Introduction

Today’s global economy is knowledge-based and dependent on the rapid development and diffusion of innovation (Hadad, 2017; Powell & Snellman, 2004). As such, the elevated importance of innovation across all industries and sectors makes the entrepreneurial mindset a critical input to the career competitiveness of all college graduates, regardless of their disciplinary backgrounds and professional trajectories (Mawson et al., 2023; Stenard, 2021). The number of post-secondary entrepreneurship courses and programs have, not surprisingly, increased exponentially over the past four decades (Duval-Couetil, 2013; Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005). While entrepreneurship curricula and programs are primarily located within business schools, cross-disciplinary courses in entrepreneurship and innovation are now quite common—stretching from the arts and humanities (Jensen, 2014; Toscher, 2019) to the social and behavioral sciences (Morris et al., 2013) to the STEM fields (Yi & Duval-Couetil, 2021).

There is a robust literature on the performance of entrepreneurship education relative to student intentions and start-up activities to include students and alums launching for-profit and socially oriented ventures (Bergmann et al., 2016; Jensen, 2014; Mars & Rhoades, 2012; Meoli et al., 2020; Pache & Chowdhury, 2012). Yet, the implications of entrepreneurial learning on the leadership development of non-business students who do not necessarily aspire to pursue their start-ups, whether profit or socially driven, remain largely overlooked.

We address the aforesaid gap by examining how an entrepreneurial leadership course may influence the entrepreneurial mindset development of non-business undergraduate students (n = 275) at The University of Arizona (UArizona). Specifically, the potential influence of the course on the development of students’ entrepreneurial mindsets is measured by their pre- and post-course proclivities to engage in entrepreneurial leadership. Our guiding hypothesis is: “Entrepreneurial leadership education increases the entrepreneurial mindsets of students regardless of disciplinary background and career intention.” Pulling from the entrepreneurship, leadership, and management literature (Bosman & Fernhaber, 2018; Griffith et al., 2006; Hmieleski & Corbett, 2006; Kuratko et al., 2021; Zhu & Matsuno, 2016), we define the entrepreneurial mindset as an individual’s propensity to take entrepreneurial action by leading themselves and others in the identification, evaluation, and pursuit of opportunities of innovation and change. We view the outcome of individuals engaging their entrepreneurial mindsets as innovation and change in a broad sense, thus accounting for entrepreneurial leadership that is driven by a wide range of motives and visions for the future that extend beyond conventional business contexts. Equally important, our definition is consistent with the conceptual underpinnings of Mars and Torres’s (2018) entrepreneurial leadership proclivity instrument (ELPI), the tool used here for data collection and analysis.

Literature review

Entrepreneurship and leadership education: emergence, expansion, and convergence

Entrepreneurship education has evolved from a niche spattering of courses offered within elite business schools in the 1970s to a robust academic movement consisting of formal undergraduate and graduate degrees and expansive cross-campus course offerings (Katz, 2003; Kuratko, 2005). Likewise, leadership education emerged in the 1970s as a nascent trend in academia and has since evolved into a well-established field that is diverse and fluid in terms of disciplinary positioning and delivery (Friesen, 2018; Riggio, 2013). Debates over the meaning and merits of entrepreneurship and leadership as standalone academic fields persist. Examples of common challenges to both fields include the dilution of scholarly identity due to disciplinary boundary spanning (Ramsgaard & Blenker, 2022), organizational marginalization as interdisciplinary fields rather than homogenous disciplines (Katz, 2008; Purcell & Smith, 2023), and ongoing debates over impacts on student learning and career development (Duval-Couetil, 2013; Lindsay et al., 2009; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Despite having many intersectional issues, the line of inquiry that converges the two fields is scant (Díaz et al., 2019; Mars, 2015). Accordingly, the current study intersects the two academic fields through an examination of how entrepreneurial leadership coursework affects the development of entrepreneurial mindsets.

Entrepreneurial leadership is a loosely defined concept in the academic literature. In the business literature, entrepreneurial leadership is considered a strategic approach to mobilizing organizational resources and guiding personnel in tasks that involve leveraging opportunities, creating value, and gaining competitive advantages (Gupta et al., 2004; Leith & Volery, 2017). Emphasis in the traditional business sense is on profit generation and wealth accumulation, whereas socially oriented entrepreneurial leaders aim to create and sustain social change and impact (Hossain & Asheq, 2020; Prabhu, 1999; Ruvio et al., 2010). In the entrepreneurship and leadership education spaces, entrepreneurial leadership is framed mostly as the ability to lead innovative activities and strategies through the mobilization of resources and empowerment of organizational actors and other key stakeholders (Mars & Torres, 2018). This view of entrepreneurial leadership directly aligns with our previously offered definition of the entrepreneurial mindset.

Entrepreneurial leadership: roles and competencies

Regardless of whether organizations are focused on profit generation, social change, or some combination thereof, entrepreneurial leaders engage others in collective efforts and strategies by modeling innovation via their activities and behaviors (Renko et al., 2015). Beyond serving as role models, effective entrepreneurial leaders articulate visions for change across all levels of their organizations and empower other organizational members and key stakeholders to themselves serve as innovators (Bagheri & Pihie, 2011). Entrepreneurial leadership is an increasingly vital input to the competitiveness and sustainability of organizations within uncertain, ever-changing, and often volatile markets and sectors (Bagheri et al., 2013; Hunter & Lean, 2014).

The number of entrepreneurial leadership courses and programs offered in colleges and universities has risen in response to workforce needs and societal demands for change agents (Bagheri & Pihie, 2013; Mars & Torres, 2018). While most courses and programs remain anchored in business curricula, a growing number are interdisciplinary in design and scope (Buller & Finkle, 2013; Mars, 2015). Nevertheless, the competencies that inform the objectives of entrepreneurial leadership courses and programs are relatively consistent, irrespective of disciplinary positioning. These competencies are heavily reflective of those held by entrepreneurs, including creativity, risk tolerance, opportunity recognition, and the capacity to mobilize and deploy resources (Kempster & Cope, 2010; Leitch & Volery, 2017). Other competencies commonly associated with entrepreneurial leadership include self-awareness, initiative, persistence, and perseverance, as well as flexibility, persuasive communication, emotional intelligence, and empathy (Bagheri et al., 2013; Kempster & Cope, 2010; Miller et al., 2012). Ideally, entrepreneurial leadership courses and programs are structured and delivered in ways that leave room for students to apply and internalize skills and knowledge in ways specific to their academic interests and career trajectories. In other words, students should be encouraged to exercise their agency by aligning their entrepreneurial learning and leadership development with their intended goals, passions, and visions of the future (Prabhu, 1999).

Conceptual framework

In this study, we frame the outcomes of interdisciplinary entrepreneurial leadership learning (IELL) in the context of entrepreneurial mindset development. The influence and outcomes of IELL extend beyond commonplace measures of student intentions to pursue or engage in start-up activities (Nabi et al., 2017). Indeed, the entrepreneurial mindset stretches beyond the dominant realm of new venture creation to account for student interests, intentions, and capacities to engage in innovation and change leadership, regardless of organizational setting or intended outcomes (e.g., profit generation, social change, community mobilization, and environmental betterment) (Karatas-Ozkan et al., 2023).

Scholars mainly assess the impact of IELL on student development through changes in attitudes and perceptions (i.e., identity development) and intentions to engage (or actual engagement) in start-up activities, whether profit-driven or socially oriented (Ahmed et al., 2020; Chang et al., 2022; Nabi et al., 2017; Pittaway & Edwards, 2012). More specifically, Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behavior is routinely used to assess student intentions to pursue start-up activities following the completion of entrepreneurship courses and programs (Lavelle, 2021; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015). This theory builds on the notion of reasoned action, which asserts that behaviors are driven mostly by attitudes and are thus expressions of free will or what psychologists refer to as volition (Connor & Armitage, 1998). Conversely, nonvolitional tasks are those that are beyond one’s innate abilities and thus challenge one’s sense of autonomy and control (Ajzen, 1991). The more control one perceives having over a nonvolitional behavior (i.e., planned behavior control—PBC), the more positive their attitude toward it becomes and the more likely they are to engage in it (Ajzen, 1991; Connor & Armitage, 1998). Actors work to gain greater control over nonvolitional behaviors by developing missing skills and acquiring new resources, which often involves further education and training (Fishbein & Stasson, 1990).

PBC and self-efficacy, a core element of human agency (Bandura, 1977), are similar, though not synonymous. PBC involves one’s assessment of how easy or difficult it will be to perform a task, whereas self-efficacy involves one’s confidence in their ability to successfully perform said task (Kim et al., 2020; Liñán & Chen, 2009). The easier one assesses a task following skill development and knowledge acquisition, the higher their self-efficacy and the more likely they are to pursue and succeed at the task (Connor & Armitage, 1998).

Entrepreneurship education researchers draw on PBC to predict and explain changes in student intentions to engage in entrepreneurial behaviors based on a convergence of internal determinants (e.g., attitude, beliefs, and values) and external inputs (e.g., academic discipline, professional field, and education/training) (Chang et al., 2022). Intentions do not inherently reflect one’s confidence and determination to act, as is the case with self-efficacy and human agency more generally (Bandura, 1982). Entrepreneurial agency, however, is expressed by actors actively engaging in innovation and pursuing entrepreneurial strategies in self-determined ways (Mars & Rhoades, 2012; Mars et al., 2008). Regardless of the key difference between the intent to act and actually acting, both entrepreneurial intentions and agency are most often examined specific to new venture creation rather than more holistic aims, such as using entrepreneurial strategies to lead innovation and change within communities, schools, government agencies, and public organizations.

To clarify, human agency theory explains the capacity of individual actors to make their own choices relevant to their specific aspirations and goals (Goller & Harteis, 2017). The autonomy to choose how to deploy knowledge and skills directly aligns with the understanding of entrepreneurial leadership as the application of entrepreneurial strategy to the empowerment of others and the subsequent advancement of innovation, regardless of context (e.g., business versus community development) and desired outcomes (e.g., profit generation versus social impact). IELL positions students to “pursue their interests and aims autonomously and in ways that are authentic… [fostering] awareness and capacity rather than capability and performance” (Mars & Hart, 2022, p. 309). Consistent with Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of agency and practice, students are empowered as entrepreneurial leaders and change agents through the accumulation of human capital (i.e., knowledge and skills) and the subsequent confidence to act on opportunities for innovation in self-determined ways (Yami et al., 2021). Entrepreneurial agency is thereby expressed through their confidence, willingness, and determination to take strategic action (Gimmon, 2014; Jones, 2019; Neck & Greene, 2011). Consistent with Ajzen and Madden’s (1986) coupling of PBC with human agency, we draw on these two closely aligned theoretical concepts to frame our examination of how IELL influences the entrepreneurial mindset development of students.

Methods

Using a non-equivalent control group design (Shadish et al., 2002), we investigated the influence of a project-driven entrepreneurial leadership course on the entrepreneurial mindset development of college students not affiliated with business and management programs. In a non-equivalent control group design, there are two groups: (1) an experimental or treatment group that receives the intervention and (2) a control group that does not. Unlike with true experimental designs where participants are randomly assigned to groups, in non-equivalent control group design participants are a group based on convenience (Shadish et al., 2002). Our central hypothesis is: “The project-driven entrepreneurial leadership course shapes the entrepreneurial mindset of undergraduate students irrespective of their disciplinary background and career intention.” To test the hypothesis, we utilized the Mars and Torres’s (2018) ELPI, which is an instrument comprised of 40 items distilled from pertinent academic sources that gauge students’ proclivities toward innovation and entrepreneurial leadership (and thereby their entrepreneurial mindsets).

Study participants comprised two distinct groups: a treatment group and a control group. The treatment group consisted of 275 students; all of whom had completed an entrepreneurial leadership course at UArizona College of Agriculture, Life, and Environmental Sciences (CALES) between 2017 and 2022. The course was consistently taught by the same instructor over ten separate course sections during these 5 years. Focusing on the same course over multiple years enhanced the reliability and validity of our data and led to a detailed perspective on the influence of an entrepreneurial leadership course on the entrepreneurial mindset development of non-business students.

The control group consisted of 113 3rd- or 4th-year undergraduate CALES students, none of whom were also included in treatment group. Control groups students had no recorded history of formal coursework in entrepreneurship or innovation. However, this group closely resembled the treatment group in terms of personal characteristics, such as age, gender, and scholastic parallels. The primary independent variable under study is the exposure to the entrepreneurial leadership course. The dependent variables relate to the ELPI composite scores, which capture elements of innovation and entrepreneurial strategy, ultimately reflecting the entrepreneurial mindset.

Course design

The entrepreneurial leadership course aimed to equip 3rd- and 4th-year undergraduates with the expertise to lead innovation and transformations across diverse communities and professional environments. Regularly taught through the Department of Agricultural Education, Technology and Innovation in CALES, the curriculum is project-driven. Students collaborated in small teams of three or four members to formulate and advance an entrepreneurial solution addressing a pre-chosen topical theme. The themes are selected by the instructor in advance of each course offering with the goal of enhancing the relevancy and applicability of the course to a wide range of student interests, career trajectories, and experiences, thus promoting interdisciplinarity and inclusiveness beyond conventional for profit entrepreneurship. Topical themes during the examined period spanned water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions, college campus food insecurity, community health and wellness, and borderland community and economic development.

Instructional delivery occurred through a collaborative learning design that involves new content being sequentially introduced first through formal lectures, then through interactive case studies, and finally through project application under instructor guidance and mentorship. The curriculum topics included identifying and analyzing problems and opportunities warranting entrepreneurial intervention, stakeholder and market research, innovation design and validation, business and operational model development, and entrepreneurial storytelling (oral and written). The entrepreneurial mindset competencies that informed the course objectives and were woven throughout the curriculum included creativity, critical thinking, data-informed decision-making, emotional intelligence, intercultural fluency, and strategic communication (Jackson et al., 2022; Mawson et al., 2023).

Instrumentation

The ELPI measures entrepreneurial leadership proclivity (and thereby entrepreneurial mindset) through the convergence of innovation and entrepreneurial strategy constructs (Mars & Torres, 2018). Innovation encompasses the development of novel products or processes to create and sustain economic, environmental, and/or social value (Hojnik & Ruzzier, 2016; Kahn, 2018; Phillips et al., 2015). The ELPI measures innovation according to the following five sub-constructs: adaptability, creativity, idea-driven, interdisciplinary ideas, and strategic intuition (Mars & Torres, 2018). Entrepreneurial strategy entails the implementation of innovation through the mobilization of resources, coordination of team activities, and execution of scaling strategies (Bagheri & Pihie, 2013; Mars & Torres, 2018; Shane, 2003). The ELPI measures entrepreneurial strategy according to the following five sub-constructs: collaboration, data-informed decision-making, resiliency, risk tolerance, and strategic storytelling (Mars & Torres, 2018).

The ELPI is composed of 40 items split evenly between the innovation and entrepreneurial strategy constructs and sub-constructs (Mars & Torres, 2018). The items serve as post-measures of entrepreneurial leadership proclivity and, thereby, the entrepreneurial mindset. Participants were asked to respond to each item using a 5-point anchored, summated Likert-type scale of 1 (never) to 5 (always). Following content and construct validity assessment (Ary et al., 2013), Mars and Torres (2018) ascertained the reliability estimates of these constructs, yielding acceptable Cronbach alpha values of 0.93 and 0.92 for innovation and entrepreneurial strategy, respectively. Importantly, the reliability estimates of the ELPI were determined with a cohort of college students studying leadership, which approximates the participants we examined in the current study.

Data collection and analysis

The ELPI data collection instrument was administered through Qualtrics, an online survey tool frequently used in fields such as social science research, business analytics, and educational evaluations (Baltar & Brunet, 2012). We collected data after the end of the course across 5 academic years (10 semesters) (n = 275). In the treatment group, nearly 100% of the participants completed the ELPI because it was tied to their final grades. For the control group, data were obtained from students in CALES at a single point in time (n = 113).

For the initial analysis, we used scatter plots to sort participants into leadership categories as labeled by Mars and Torres (2018). Innovation composite scores were plotted against entrepreneurial strategy composite scores. Accordingly, the lower left quadrant of the scatter plot is the “Manager” category (low innovation and low entrepreneurial strategy). The upper left quadrant of the scatter plot is the “Strategist” category (low innovation and high entrepreneurial strategy). The lower right quadrant of the scatter plot is the “Innovator” category (high innovation and low entrepreneurial strategy). The upper right quadrant of the scatter plot is the “Entrepreneurial Leader” category (high innovation and high entrepreneurial strategy). Quadrants were defined using the mean composite scores on each variable for the test participants.

Further, we determined central tendencies and variability measures for both innovation and entrepreneurial strategy composite scores and counted frequencies and percentages for the leadership categories. In the following calculations, we used Cohen’s d to evaluate the effect size of the entrepreneurial leadership coursework on the participants’ entrepreneurial mindset (Cohen, 1988; Cooper et al., 2009). The use of Cohen’s d provides valuable insight into the practical importance and magnitude of an observed difference.

Results

Our results show a positive trend in the development of the entrepreneurial mindsets of participants following the completion of the entrepreneurial leadership course (see Fig. 1a). Participants positioned in the “Entrepreneurial Leader” quadrant are understood to have the strongest entrepreneurial mindset as compared to those positioned in the remaining three quadrants (e.g., “Strategist,” “Innovator,” and “Manager”). By contrast, Fig. 1b illustrates a relatively dispersed pattern to the positioning of control group participants within the four ELPI quadrants. The difference in clustering between Fig. 1a, b visually demonstrates the influence of IELL on the entrepreneurial mindset development of students (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

a Treatment entrepreneurial mindset pattern. b Control group entrepreneurial mindset pattern

Full size image
Table 1 Entrepreneurial leadership course influence on students’ entrepreneurial mindsets
Full size table

We further assessed the influence of the course on the entrepreneurial mindsets of the treatment group students by calculating composite scores for innovation and entrepreneurial strategy. The control group had an average innovation score of 3.65 (SD = 0.46), while the treatment group’s average was 3.99 (SD = 0.43). Similarly, in terms of entrepreneurial strategy, the control group had an average score of 3.76 (SD = 0.45), which increased to 4.02 (SD = 0.42) for the treatment group after completing the course. These findings indicate that the course (and thereby IELL) had an overall positive influence on the entrepreneurial mindsets of students.

Data from Table 2 reveal a shift in leadership categories, with the treatment group showing a reduction in “Managers” and “Strategists,” a slight decrease in “Innovators,” and a remarkable increase in “Entrepreneurial Leaders” compared to the control group. Specifically, there are substantial differences in leadership category percentages between the control group (n = 113) and the treatment group (n = 275). When it comes to the “Manager” category, 39% of the control group falls into this classification compared to only 11% of the treatment group. This considerable variance implies that the entrepreneurial leadership course led to a meaningful reduction in individuals being categorized as traditional “Managers” within the treatment group. Secondly, there is a similar pattern in the “Strategist” category. While 20% of the control group is identified as “Strategists,” only 3% of the treatment group are positioned in this category, suggesting that the course has prompted a substantial shift away from a strategic leadership approach toward a more well-rounded entrepreneurial leadership approach within the treatment group.

Table 2 Control group and treatment group leadership category percentages
Full size table

In terms of “Innovators,” the control group has 13% falling into this category, whereas the treatment group has 10%. Although the difference is less pronounced, it still suggests that the treatment influenced a decrease in the number of individuals categorized as “Innovators.” However, the most notable contrast is found in the “Entrepreneurial Leader” category. While only 28% of the control group is classified as such, 76% of the treatment group exhibits characteristics of an “Entrepreneurial Leader.” This increase highlights the transformative influence of the course, leading to a vast majority of individuals in the treatment group embracing an entrepreneurial leadership style, thereby indicating that IELL had a positive influence on the entrepreneurial mindset development of students.

Discussion, conclusion, and recommendation

The global economy’s shift toward a knowledge-based framework places a strong emphasis on innovation, highlighting the importance of cultivating an entrepreneurial mindset. This mindset is no longer confined to starting new businesses; it now encompasses an individual’s inclination and ability to drive innovation and change in various settings, including social and public service. This broader understanding is crucial for interpreting the results of this study, which focused on measuring students’ entrepreneurial mindset after participating in an entrepreneurial leadership course.

The notable movement of students toward the “Entrepreneurial Leader” quadrant post-course is indicative of a strengthened entrepreneurial mindset. Students who did not participate in the course appeared scattered across various quadrants representing different leadership categories. In post-course, there is a conspicuous clustering within the “Entrepreneurial Leader” quadrant, indicating a strong inclination toward high innovation and strategic entrepreneurial thinking, which we translate as having an entrepreneurial mindset. Our findings evidence such a mindset can indeed be cultivated and shaped through IELL.

To foster an entrepreneurial mindset in students, irrespective of their academic field, colleges and universities should actively integrate entrepreneurial leadership courses with all disciplines, as opposed to more standard entrepreneurship courses that remain large business-oriented. Faculty curriculum committees should regularly review existing programs to identify opportunities for incorporating entrepreneurial leadership modules. This could mean adding a standalone course or integrating entrepreneurial principles with existing courses. In addition, program developers should facilitate cross-disciplinary workshops where professors from different departments can collaborate on how to weave entrepreneurial leadership principles into their lectures and assignments. Alternatively, curriculum planners can offer the entrepreneurial leadership course in various formats—as an elective, a required course, or even as a weekend workshop—to ensure that it is accessible to all students regardless of their major or academic load.

Moreover, the findings present a compelling argument for the effectiveness of IELL in fostering student entrepreneurial mindset development. This observation on its own is neither surprising nor provocative. However, the contribution becomes compelling when framed in the context of interdisciplinary entrepreneurship and leadership education. Debates over whether entrepreneurship and innovation can be taught to business students persist despite a range of evidence that consistently suggests curricular efficaciousness (Bhatia & Levina, 2020; Henry et al., 2005). Likewise, similar debates are had surrounding the “teachability” of leadership (Doh, 2003; Channing, 2020; Ives, 2011). If views of entrepreneurship and leadership being unteachable domains were to be substantiated, the goal of equipping non-business students with an entrepreneurial mindset and sense of agency over leading innovation and change regardless of field or profession would be especially audacious. Our evidence suggests otherwise.

The synergy of entrepreneurship, innovation, and leadership is supported in the leadership literature vis-a-vie not only entrepreneurial leadership itself but also more collaborative and integrative approaches and models (e.g., Ansell & Gash, 2012; Morse, 2010). Yet, the use of the entrepreneurial mindset as a synergistic concept for connecting entrepreneurship and leadership education has been largely overlooked. Here, we have helped address this gap by empirically illustrating the potential of ILEE to advance the entrepreneurial mindset development of students and, thereby, their agency to serve as change leaders regardless of their academic and career interests.

We recommend the operationalization of the entrepreneurial mindset as a curricular foundation for change leadership. Such operationalization requires the identification and articulation of core constructs of both entrepreneurship and innovation. Tables 3 and 4 contain a set of entrepreneurship and innovation sub-constructs and items that reflect Mars and Torres’s (2018) framing of entrepreneurial leadership proclivity and the interdisciplinary entrepreneurial leadership course we examined here. Together, these sub-constructs and items can guide educators in the creation and implementation of interdisciplinary entrepreneurial leadership curricula. Equally important, the sub-constructs and items form a framework for developing learning assessment tools specific to entrepreneurial mindset development, as opposed to new venture creation outcomes—the mainstay measures in entrepreneurship education. Rather than focusing on conventional business applications of entrepreneurship and innovation, core concepts and principles become indicators of student proclivities for change leadership. This curricular and assessment approach directly promotes (rather than loosely signals) interdisciplinarity, making the notion of entrepreneurial leadership more accessible and compelling to students who are pursuing programs of study across the disciplinary landscapes of colleges and universities.

Table 3 Innovation construct, sub-constructs, and items
Full size table
Table 4 Entrepreneurship construct, sub-constructs, and items
Full size table

Our empirical focus has been on the development of the entrepreneurial mindset via IELL. We have underscored the entrepreneurial mindset as an input to PBC (Ajzen, 1991; Connor & Armitage, 1998) and entrepreneurial agency (Gimmon, 2014; Jones, 2019; Neck & Greene, 2011). We note that our findings are exclusive to the learners included in our treatment sample and thus lack generalizability. Additionally, survey design prevents the uncovering of individuality and nuance across the sample. For example, we are unable to speak about the motives and entrepreneurial intentions of individual learners within our sample. Thus, qualitative research that explores learner perceptions and interpretations of their entrepreneurial mindsets relative to their specific interests and career intentions would likely generate further insights into how IELL curricula can be better aligned with the diverse interests and goals of interdisciplinary learners.

Further research that examines the expression of said control and agency post-IELL is equally warranted. In particular, how do interdisciplinary entrepreneurial leadership learners engage their entrepreneurial mindset through entrepreneurial action? We encourage research that approaches this question diversely through engagement activities and behaviors that extend beyond new venture creation. Entrepreneurial activities that are led within existing organizations of various types (e.g., educational settings, government agencies, and non-profit organizations) and in support of community-based initiatives and movements should be prioritized.

There is a myriad of wicked and diverse problems that confront the human condition. Indeed, the demand for those who are equipped to lead change permeates all sectors of society, all professional fields, and every level of organizational hierarchies. Calls for change leaders are persistently broadcasted in fields as diverse as community development (Apaliyah & Martin, 2013; Pigg, 2013), education (Hallinger, 2003; Harris & Jones, 2019), environmentalism (Nelson & Luetz, 2019; Novy et al., 2021), the fine arts and humanities (Condee, 2016; Durand & Henseler, 2023), government (van der Voet et al., 2016), and healthcare (Amis & Janz, 2020). This list is far from complete, and leadership educators across disciplines must themselves respond as change agents. Here, we have operationalized the entrepreneurial mindset as an IELL outcome and shown its efficaciousness in student leadership development. Doing so provides a holistic approach to the integration of entrepreneurship and innovation concepts and principles with curricular programs that aim to prepare students to be change agents, regardless of their academic interests and professional aspirations.