) were relevant for the entrepreneurial educators we studies – with the notable exception of the one operating in the for-profit arena (Donna).  However, a strong sense of fiscal responsibility and even more importantly the drive to increase the resources available to pursue one’s mission were indeed common to all our subjects.

Our findings also suggest that most entrepreneurial educators demonstrate – at least to some extent – all but one of the characteristics of social entrepreneurs identified by Bornstein (2004), that is:

• Willingness to self-correct.
• Willingness to share credits.
• Willingness to cross disciplinary boundaries.
• Willingness to work quietly (at least when warranted to achieve the desired outcomes).
• Strong ethical impetus.

Indeed, the only characteristic of social entrepreneurs identified by Bornstein which did not apply to our subjects was the “willingness to break free of established structures” – as almost all our subjects worked in established organizations they had not created, as do most of the education change agents we know.  However, if we interpret this item more broadly as willingness to break free of conventions or rules when needed, all of our subjects showed that characteristic as well.

Although Bornstein did not explicitly mention vision among the characteristics of social entrepreneurs, some of the other elements he identified are closely connected with this concept and were embodied by our subjects.  First of all, the same strong ethical impetus that characterizes social entrepreneurs (Bornstein, 2004) can be seen in the desire to improve the world that informed each of our subjects’ vision (although at different levels of intensity depending on the subject’s organization and its mission).  Most of our subjects also felt a sense of urgency linked to their vision – especially so when working with clients who had traditionally been marginalized (like urban students, individuals with disabilities, or families living in poverty).  As such, their passion, dedication and persistency around their work was integrally linked to their underlying goals and vision.  At the same time, the belief in their vision and its potential impact is what gave them the strength and courage needed to continue to promote innovation, year after year, despite the effort this took and the resistance they encountered (as the inevitable response to change, especially within traditional education institutions).

It is important to note that, as documented in Table 12.1, not all our subjects shared these individual characteristics of entrepreneurs, nor did they do so to the same extent.  However, as demonstrated in the stories reported in Chapters 3-10, these characteristics seem to have supported entrepreneurial action and contributed to the success of worthwhile educational innovations – and, thus, can be valuable for education change agents.  It is also interesting to note that, in many cases, subjects who did not personally share some of these characteristics (attention to details in particular) tended to choose collaborators who did – almost as a way to compensate for that “deficiency”.

This analysis highlights some striking parallels between business entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial educators – thus confirming the value for education change agents to look at the field of entrepreneurship for inspiration.  Although we argued earlier that individuals are unlikely to change their traits or dispositions, we also believe that knowing which characteristics are shared by most entrepreneurial educators may be of value to education change agents, as it will make them more aware of the potential impact of those characteristics and may encourage them to find collaborators that can bring in entrepreneurial characteristics they themselves lack.

We conclude this section with a table summarizing the entrepreneurial characteristics we identified and the extent to which those were reflected by each of our case-study subjects.  As in the previous chapter, the following conventions have been used to fill in this table:

• “X” means that we found direct evidence of that characteristic in the data we collected;
• “*” means that, while we did not find direct evidence of that characteristic in our data, we can infer it based on our knowledge of the subject;
• “No” means that we have evidence that the characteristic in question does not apply;
• A blank cell indicates we do not have clear evidence to state anything definitive.

Table 12.1. Characteristics of entrepreneurs shared by the case study subjects

12.2. Characteristics of the organization and other contextual factors

The organizations our subjects worked in were very different, not only with respect to the nature and scope of their missions, but also in terms of organizational structure and culture.  First of all, there are considerable differences in the ways for-profit and non-profit organizations, on the one hand, and educational institutions such as K-12 schools and universities, on the other hand, operate.  And even within this second group, Pat and Ron worked in a very decentralized private university which gave them considerable autonomy and control on resources, while Mary, Ralph and Lynn all worked in public K-12 schools, which are more centralized organizations and thus gave them very different autonomy and control on revenues and fiscal decisions.

Most of our subjects and their collaborators agreed that the following list of “enabling organizational factors” identified in the literature (as introduced earlier in Figure 2.3, and explicitly shared with them in an interview) would support entrepreneurial behavior:

• Shared vision and commitment to the mission.
• Informal lines of communication that facilitate getting information to those who need it when they need it.
• Personnel that is committed to “do what it takes” to implement the mission.
• Culture and structures that encourage innovation and creativity.
• High tolerance for risk and mistakes.
• Decentralized decision-making system.
• Flexible budgeting that looks at potential revenues as well as costs.

At the same time, our subjects differed significantly in their evaluation of the extent to which their own organization reflected each of these characteristics – as documented in Table 12.2 at the end of this section. In fact, there was a sharp separation between the subjects working in a public K-12 school setting (who reported that almost none of these enabling factors were present in their institution) and the subjects working in a decentralized private university or a for-profit/not-for-profit organization (who instead identified many of these factors).

Another enabling factor that was common to several contexts, and yet was not in the list we initially derived from the entrepreneurship literature, was the presence of a crisis.  It is indeed striking how almost all of our subjects operated at times of crisis – as for example the for-profit business where Donna worked was close to bankruptcy when she and her partner took it over, Pat took the lead when her School of Nursing was risking closure, the Community Place was running a deficit when Rod joined it, Ron started his leadership of the library at a difficult financial time for his University, and Ralph and Lynn worked in an urban school district constantly marred by violence, high student drop-out rate and low achievements on state-wide tests.  But what is most significant is that all of these educators leveraged this state of crisis as a way of moving their vision and entrepreneurial initiatives forward – recognizing that when the status quo is not desirable, people may be more willing to consider change and the inevitable risks associated with it.  We can also see a connection between this finding and economists’ claim that contexts characterized by uncertainty and disequilibria can encourage certain individuals to be “alert” and to seize opportunities (Kirzner, 1979).  Thus, times of crisis are often an opportune time for entrepreneurs to take advantage of society’s (or the organization’s) willingness to accept reforms (Duhl, 1990).  At the same time, some of our subjects (as best illustrated by Ron in his library) purposefully created a sense of crisis to promote change – a point connected with Schumpeter’s principle of creative disruption.

When combined with the observation that all our subjects were successful in initiating innovations regardless of the institution they operated in, the findings reported in this section suggest that all the enabling organizational factors identified in the literature, as well as a few others our study uncovered, are not necessary conditions to the success of entrepreneurial behavior and innovations. However, since their presence can make the job of initiating innovations much easier, productive and rewarding, they may significantly affect entrepreneurial activity – so it is important for entrepreneurial educators to be aware of these factors and to work towards developing them within their organization, at least whenever they are in a position to do so.  For example, we believe that both Mary and Lynn would not have chosen early retirement had their institution been more supportive of their innovative efforts.

It is also interesting that several of our subjects mentioned that their training and early professional experiences significantly affected their entrepreneurial behavior.  More specifically, Donna talked about how she carried her training and expertise as a classroom teacher to the planning of meetings, and this gave her an advantage compared to others in the same industry. Pat often referred to her background as a psychiatric nurse as something that influenced the way she approached problem solving, the need to make quick decisions, making the best of scarce resources, and dealing with the emotional aspects of making change. Gidget reported on how her early experiences as a speech pathologist working with individual with disabilities – an area she had not originally received training in – influenced both the way she approaches learning about a new field and looking at laws as providing a competitive advantage for organizations working with individuals with disabilities.  Given the diversity of these background and experiences, however, one wonders whether the critical factor was not so much the content of the training or experiences our subjects had, but rather their ability to make the most of it, to see unique connections between past and current experiences, and to capitalize on them in new ways.

Table 12.2. Enabling contextual factors experienced by each subject

It is also important to point out that the position the subject held in the organization seemed to be another important factor affecting the impact that the characteristics of their organization may have had on their entrepreneurial behavior.  As Donna, Rod, Gidget and Pat, were essentially the CEO of their organization, they had a lot of control on resources – both fiscal and human – and they were also in a position that enable them to influence the organization’s culture, norms and expectations.  This was not the case for Ron, Mary, Ralph and Lynn; and even in this group, the influence each of them could have on their organization was quite different.

12.3. Types of innovation

As we examined the nature of the specific innovations undertaken by our eight case-study subjects, we realized that their innovations presented a great variety not only in terms of content and context, but also the kind of innovation involved.  This, in turn, suggested the value of identifying common “types” of educational innovations, as they night call for somewhat different approaches.

Our analysis identified the following four “types” of educational innovations:

1. Creating a new organization – whether for-profit or not-for-profit
2. Starting a long-term venture within an organization – such as a new Center, business line, instructional program/course or other service.
3. Undertaking a one-time high-impact initiative – such as renovating or building a facility, engaging in a transformational initiative, organizing a unique learning experience, and even publishing or deciding to terminate an existing program.
4. Developing new practices and norms – such as working on developing a specific practice you want yourself or others in the organization to get better at, or engaging in “systemic reform” that may involving multiple dimensions and more radically change “how business is done”.

In what follows we will examine what characterizes each of these types of innovations, with the ultimate goal of identifying elements entrepreneurial educators need to take into consideration when undertaking them.  Key to this analysis will be identifying specific innovations from the eight case-studies that provide illustrations for each type and sub-type.

  12.3.1. Creating new organizations

Several authors in the literature on entrepreneurship equates entrepreneurship with the creation of new organizations – whether for-profit or not-for-profit.  While in Chapter 2 we criticized this definition of entrepreneurship as too narrow and limiting, we nevertheless believe it makes sense to start by looking at this most “classic” type of innovation, as it presents some unique characteristics.

We found only two examples of this kind of innovation in our study:

• Starting a new for-profit company: This is essentially what Donna Thompson did when she and her partner took over and turned around a bankrupt company to support the organization of productive meetings for companies and professional organizations (Donna’s innovation #1).
• Starting a new not-for-profit organization: This type of innovation is exemplified by Rod Jones’ creation of Rochester Step Off as an independent organization to leverage Black youth’s interest in step dancing as a means to support their academic and life development (Rod’s innovation #1).

Both of these examples show the value of creating a new organization to provide an educational service that traditional education institutions are not able to offer, yet would be of value to special populations.  A new organization may be better able to respond to emerging needs, as it can be more nimble and open to radically new solutions and ways to deliver those solutions.  One of the great appeals of creating a new organization is the ability it gives to break free from the constraints created by the structures (and culture/practices) of an existing organization, and to establish new expectations, new culture, new practices, new structures.  In contrast, trying to “fix” an existing organization may harder, given the inevitable resistance to change.

Yet it is also important to consider that starting a new organization has a different level of magnitude and risk than any of the other innovations featured in our case-studies.  When creating a new organization, it is more a “whole or nothing” situation – either you succeed and have a long-lasting impact and mission, or you fail and you cease to exist!  There is also no “safety-net” to help in the case of initial mistakes or unexpected events. Creating a new organization also calls for significant resources – so securing the needed funding becomes paramount before being able to launch this initiative and can be challenging.  This is probably also a main reason why Donna and Rod gave most attention during our interviews to reconstructing what it took to create and launch their organization, although in both cases it was equally important how they “built success” so as to make their organization sustainable and truly making an impact.

While the previous considerations apply to starting both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, there are also some important differences between the two.  First, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations do not have access to the same sources of funding.  In particular, only not-for-profit organizations will be eligible for gifts/charitable contributions, foundation grants, and support from community organizations, while for-profit companies may look for investors and venture capitalist (although some “charitable” venture capital have also begun to emerge – see Hess, 2008).  Another interesting difference is that in the field of education non-profit organizations are more easily accepted, while for-profit companies are still looked at with more suspicion – as many educators still believe that there is an unsolvable tension between seeking to make a profit and fulfilling a social need (even though our case-studies of Gidget and Pat in particular challenge this notion).

  12.3.2. Starting new long-term ventures within an organization

Few educators start a new organization, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, and if so, it is likely to happen only once or twice in their career.  In contrast, all but one of our subjects started at least one long-term venture within their existing organization – that is, a value-adding initiative that was intended to “live on” – and the majority of them did so multiple times.  This kind of activity is what is most often associated to the work of intrapreneurs in the entrepreneurship literature.

These long-term ventures, though, varied considerably in both nature and scope – and, therefore, the value they added to the organization and the people they served.   Among the several innovations featured in our case studies that belong to this category, we identified the following sub-categories as especially relevant for the field of education:

• Starting new “branches” within the organization: This type of initiative is well illustrated by Pat Chiverton’s creation of the Center for Nursing Entrepreneurship within her School of Nursing (Pat’s innovation #3).  Starting a new branch may allow an organization to create a space to do certain things (like running business lines for Pat’s Center) that are different from one’s core operations, and yet add important new dimensions in the pursuit of one’s mission.  Like creating a new organization, starting a new branch allows to establish new expectations, structures and ways of operating – as for example it allowed Pat to have different rules about hiring and compensating personnel, and approving new non-credit-bearing courses. This, in turn, may allow greater flexibility and nimbleness than running the new programs/ operations within the current structure of the larger organization.  Indeed, starting a new branch may allow an organization and its leader to develop a space where they can be more innovative and break from tradition, without needing to abandon the organization or making sweeping changes within it – thus significantly decreasing risk.
• Starting new for-profit business lines within one’s organization: While only Gidget and Pat created business lines within their organizations, they did so multiple times and with great success.  This shows first of all that starting for-profit businesses does not always require the creation of an independent organization, but rather can also take place within an existing organization – even a not-for-profit one!  What is most striking across all of Pat’s and Gidget’s examples, though, is that while each business line contributed financially to their institution in very important ways, the main reason for starting it and the greatest value to their institution was not only economical.  In the case of Gidget, each of her business lines was developed first and foremost to create employment opportunities for blind or visually impaired individuals – thus contributing to their ability to become independent and contribute to society, a key element of ABVI’s mission.  Similarly, Pat was interested in creating business lines as a way to develop and disseminate new models of health care focusing on health promotion; as such, these businesses contributed directed to the research mission of Pat’s school (by developing new models of health care) and to its instructional mission (by providing unique sites for observations and internships for nursing students).  Therefore, neither Gidget nor Pat felt that establishing for-profit business lines within a non-profit organization or university created any tension between “fulfilling their mission” and “maintaining fiscal feasibility.”
• Starting new instructional programs (broadly defined to include courses and professional development offerings, besides traditional degree programs): While starting new business lines may seem rather foreign to educators, starting new instructional programs and courses is a much more common experience – especially within universities.  Pat launched several new programs during her tenure as dean, of which “Starting  a new Master in Nursing Leadership (Pat’s innovation #2) was just one example.  Indeed, as reported in her case study, initiating new instructional programs was a critical element in her strategy to ensure critical revenues as well as differentiate her School of Nursing.  Starting new instructional programs and courses is less common in K-12 schools, given the prescribed structure of the curriculum at this age level; however, Ralph Spezio’s addition of a pre-school program to his elementary school is a good counterexample, as this innovation provided an important vehicle to “level the playing” field for many of his urban students, who were entering kindergarten and first grade already at a disadvantage.  New instructional programs are also no longer the prerogative of schools and universities, as more and more non-profit and even for-profit organizations may offer such programs.  For example, designing and offering training programs for blind and visually impaired individuals continued to be a major component of what Gidget Hoft’s organization (ABVI) offered, and Rod’s organization (the Community Place) created many new educational programs for the people it served – even though none of these ventures were explicitly featured in their stories.
• Starting new “supporting” services: New instructional programs and courses are not the only way in which educational institutions can serve their clients and contribute to their learning and development. Rather, educators are becoming more and more aware that promoting learning and development also requires attending to the needs of the “whole” person.  Three of the innovations reported in our case studies involved starting new supporting services – Ralph Spezio’s urban teacher preparation program (Ralph’s innovation #2) and school-based health clinic (Ralph’s innovation #3), and Rod Jones’ HOST Program (Rod’s innovation #3).   Other among our subjects also engaged in this type of innovation sometime in the course of their career.  For example, Ron’s Library Technology Initiative (Ron’s innovation #2) involved among other things providing a better on-line catalog to navigate the university collection, instituting a digital reserve (which would allow students to access materials put on reserve for their classes from their computer, rather than having to physically go to the library), and creating a D-space for faculty and students to display their unpublished work.  Each of these services directly added value to the students and faculty using the library, by making it easier and more convenient to access literature they needed to support their academic work, and also by developing a different perception about the role and value of the library for them.   Gidget and Rod also developed new services to serve their target populations in addition to what included in their stories.

While the specific innovations included in this category may seem quite different in content and scope, a common element at their core is that they were all designed to address specific unmet needs of the parent organization and/or the people it served by launching an initiative that was expected to “live on” – at least for a significant period of time.  Therefore, figuring out ways to sustain the initiative in the long-term was always a critical element.  This involved not only financial considerations, which in turn called for developing some sustainable revenue generation models, but also raised the challenge of ensuring continuity despite leadership changes that inevitably would occur overtime.

Innovations in this category also presented other interesting similarities.  Most notably, they all required similar processes to evaluate whether the specific program/service should be offered, and to gather the needed resources to launch those new initiatives – although differences in scope may have called for the use of different practices, a point we will return to in Chapter 13.

These considerations suggest that starting new ventures within an organization has many similarities with starting a new organization in terms of processes and practices – so it is not surprising that some definition of entrepreneurship include creating new enterprises or ventures, rather than just new businesses/organizations.  Yet starting a new venture within an existing organization present a very different level of magnitude and risk, as the overall organization can provide some security that allows one to be more daring and learn from mistakes and failures.  With lower risk, however, also come a lower level of freedom.

The examples reported in this section are evidence that starting new ventures is something that educators in most organizations and positions can do. Yet the fact that the teacher in our group did not engage in any innovation of this kind suggests that being in some leadership position may greatly facilitate undertaking a “new venture” within the organization – and the bigger the scope of the innovation, the more it will require support and approval from people high up in the leadership hierarchy.

  12.3.3. Undertaking one-time high-impact initiatives

Some of the innovations our subjects reported on did not fall in either of the previous two categories, as they could be characterized as “one-time initiatives” that took place at a specific point in time without the intention of ever being continued or repeated on a regular basis, and yet they provided great and long-standing value to the organization and its client.  As such, they would not fit any definition of entrepreneurship that involve the creation of “enterprises” – yet, given their value-added, it seems important for entrepreneurial educators to learn how to engage in innovations of this kind effectively.

These one-time high-impact innovations could take several different forms.  Based on the innovations identified in our case studies, we would like to highlight the following categories as especially significant.

• Building/remodeling facilities: Three of our featured innovations – Pat Chiverton’s building a new wing for her school (Pat’s innovation #5), the Library Remodeling project by Ron Dow (Ron’s innovation #2) and the building of a new pre-School by Ralph Spezio (Ralph’s innovation #1) – fall into this category.  Furthermore, we know that other case study subjects also initiated and carried out facilities projects at least once in their career.  For example, housing new manufacturing operations and Goodwill Stores required Gidget to secure new facilities, which in some cases involved building or remodeling; some of Rod’s housing projects also involved major remodeling.  At first, it may seem surprising to see so much “construction activity” – especially given the costs of facilities projects and the scares resources that characterize most educational organizations.  However, needing to secure new facilities is often an outcome of engaging in innovations that lead to growth in the organization.  Building new facilities or doing major remodeling of existing ones may also appeal to many educational leaders because of their permanent nature, as those facilities will stay on and continue to be used over time, thus also helping to ensure sustainability for the programs they house.  At the same time, given the significant level of funding required and limited flexibility, it is also important to carefully evaluate these projects against possible alternatives.  It is interesting that Donna, as a business owner, chose to rent as a way not only to reduce start-up costs, but also to gain flexibility for future unpredictable growth.
• Publishing to disseminate successful solutions: At first one may wonder why we chose to include publishing projects as educational innovations.  However, we believe publishing is a critical tool to disseminate innovative ideas and practices and achieve wide-spread reform –  especially in the field of education.  Furthermore, projects leading to publication present some interesting commonalities with facilities projects, as publishing one’s work is a one-time initiative culminating in the published product, yet the impact of that product can be long-lived as the publication can be used by many other people over time.  Among the educators we studied, Lynn Gatto, the urban elementary teacher, was the one who most extensively and consistently engaged in publications as a way to increase the impact of her instructional innovations beyond her classroom.  Indeed, Lynn engaged in many publication projects throughout her teaching career, beyond the video for parents of students with learning disabilities and the set of instructional materials for teaching elementary science (Lynn’s innovation #3) mentioned in her case study.
• Undertaking one-time transformational initiatives: Our case studies also showed the power and long-term implication of undertaking some high-risk/high-reward one-time initiatives that can be transformational for the organization.  The best examples among our featured innovations were Donna’s company taking on the organization of the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism (Donna’s innovation #3) and Ron’s response to the budget cut that led to reconceiving how keep the library’s collection on the cutting edge (Ron’s innovation #1).  In the first case, bidding for the White House Conference contract forced Donna’s company to move outside their comfort zone and try out new technologies, yet they were willing to do so as they knew that, if successful, it would result in moving the company to the next level by significantly increasing their reputation and visibility.  In the second case, by taking an out-of-the-box approach to solving a budget cut for the library, Ron was able to establish a better way to approach new acquisitions for the library collection that stayed on even after that fiscal crisis was resolved.  In both cases, although the initiative itself was not repeated, it had some long-term and impactful effects on the organization.
• Designing and implementing innovative learning experiences: Also creating a new instructional unit or professional development offering may be conceived as a one-time event. Sometimes these events can be repeated multiple times, but most often they are not – as it was the case for both Lynn’s Cookie Cutter unit (Lynn’s innovation #1) and the field trip to Kentucky she arranged for her 4th grade urban students (Lynn’s innovation #2); nevertheless, the impact of these unique learning experiences on Lynn’s students should not be underplayed.  Furthermore, often specific innovative learning experience, even if not repeated, inform the design of future learning experiences; publications resulting from these experiences can also lead to greater and longer-term impact, as other teachers and their students may benefit from the original ideas.  This is definitely the kind of innovation that is most likely to appeal to teachers, although many of our subjects also engaged in it – as for example the meetings and conferences Donna’s company organized were always explicitly designed to provide valuable learning opportunities, Gidget reported creating a number of learning opportunities for her board as well as creating educational programs for blind people, and Ron‘s many presentations about the library to donors also had a teaching dimension.  Therefore, the value of this type of educational innovation should not be under-estimated!
• Terminating existing initiatives when needed: While we tend to think of innovations in terms of starting new programs or services, or making improvements and changes that add to the status quo, equally important are innovations that eliminate existing initiatives that have become obsolete or are running a deficit, so as to leave space – and resources – to implement new ideas. The tendency in education (and the path of least resistance for educational leaders) is to let current initiative continue, no matter how inefficient it may be – especially if it is not losing money!  However, “trimming” initiatives that do not work anymore is as important as starting new ones. So it should not be surprising that we found only one of our featured innovations belonging this category – Pat’s closing of the undergraduate nursing program (Pat’s innovation #1) – although Rod also mentioned his decision to stop offering daycare services and a few other initiatives when CEO of a Settlement House. Both Pat and Rod explicitly stated that ineffective programs and operations are a liability, as they draw on the organization’s limited resources that could be better employed for other initiatives.

The many examples mentioned in this section demonstrate the considerable value that can come to an organization from engaging in one-time high-impact innovations – so these innovations should not be discounted, even though they have a different “live span” than long-term ventures (which are at the core of several popular definitions of entrepreneurship).  As shown by examples like Donna’s White House Conference, Pat’s facilities expansion, and Lynn’s Kentucky field trip, just to mention a few, one-time innovations can still have a long-term impact even though the concept of sustainability (which is central to both starting new organizations and new ventures) may not apply to this type of innovation.

As the nature of the innovations belonging to this type differ significantly across sub-category, it will be important to take those differences into consideration when embarking in specific one-time innovations.  Indeed, the examples encountered in our case studies ranged from multi-million facilities projects requiring significant funding to innovative learning experiences that could be undertaken for essentially no cash costs.  As a result, the risk associated to these initiatives, as well as what it would take to secure the needed resources, would be very different, and in turn call for different processes to evaluate whether the initiative is worth pursuing.   It is also worth noting that some of these innovations required securing support even more than resources.  This was especially true for innovations involving terminating existing initiatives, as discontinuing something is always going to be unpopular with, at the very least with the people associated with those initiatives, who may also feel threatened by their elimination.

  12.3.4. Changing practices, norms and/or culture

Some of the most significant innovations we observed our subjects engage in had to do not so much with a clearly identifiable “initiative,” but rather with a long-term and carefully orchestrated attempt to make changes in pervasive and persistent practices, norms and cultures within their own organization.  Because of their long-term nature, each of these innovations often included multiple components and tended to be more iterative in nature. Nevertheless, they were probably the innovations with the greatest chance of making a sustained difference if successful – although they were also the most challenging!

We identified two sub-groups within this category of innovations:

• Developing a specific new practice: Examples in this category from our case-studies involve most notably Gidget’s decisions to change her own practices as CEO (Gidget’s innovation #4), as well as Mary’s attempts to change specific teaching practices, first as principal by changing the process for evaluating teachers, and later as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction by trying (unsuccessfully) to institute differentiated instruction strategies (Mary’s innovation #2).  While implementing these initiatives did not require almost any financial resource, they were among the most difficult ones to succeed – give how challenging it is to develop new practices.
• Engaging in “systemic change”: Innovations within this category differ from the previous ones in that they involve much more encompassing and interconnected changes, often requiring to reconceive the entire way of “doing business” in the organization, and/or involving changes in norms and mindsets as well as practices.  Notable examples from our case-studies included: Mary’s math reform initiative (Mary’s innovation #3), which required to reconceive what and how to teach mathematics from kindergarten to grade 12; Mary’s district-wide curriculum writing initiative (Mary’s innovation #1), as it implicitly called for changing the established norm that “teachers could do what they wanted in their classroom”; Rod’s efforts at developing a new culture in the Community Place, when he joined that organization as CEO (Rod’s innovation #2); and Ron’s and Donna’s technology initiatives, which involved radically new roles and responsibilities for staff.      All these initiatives where not only affecting the entire organization in significant ways, but they were also more “fluid,” “morphing” from other things and often involving multiple connected initiatives – yet always very purposeful and linked to the entrepreneurial educator’s vision.  As a result, it was also more difficult to pinpoint their beginning and end.

Innovations within this last category feel different from the previous types we identified in a few important ways.  They seem to depend less from identifying and responding to an opportunity, as they are more “strategic” and thoughtful in nature.  The changes they involve are also often those that one does not want to bring too much attention to, but rather keep “under the radar screen.”  Therefore, they may require different approaches and skill sets, as they are usually more “political” – and may require a lot of time (and patience!) to develop.  While some of these innovations may require significant financial and staff resources (as in the case of Donna’s and Ron’s technology initiatives), the resource most critical to their success is always “social capital” and good will to ensure buy-in – and thus they may be among the most difficult innovations to achieve.  Most of these innovations also require the influence and authority of an acknowledged leader within the organization in order to be pursued.

It is also important to note, though, that because they affect the very structure of the organization, innovations of this type are the ones that could be more transformational/ impactful and long-lasting.

  12.3.5. Concluding observations about the nature and impact of different types of innovation

It is important to keep in mind that the different types of innovation identified and discussed in this section are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as a specific innovation may include elements from more than one category – as for example Ralph’s addition of a pre-school for his elementary students (Ralph’s innovation #1) involved both a “new program” component (new long-term venture/ new program) as well as a main “facilities” component (one-time high-impact initiative/ facilities project).  Despite this caveat, we believe that the different types of “innovations” we have identified may provide a valuable conceptual tool to highlight complementary ways in which education can be improved – and hopefully show education change agents possibilities they may have not considered before.

As a way to summarize the previous discussion, in Table 12.3 we have listed the types and sub-types of educational innovations identified by our study, along with examples from the “featured innovations” included in our eight case studies.  Whenever a featured innovation included multiple components reflecting different types of innovation, we listed it only under the category that we believed described it best (for example, Ralph’s pre-school initiative was listed as an example of “facilities projects” rather than “new programs”, as the most salient part of his story focused on building the premises for the new pre-school program).

Table 12.3. List of our subjects’ featured innovation by “type” of innovation

That said, some categories of “innovations” may be more appropriate for a particular context (i.e., K-12 schools, vs. universities, vs. non-profits vs. for-profits), role (especially in terms of leadership level within the organization and thus authority to make certain decisions), or personal characteristics.  For example, developing new programs and courses may be especially valuable for an academic department or school within a university, and it is usually the prerogative of an academic leader (dean or department chair).  At the same time, individual faculty members can be instrumental in starting new courses and even programs; new elective courses can be started in high schools by principals, teachers and Assistant Superintendents for Instruction; and some non-profits and for-profits can offer new programs and courses as well.

We also hope that our analysis will contribute to the debate in the field of entrepreneurship of what should “count” as the object of the “entrepreneurial process”.  Depending on the definition of entrepreneurship assumed, authors have argued that the study of entrepreneurship should only focus on just starting new organizations (e.g., Bygrave, 2004), or also include new enterprises/ long-term venture (e.g., Green, 2005), or even apply to any kind of innovation (e.g., Shumpeter, 1934).   Our study suggests that there are important differences among the different types of innovations we have identified, as well as interesting similarities.  Therefore, there is indeed value in both looking for commonalities that may cut across different types of innovation and thus have wide applicability, and purposefully studying specific types of innovations among those we have identified to uncover special elements that should be taken into account in those cases.

We conclude this section with another table (Table 12.4) that indicates which of our subjects engaged in each of the types and sub-types of innovation we identified at least one time in their career.  In this table, for each case-study subject “X” indicates that at least one of the “featured innovations” that were reconstructed in detail as part of their case-study belonged to this type of innovation, “*” indicates that we observed the subject engage in at least one innovation of this type – as reported in their interviews or based on our knowledge of the subject; “No” means that we could conclude with confidence that the subject did not ever engage in that type of innovation, while we left a blank cell whenever we did not have enough information to make a clear determination.

Table 12.4. Types of innovation undertaken by each subject

12.4. Concluding thoughts about factors impacting entrepreneurial educators’ activity

The considerations reported in this chapter have highlighted the many ways in which entrepreneurial educators’ decisions, while informed by the general mindsets and practices identified in Chapter 11, will also be influenced by their own personality traits and/or preferences, contextual factors such as the kind of organization they work in and their role within it, and the type of innovation they are undertaking.  In the next chapter, we will see how all these factors come together at specific stages of the entrepreneurial process of initiating and carrying out a specific innovation.