26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Importance and Presence of Change Leadership Characteristics in an emerging Technological University
Trevor McSharry
Atlantic Technological University, Ireland
Presenting Author: McSharry, Trevor
This paper is part of a Doctorate in Education at Maynooth University in Ireland. Focusing on an emerging technological university, the primary research question is “How do stakeholders experience and value change leadership?” The following sub research question with be the core of this paper: “What are the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics.”
In addition to dramatic disruptions because of Covid 19, major issues exist in Irish Higher Education, which include increased workload, reduced staff development opportunities and concerns over investment in information technology, which lead to inefficiencies (QQI 2016). Several key areas for development in Ireland’s Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) have been identified and include quality culture and systems, resources and leadership development and technology (Higher Education Authority 2017). In the context of most Institutes of Technology (ITs) having recently merged to become Technological Universities (TUs), change and leadership have never been so important.
While both the importance and presence of change leadership characteristics are important factors for change (Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017), a review of literature indicated that the topic of change leadership is not well defined and there is little consensus on the associated characteristics needed for leading change. This paper utilises a diverse selection of sources to compile a total of 25 characteristics deemed important for leading change. These embrace key findings from change management and change leadership fields of research as well as the Burke Litwin organisational change model (Burke and Litwin, 1992). These characteristics were created from a total of eight sources identified, which were analysed and mapped against each other. The eight sources are as follows: Higgs and Rowland (2000), Gilley (2005), Fullan (2020), Magsaysay and Hechanova (2017), Guerrero et al. (2018), Burke and Litwin (1992), Burnes (2020) and Kotter (2012). They can been grouped into themes of strategy, culture, relationships, capability, and tactics.
Strategy involves strategic thinking and allows a clear vision to be established that inspires individuals to change and is achieved through effective communication and consultation, while understanding that change can be complex (Fullan 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2009; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). The second theme is culture which relates to developing an inclusive, supportive, and democratic culture that encourages creativity and innovation, while being able to deal with conflict in a constructive way (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Fullan, 2020; Magsaysay and Hechanova 2017). Relationships is the next themes that focuses on developing and maintaining relationships with colleagues, building effective teams, rewarding staff, and celebrating milestones (Burnes, 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Kotter, 2012; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017). Another theme is capability associated with the overall capability of staff in terms of having adequate change management and leadership knowledge and abilities, resources, and training (Burnes et al. 2020; Fullan, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al. 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Kotter, 2012). The final theme is tactics associated with developing plans, removing barriers, implementing change gradually, and dealing effectively with organisational resistance to change (Burnes, 2020; Gilley, 2005; Guerrero et al., 2018; Higgs and Rowland, 2000; Magsaysay and Hechanova, 2017).
Complexity Theory was chosen as a suitable theoretical lens for this research. Mason (2008) outlines that complexity theory looks at complex systems as open systems, which survive through evolution and adaptation. He believes that organisations are complex, with many connected elements or agents, which facilitate the sharing of knowledge through formal bureaucratic structures and informal social networks.
It is hoped that this research will be timely and relevant to other researchers and HEIs across Europe undergoing significant change.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFrom a research design perspective, a mixed methods approach, using both qualitative and quantitative research methods was used in this study. A key feature of this mixed methods approach is its methodological pluralism, which frequently leads to superior results when compared to taking one method (Burke Johnson & Onwuegbuzie 2004). This pluralist approach, generally seen as a pragmatic philosophical paradigm, avails of the strengths of both methods and will help identify actionable, practical solutions for the stakeholders to consider.
The overall scope of this doctoral research consisted for four stages as follows:
Stage 1 involved a qualitative review using NVIVO of the TU application document to assess the initial common voice of the emerging TU and assess word frequency and emerging themes.
Stage 2 builds on this context and involved an online focus group with a representative sample of senior management (both academic and support staff) from each of the three merging organisations (18 participants). A pre-focus group survey was conducted to gather demographic data of participants and initial insights into change leadership themes as well as culture. The focus of this stage was on obtaining participant perceptions on change drivers, change and leadership as well as discuss culture for the emerging TU. Stage 2 focus groups were recorded and transcribed as well as coded and analysed using NVIVO.
Stage 3 involved an online survey (using JISC) for all staff in the three organisations. 371 participants successfully completed the survey resulting in confidence level of 95%. SPSS was utilised to analyse the quantitative data from the survey and the open question responses were coded in NVIVO also.
Stage 4 involved an interview with the new TU president to discuss the preliminary findings from the previous stages. Note a pre-interview survey was completed by the President similar to Stage 2, which included culture assessment. The qualitative data from this interview was transcribed and analysed using NVIVO as per Stage 2.
The primary source of data utilised to respond to this paper’s research question was from the Stage 3 staff survey. This survey captured respondents’ perceptions on the 25 change leadership characteristics. A 5- point Likert scale was used for the importance and presence of these characteristics. Findings from the other stages were used to support these findings.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsData from 371 respondents were compiled and analysed for 25 questions relating to change leadership characteristics. Findings have shown that the characteristics associated with strategy are the most important followed by culture, relationships, capability, and tactics. Overall, respondents believed consistently that the characteristics are in between ‘very important’ and ‘absolutely essential’ for change leaders to exhibit. While the emerging TU is being integrated from many levels from three previous Institutes of technology, it is no surprise that strategy and culture are the most important areas of concern to stakeholders at present.
However, findings for the presence of these characteristics were more varied and spread and participants were between ‘undecided’ and ‘agree’ for the presence of these characteristics within their organisation. This finding suggests that staff are unclear about the presence of these characteristics being exhibited by change leaders, which could suggest that respondents are not aware of leaders exhibiting them or that there are issues present, which are either restricting leaders from demonstrating these characteristics. Alternatively, all leaders may not possess them or be able to apply them. It could also be related to a lack of resources, which is negatively impacting the ability of staff to delegate, have time to train and effectively manage and lead staff.
Fostering a supportive change culture is important for change leaders as well as leading with strategy and tactics. Leaders also need to ensure they focus on developing relationships between staff as well as growing staff capabilities, to equip them for current and future changes.
It is hoped that this research has provided useful findings for researchers as well as HEI’s across Europe and that through ECER 2023, this research will act as a stimulus to carry out comparative cultural and contextual analysis internationally with other researchers to further develop this research area.
ReferencesBurke Johnson, R, Onwuegbuzie A, 2004. ‘Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come,’ Educational Researcher, vol.33, no. 7, pp. 14-26.
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A Causal Model of Organizational Performance and Change. Journal of management, 18(3), 523-545. doi:10.1177/014920639201800306
Burnes, B. (2020). The Origins of Lewin’s Three-Step Model of Change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(1), 32-59. doi:10.1177/0021886319892685
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (Second ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
Gilley, A. M. (2005). The manager as change leader. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers.
Guerrero, J. M., Teng-Calleja, M., & Hechanova, M. R. M. (2018). Implicit change leadership schemas, perceived effective change management, and teachers’ commitment to change in secondary schools in the Philippines. Asia Pacific Education Review, 19(3), 375-387. doi:10.1007/s12564-018-9545-6
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for change competence’. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 116-130. doi:10.1080/714042459
Higher Education Authority. 2017, Higher Education System Performance 2018-2020. Higher Education Authority. Available from: https://www.education.ie/en/Publications/Education-Reports/higher-education-system-performance-framework-2018-2020.pdf [Accessed on 27 Dec 2019]
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Magsaysay J.F., Hechanova M.R. (2017). Building an Implicit Change Leadership Theory. Leadership and Organisational Development Journey. Vol. 38 No. 6 pp 834-848.
Mason, M 2008, ‘Complexity theory and the philosophy of education’, Educational Philosophy & Theory, vol. 40(1), pp. 4-18, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x.
QQI, 2016, Quality in an era of diminishing resources, Irish higher education 2008-15,’ QQI. Available from: https://www.qqi.ie/Publications/Publications/Quality%20in%20an%20Era%20of%20Diminishing%20Resources%20Report%20(FINAL%20March%202016).pdf.
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Data-dashboards: Principals' Assistant or a New Mechanism of Accountability?
Marina Tsatrian1, Mariya Ozerova2
1Institute of Education HSE University; 2Institute of Education HSE University
Presenting Author: Tsatrian, Marina;
Ozerova, Mariya
The tendency of implementation of dashboards for management appeared initially in business. This trend was the consequence of companies’ need to ensure quality and effectiveness in a highly competitive environment which reduces time on data-analysis procedure (getting, preparing and visualizing data) and making fast decisions.
Today we can see that this trend has reached the educational field as well, where educational systems of many countries started developing and introducing dashboards/platforms to gather school data (USA, UK, Kazakhstan etc.). Nevertheless, the core goal set by the educational authorities for such platforms in the majority of cases was not the automation itself but it was seen as a means for fostering a system of high accountability.
We can see that educational authorities of various Russian regions are developing dashboards and introducing them in the educational system but the question arises: who are the main stakeholders of these dashboards? Are the existing platforms assistants, tools for leading a school or merely a new form of accountability?
In this article the authors are trying to address the following questions:
-
What is principal and his/her deputies’ perception of the dashboards?
-
What pros and cons do they see in it? Do they see the potential in it for data-based decision-making in leading the school?
-
What tasks do they address based on the data from dashboards?
Organizational context is one of the factors contributing to data-informed decision-making in schools (Dogan, E., & Demirbolat, 2021; Kallemeyn, 2014; Roegman, 2018; Smith, 2023;). In fact, educational authorities create systems for leveraging the data collection and analysis process in Russia but we can still observe the situation where it's not enough for principals, deputies and other school members. Therefore, the practice of developing surveys, and gathering additional information is common in schools of a Megapolis A. There is no unified platform which gathers all the information needed for school management.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe article is the continuation of the research carried out in Megapolis A to unpack data-informed decision-making practices of school leadership teams (Ozerova & Tsatrian, to be published). The study was carried out in one of the biggest megapolicies of Russia with a high accountability system.
We used mix-method approach to carry out the research:
Quantitative approach involved survey of 453 members of the school management team (134 principals and 271 deputies and others). Overall, 167 schools took part in the survey. The survey allowed us to get the perceptions and reflections of the school management team about the platform with instruments for school self- evaluation which would serve as a basis for the dashboard. It also allows us to see what data the school management team collects about students, parents, teachers and so on, which means/tools they use. The survey consisted of open-ended and closed questions.
qualitative approach involved semi-structured interviews with principals and their deputies in 8 schools. Interviews allowed us to unpack the leadership practices on the use of dashboards in leading schools, their perceptions of the impediments and pros of dashboards for data-based decision-making.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe study revealed that on the one hand school management teams see advantages in the existing as well as in the potential dashboard. Nevertheless, they see limitations in its usage for making decisions. In fact, the main limitation of the dashboard is that it was initially developed not basing on the leadership issues which the school management team addresses but basing on the demands of the educational authorities and as a tool which ensured communication and accountability in front of parents. What is more, the study allowed us to identify possible directions for the development of dashboards considering school management teams’ demands. The research brought to light the core obstacles school management teams’ face on the way of data-informed decision-making in schools.
ReferencesDogan, E., & Demirbolat, A. O. (2021). Data-Driven Decision-Making in Schools Scale: A Study of Validity and Reliability. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 13(1), 507-523.
Kallemeyn, L. M. (2014). School-level organizational routines for learning: Supporting data
use. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 529-548. doi:10.1108/jea-02-2013-0025.
Roegman, R., Perkins-Williams, R., Maeda, Y., & Greenan, K. A. (2018). Developing data leadership: Contextual influences on administrators’ data use. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(4), 348-374.
Schildkamp, K., Lai, M. K., & Earl, L. (Eds.). (2012). Data-based decision making in education: Challenges and opportunities.
Smith, S. T. (2023). The Role of Data-Driven Decision-Making in Organizational Transformation: A Case Study Analysis of Leadership and Organizational Actions (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University).
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
Between Burden and Benefit: School Leaders’ Actions in the Light of Dissolving Boundaries
Ulrike Krein
University of Kaiserslautern, Germany
Presenting Author: Krein, Ulrike
School leaders not only play an important role in the context of digitalization-related school development processes (Håkansson & Pettersson, 2019; Tulowitzki & Gerick, 2020), their own everyday life, tasks and actions are also affected by digitalization-related transformation processes (Krein, 2024). This includes requirements from various areas of school development (e.g. organizational development, teaching development, personnel development, cooperation development or technology development) (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2018), but also tasks such as school administration or cooperation with stakeholders in- and outside the school (Schiefner-Rohs, 2019). In the context of digitalization, overarching phenomena also come into focus when considering the actions of school leaders: These include phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries (e.g. between professional and private spheres of life), which are constitutive components of a profound mediatization through the technological differentiation of the media, their ubiquity and the increasing networking of people (Krotz, 2001; Hepp & Hasenbrink, 2017). For the work context, Dehmel et al. (2023) also point out that "due to the permanent availability of the internet, more and more work tasks can be carried out with current mobile devices without being tied to a fixed location - for example an office building - or to certain time constraints - such as core working hours from morning to afternoon" (p. 59; translation by the author). Looking at the school context, alongside the actions of teachers (Dehmel et al., 2023), the actions of school leaders are also characterized by phenomena of dissolving boundaries (Krein, 2024). At the same time, it can be assumed that the professionalization of school leaders will become increasingly relevant against the background of the challenges associated with the dissolution of boundaries - for example, dealing with remote working and thus less free time. Nevertheless, little attention has so far been paid to the dissolution of boundaries in everyday school leadership, both theoretically and empirically.
Based on this desideratum, insights are provided into the phenomena of dissolving boundaries within the actions of school leaders in the context of digitalization. The focus is on challenges for the actions of school leaders and implications for their professionalization. Since mediatization is not a national phenomenon, the contribution also aims to highlight implications for the international research community. Accordingly, the article is based on the following research questions:
- Which phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries can be identified in the actions of school leaders?
- What challenges are associated with these phenomena of the dissolution of boundaries for school leaders?
- What implications can be derived from this for the professionalization of school leaders as well as future research?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedTo answer these questions, the results of an empirical-qualitative study (Krein, 2024) are used, which was conducted in several phases using a multi-method approach:
First, explorative expert interviews (N=7) were conducted (Meuser & Nagel, 2009) to provide initial insights into the everyday work of school leaders and digitality-related transformation processes. This was followed by a comparative case study using shadowing in a second phase (Krein, 2024). Shadowing is an ethnographic approach, which central element is a participant observation and the recording of conversations, anecdotes and episodes. As part of the study, two school leaders from secondary schools in Germany were each accompanied in their daily work for three weeks. In addition to the participant observations, reflective interviews were conducted with the school leaders during the shadowing, which were recorded and then transcribed. The data obtained were analyzed and triangulated using qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2018) and phenomenological analysis (Brinkmann, 2015). The results of these analyses are now linked back to the existing international state of research on the (digitalization-related) dissolution of boundaries. By presenting the empirical results and contextualizing and discussing them in the light of existing research, a theoretically grounded, comprehensive insight into the individual challenges for the actions of school leaders is offered.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe results of the analyses show various challenges in the everyday life of school leaders that are directly related to digitalization-related phenomena towards the dissolution of boundaries. Thereby, the digital communication of school leaders has proven to be particularly relevant: The data indicate that there is a (perceived) obligation on the part of school leaders to communicate with those involved in the school; however, defined rules for digitally mediated communication, especially with actors outside the school, were not (yet) visible during the shadowing. As a result, school leaders also engage in professional communication on evenings and weekends. Thus, a dissolution of boundaries between work and private time was observed. Depending on the context and the direction of the dissolution of boundaries, it was perceived either as a burden or as a benefit. The tendency to dissolve boundaries, which was initiated by school leaders and thus to a certain extent carried out from the inside out, was not articulated as a burden. On the other hand, tendencies to push boundaries from the outside, such as required communication from external school stakeholders such as parents, were clearly identified as intrusive and stressful. This (perceived) obligation, the (anticipated) demanding attitude of school stakeholders, undefined communication rules and a lack of recovery phases ultimately result in an increased experience of stress. These results also link to various discourses and international research in the context of the dissolution of boundaries and offer a variety of implications for the professionalization of school leaders, which will be presented and discussed during the presentation at ECER 2024.
ReferencesBrinkmann, M. (2015). Phänomenologische Methodologie und Empirie in der Pädagogik: Ein systematischer Entwurf für die Rekonstruktion pädagogischer Erfahrungen. In M. Brinkmann, R. Kubac & S. S. Rödel (Hrsg.), Phänomenologische Erziehungswissenschaft. Pädagogische Erfahrung: Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven (S. 33–60). Springer VS.
Dehmel, L., Meister, D. M. & Gerhardts, L. (2023). „Die Entgrenzung Von Kommunikationskulturen in Lehrpersonenkollegien: Reflexion Einer Unbeabsichtigten Begleiterscheinung Der Arbeit Mit Tablets“. MedienPädagogik: Zeitschrift für Theorie Und Praxis Der Medienbildung, 53 (ENTGRENZUNGEN), 55-75. https://doi.org/10.21240/mpaed/53/2023.06.12.X
Eickelmann, B. & Gerick, J. (2018). Herausforderungen und Zielsetzungen im Kontext der Digitalisierung von Schule und Unterricht. Teil 2: Fünf Dimensionen der Schulentwicklung zur erfolgreichen Integration digitaler Medien. SchulVerwaltung Hessen/Rheinland-Pfalz, 23 (6), 184-188.
Håkansson Lindqvist, M. & Pettersson, F. (2019). Digitalization and school leadership: on the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJILT-11-2018-0126
Heffernan, A. & Selwyn, N. (2021). Mixed Messages: The enduring significance of email in school principals’ work. Aust. Educ. Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00486-0
Hepp, A. & Hasebrink, U. (2017). Kommunikative Figurationen. Ein konzeptioneller Rahmen zur Erforschung kommunikativer Konstruktionsprozesse in Zeiten tiefgreifender Mediatisierung. Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 62 (2), 330–47. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2017-2-330
Krein, U. (2024). Schulleitung und Digitalisierung. Bedingungen und Herausforderungen für das Handeln von Schulleitenden. transcript Verlag.
Krotz, F. (2001). Die Mediatisierung kommunikativen Handelns: der Wandel von Alltag und sozialen Beziehungen, Kultur und Gesellschaft durch die Medien. Westdeutscher Verlag.
Kuckartz, U. (2018). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (4. Aufl.). Weinheim; Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Meuser, M. & Nagel, U. (2009). Das Experteninterview – konzeptionelle Grundlagen und methodische Anlage. In S. Pickel, G. Pickel, H.-J. Lauth & D. Jahn (Hrsg.), Lehrbuch. Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft: Neue Entwicklungen und Anwendungen (1. Aufl., S. 465–480). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schiefner-Rohs, M. (2019). Schulleitung in der digital geprägten Gesellschaft. In H. Buchen & H.-G. Rolff (Hrsg.), Professionswissen Schulleitung (5., überarb. u. erw. Aufl.-), 1402–1419. Weinheim: Beltz.
Tulowitzki, P. & Gerick, J. (2020). Schulleitung in der digitalisierten Welt. Empirische Befunde zum Schulmanagement. DDS – Die Deutsche Schule, 112. Jahrgang, Heft 3, 324–337. https://doi.org/10.31244/dds.2020.03.08
26. Educational Leadership
Paper
The Open Innovation Mindset of School Leaders: The Key to Successful Digital Innovation in Schools?
Jasmin Witthöft, Marcus Pietsch
Leuphana University Lueneburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Witthöft, Jasmin
School leaders are central to strategically navigating schools' digitalisation. On the one hand, they are crucial actors in the design of internal school structures, processes, and the provision of digital technologies (Dexter, 2008). On the other hand, they are essential boundary spanners, who build bridges between actors outside and within the school (Benoliel & Schechter, 2017). However, to date, only a handful of studies have provided evidence-based practices for educational technology leaders on engaging stakeholders and building productive relationships when leading technological innovation and change in schools (Dexter & Richardson, 2020).
Significant conditions for implementing digital media and technology in schools unfold under transformational leadership (TL) and effective knowledge management (KM) (Afshari et al., 2010; Schmitz et al., 2023). Furthermore, digital transformation requires a shift in leaders mindsets (Kane, 2019). Especially, innovation development benefits from leaders with an Open Innovation Mindset (OIM OIM), a dynamic capability crucial for open innovation processes in organisations (Engelsberger et al., 2022; Henry Chesbrough & Marcel Bogers, 2013). Against this background our study was guided by the following research hypotheses to contribute to the field of school development and leadership with a special focus on successfully implementing digital innovation in schools:
H1: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM are crucial antecedents of transformational leadership.
H2: Transformational leadership positively impacts the implementation of digital innovations in schools.
H3: Transformational leadership positively impacts knowledge transfer practices in schools.
H4: Knowledge transfer practices positively impact the implementation of digital innovation in schools.
H5: Transformational leadership indirectly impacts the implementation of digital innovation in schools mediated by knowledge transfer practices.
H6: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM indirectly effect the implementation of digital innovation through transformational leadership and knowledge transfer practices in schools.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe context of this study is Germany, a nation comprising 16 federal states that are fully responsible for their individual school system. The database of our study is drawn from the third wave of the Leadership in German Schools (LineS) study (Aug.-Nov. 2021). Data was collected between August and November 2021 across Germany. The longitudinal study surveyed a random sample of school leader representative of Germany in each measurement wave (Pietsch et al., 2022). Thus, 411 school leaders were identified randomly, leading to a nationally representative sample for general schools in Germany. Of the questionnaires' 35-item blocks, we used a selection of items and scales based on the study's aim. The dependent variable of the model is digital innovation, measured in a multi-step procedure based on the items of the European Innovation Survey (CIS; (Behrens et al., 2017). The variable open innovation mindset (OIM) consists of four dynamic capabilities: openness, creativity, positive attitude toward knowledge sensing and seizing (KSS), and risk and failure tolerance (R&F), measured by one scale based on Engelsberger et al. (2022). Transformational leadership (TL), was measured by four items based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995), indicating idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. To measure knowledge management, we used six items of the scale knowledge transfer practices (KTP) based on Donate and Sánchez de Pablo (2015).
We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the hypothesized relationship between TL and digital innovation with respect to the expected mediating role of KTP and school leaders’ OIM as an antecedent of transformational leadership. Because we estimated an indirect path model, a model that includes mediator variables, we further tested the robustness of the mediation effects by applying a bootstrapped mediation analysis that provides 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals with 2,000 bootstrap replications (Hayes, 2018). Data analysis was performed in Mplus version 8.3 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017) using the diagonally weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV) to ensure the assumption of a normal latent distribution of the categorically and ordinally observed data (Li, 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsSchool leaders' OIM is an antecedent to their TL behavior as all three facets of the OIM positively impact TL (O&C-G: β = 0.369, SE = 0.098, p < 0.000; KSS: β = 0.204, SE = 0.091, p < 0.025; R&F: β = 0.301, SE = 0.119, p < 0.011). Furthermore, TL significantly affects KTP (β = 0.448, SE = 0.069, p < 0.000), and KTP positively impacts digital innovation (β = 0.209, SE = 0.070, p < 0.003). The analysis revealed a positively significant direct effect from TL on KTP (r=.448, p<0.001) and a positively significant direct effect from KTP on digital innovation (r=.209, p<0.001). Even though we could not find a direct relationship between TL and digital innovation (β = -0.076, SE = 0.070, p < 0.280), we found that TL significantly indirectly impacts digital innovation, mediated by KTP (β =0.103 [CI: 0.032 - 0.198]).
The study's findings contribute to educational leadership research and provide practical implications for designing systematic professionalisation of school leaders and the implementation of digital innovation in schools. Leading the development of digital innovation in schools requires school leaders with an OIM, who lead in a transformational way and establish an innovative and collaborative culture through knowledge transfer practices. However, implementing and developing successful digital innovation in schools relies predominantly on the mindsets of organisational stakeholders. Whereas school leaders are central in leading and facilitating school change processes, their mindsets are fundamental to digital innovation and should be addressed in professionalisation and training.
ReferencesAfshari, M, Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Afshari, M [Marjan], Fooi, F. S., & Samah, B. A. (2010). Computer Use by Secondary School Principals. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(3), 8-25
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). PsycTESTS Dataset.
Behrens, V., Berger, M., Hud, M., Hünermund, P., Iferd, Y., Peters, B., Rammer, C., & Schubert, T. (2017). Innovation activities of firms in Germany - Results of the German CIS 2012 and 2014: Background report on the surveys of the Mannheim Innovation Panel Conducted in the Years 2013 to 2016.
Benoliel, P. & Schechter, C. (2017). Promoting the school learning processes: principals as learning boundary spanners. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(7), 878–894.
Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in Schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20, pp. 543–554). Springer US.
Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17–36.
Donate, M. J., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370.
Engelsberger, A., Halvorsen, B., Cavanagh, J., & Bartram, T. (2022). Human resources management and open innovation: the role of open innovation mindset. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(1), 194–215.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2 ed.). Methodology in the social sciences: 2018: 1. The Guilford Press.
Chesbrough, H. & Bogers, M. (2013). Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation.
Kane, G. (2019). The Technology Fallacy. Research-Technology Management, 62(6), 44–49.
Li, C.‑H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2017). Mplus user's guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8ª ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Schmitz, M.‑L., Antonietti, C., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education, 204, 104880.
|
