Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CREATING A CLIMATE FOR INNOVATION IN EDUCATION:
REFRAMING STRUCTURE, CULTURE, AND LEADERSHIP PRACTICES

by

JoAnn C.W.N. Wong-Kam

________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2012

Copyright 2012 JoAnn C.W.N. Wong-Kam

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my daughters Leslie and Kristie, and my
husband, Eugene, who encouraged and supported me through the many long hours of
study to complete this project. I could not have accomplished this without your
patience and understanding.
It is also dedicated to my parents, Henry and Katherine Wong, my sisters,
Susan and Brenda, and my brother Kalani. You have always been there for me, and
for that I am most grateful.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Achieving my doctoral degree would not have been possible without the
support, influence, and guidance of many people.
Eugene Kam, my patient husband, and Leslie and Kristie, my wonderful
daughters, who encouraged me throughout the journey;
Dr. Lawrence Picus, my dissertation chair, for being my cheerleader, pushing
me to consider the hard questions, and guiding this dissertation to its completion;
Dr. Dominic Brewer and Dr. Melora Sundt, my committee members, for
providing me with thoughtful feedback that broadened the scope of my thinking;
Dr. Rich Seder, for giving so freely of his time and energy as I struggled to
make sense of the research, results, and findings. Our Starbucks conversations
always lead to new ideas and insights;
Dr. Kathryn Au, my long time friend, colleague, and mentor, for bringing
clarity to my work and nudging me forward when I was lost;
My fellow colleagues in the 2009 USC Hawaii Cohort, who inspired me with
their passion and commitment to improving education in the state of Hawaii;
The faculty and administration of Punahou School, whose focus on
innovation was the catalyst for this dissertation project. I am deeply grateful to be a
member of such a professional community.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
Chapter Three: Methodology 61
Chapter Four: Results 80
Chapter Five: Conclusion 111
References 123
Appendices 128
Appendix A: The Mission of Punahou School 128
Appendix B: Our Vision for Punahou School 129
Appendix C: School Organizational Chart 131
Appendix D: Summary of Responses by Climate Factor 132
Appendix E: Summary of the Responses on Innovation in Education 133
Appendix F: Summary of Structure Responses 135
Appendix G: Summary of Culture Responses 140
Appendix H: Summary of Leadership Responses 144

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Overview of the Four-Frame Model 10
Table 2.1: Types of Tasks and Teams 30
Table 2.2: Improvement Journey and Interventions 33
Table 2.3: Characteristics of Structures that Influence a Climate for 36
Innovation
Table 2.4: Reframing Leadership 39
Table 2.5: Leadership Practices that Help or Hinder Innovation 43
Table 2.6: Tasks of Change 54
Table 2.7: Changing Culture 56
Table 2.8: Creating a Climate for Innovation: Reframing Organizations 59
Table 3.1: Interview Questions Linked to Innovation at Punahou 72
Table 3.2: Interview Questions Linked to Organizational Structure 72
Table 3.3: Interview Questions Linked to Organizational Culture 73
Table 3.4: Interview Questions Linked to Leadership Practices 73
Table 5.1: Structure, Culture and Leadership Practices and the 117
Climate for Innovation
Table F.1: Summary of Structure Responses 136
Table G.1: Summary of Culture Responses 141
Table H.1: Summary of Leadership Responses 145

vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Organizational framework for a climate for innovation 11
Figure 2.1. Influences on the climate for innovation 24
Figure 2.2. Professional communities of practice 50
Figure 2.3. Model of Organizational Change in Cultural Context (OC
3
model) 53
Figure 3.1. Punahou School’s administrative structure 65
Figure 4.1. Percentage of responses by climate factor 83

vii
ABSTRACT
The focus of this study was on creating a climate for innovation in schools to
lead to improvements in student achievement. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame
model of organizational thinking was used as a framework for the study.
The study examined the influence of leadership practices, structure, and
school culture in the context of a K-12 private school in Honolulu, Hawaii, that is
seeking to advance itself as an innovative institution of twenty-first century teaching
and learning.
Qualitative methods were employed, centering on interviews of a purposeful
sampling of the faculty. Questions were designed to obtain participants’
perspectives on the features of organizational structure, organizational culture, and
the leadership practices that support or hinder the development of a climate for
innovation. Participants’ statements were coded by category, and content analyses
following the method of constant comparison were conducted.
Major findings from the study identified several challenges that schools may
face as they seek to become innovative institutions. One is the inconsistencies in the
definition of innovation between individuals and the organization. The size of the
institution would be a second challenge in bringing about innovative change. Third,
a school culture based upon traditional notions of success would hinder a climate of
innovation. A fourth challenge faces school leadership as they deal with structural
and cultural tensions. The fifth finding suggests that the three aspects of structure,

viii
culture, and leadership practices need to be aligned and coordinated to successfully
initiate and manage innovative change.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
From national defense to environmental defense, from national
security to economic security, every major issue of our day depends
on our capacity to educate our citizenry to a much higher level than
generations past. Every nation is only as good as its educational
system.
— Milton Chen (2010, p. 2)

Each year Newsweek magazine publishes its list of the best high schools in
America. Their rankings are determined by graduation rates, college matriculation
rates, Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken per graduate, Scholastic Aptitude Test
(SAT) and American College Testing (ACT) scores, as well as average
AP/International Baccalaureate (IB) scores and the number of AP courses offered per
student (Newsweek, 2011). These traditional measures were selected to reflect the
standards of a challenging and rigorous education. But Wagner (2008) asks if these
are the right measures of success for all teachers and children in the twenty-first
century. “Are they learning how to think critically, solve problems, work
collaboratively, take initiative, communicate effectively, access and analyze
information, be curious and imaginative?” (Wagner, 2008, p. 46). This question
should be asked of all schools, even our most prestigious and elite institutions.
In Hawaii, Punahou School is an example of a premier educational
institution. Founded in 1841 by New England Missionaries, Punahou is one of the
oldest independent schools in America. It is also one of the largest independent
schools, with an illustrious history of producing generations of island leaders in

2
government, science, business, the arts, law, education, religion, sports, and civic
affairs (Foster, 1999). This K-12 institution has a one hundred percent graduation
rate with students continuing their higher education at colleges and universities
throughout the United States (Punahou annual report, 2009-2010). In 2011 four
students were recognized as National Merit Scholars for their achievements, with
one student receiving the additional honor of being identified as a Presidential
scholar. Punahou is recognized as an elite institution due to the consistent
outstanding performance of their graduates on a number of established markers of
success.
But in light of the rapid social and economic changes taking place in the
world today, are even our best educational institutions, like Punahou, moving beyond
traditional definitions of success to address the broader demands of a complex global
society? According to Fullan (2007) we need “educated citizens who can learn
continuously, and who can work with diversity, locally and internationally” (p. 7).
Others, critical of education, assert that schools should innovate and rethink what
young people need to know to thrive in the twenty-first century, and how to best
educate them to achieve these results (Chen, 2010; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson,
2008; Wagner, 2008).
It is vital that schools equip our students to live and work in a global society
faced with increased competition, and the proliferation of new technologies (Chen,
2010; Christensen, Horn, & Johnson 2008; Friedman, 2008; Fullan, 2007; Friedman,
2007). These technological advances provide the tools and ability to connect,

3
compete, and collaborate anywhere and anytime, which levels the playing field in
world economics. In this “flattened world” (Friedman, 2007) ambitious countries,
like India, China, and Korea, are keen competitors for global knowledge work,
thereby threatening the United States’ position as a world leader in innovation.
The economic future of the U.S. is further endangered as its scientists and
engineers retire with fewer successors to continue their creative work (Friedman,
2007). Evidence from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2006)
indicates that U.S. universities are graduating fewer students with bachelor degrees
in science, math, and engineering as compared to countries like Japan and Korea.
Darling-Hammond (2010) predicts that if these trends continue America will have “7
million jobs in science and technology fields, ‘green’ industries, and other fields that
cannot be filled by U.S. workers who have been adequately educated for them” (p.
3).
Thus, improving the education system and raising student achievement is key
if we are to maintain our leading edge in today’s global society. In their McKinsey
and Company report, Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber (2010) state that school
systems which have advanced from great to excellent have done so because they
developed innovative teaching communities. Even Chen (2010) and Christensen et
al. (2008) cite disruptive innovation as the type of transformative change needed to
dramatically improve the trajectory in student achievement.
The aim of this study is to explore the influence of several factors that enable
educational institutions to make the innovative, dramatic change that will result in

4
large-scale improvements in student achievement. School change is a complex
process that entails managing multiple, interrelated elements—structure, culture, and
leadership practices—within the educational organization (Deal & Peterson, 2009;
Elmore, 2000; Evans, 1996; Fullan, 2007). A case study of Punahou Schools’ efforts
to develop a climate for teaching, learning and instructional innovations provides the
context for examining the influence of structure, culture, and leadership practices and
how these factors encourage or hinder the innovative efforts of the school.
Background of the Problem
There are two primary achievement gaps facing our country. The first is the
inequity between the quality of schooling provided to most middle-class students,
and the access to educational opportunities for the most poor and minority children
(Darling-Hammond, 2010; McKinsey & Company, 2009; Wagner, 2008). The
second is the global achievement gap, described as “the gap between what even our
best schools are teaching, and what all students need to succeed as learners, workers,
and citizens in today’s global economy” (Wagner, 2008, p. 8). Wagner (2008) makes
a case for teaching the “survival skills” of critical thinking and problem solving,
collaboration across networks and leading by influence, agility and adaptability,
initiative and entrepreneurialism, effective oral and written communication,
accessing and analyzing information, and curiosity and imagination. Many of these
same skills are supported by the Partnership for 21
st
Century Skills (P21), a national
organization that advocates for 21
st
century readiness. Building upon a solid mastery
of core subjects, they cite creativity and innovation, critical thinking and problem

5
solving, as well as communication and collaboration as important for all students
(“Framework for 21
st
Century Learning”, retrieved from http://www.p21.org).
While these skills are in themselves not new, they receive little attention as
schools focus on preparing students for high-stakes standardized tests (Darling-
Hammond, 2010; Wagner, 2008). To change the educational system, Wagner (2010)
proposes that school districts establish laboratory schools, where educators can
actively create the new models of teaching, learning, and school organization needed
to improve student achievement. These research and development laboratories on
school campuses would encourage educators to develop the qualities of
innovativeness that are vital for students (Wagner, 2010; Fullan, 2007).
One such effort is taking place in Honolulu, Hawaii, at Punahou School,
where its Institute for Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Innovation (ITLII)
envisions a laboratory school within its campus to connect researchers with
practitioners and contribute to “the national dialogue on best practices and quality
innovation in education” (Scott, 2011, p. 3). Scott’s vision is that an elite school like
Punahou, should extend its influence beyond its rock walls and “contribute to
meaningful conversations with other educators to improve teaching and learning
across the nation and globe” (Scott, 2011, p. 2). A school like Punahou, should use
its resources to engage its faculty in developing the innovative practices that “sustain
the intellectual vitality of their faculty” (Scott, 2011, p. 2). Scott (2011) sets forth the
challenge that Punahou needs to innovate in order to contribute to a purpose larger

6
than itself, a deeper and more connected conversation with other independent
schools about effective teaching, learning, and instructional innovation (p. 4).
Innovation
As schools endeavor to provide the education needed for survival in the 21
st

century, attention is focused on innovation. After the launching of Sputnik in 1957
and under the direction of President John Kennedy, the United States made a
commitment to educating young people to become scientists and engineers as a
matter of national defense. Major curriculum reforms and organizational innovations
were attempted but few were successful in creating lasting changes at the classroom
level (Wagner, 2007). In 2011 President Obama in his State of the Union address,
called for schools to show “us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality
and student achievement, we'll show you the money” (Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2011).
Innovation is a term that is often used to describe the creation or adoption of
new ideas (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). The Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) distinguishes between four types of innovation
and what it means to education (“Innovation,” n.d.):
• Product innovation: involves a good or service that is new or significantly
improved. In education examples of this would be a new curriculum, or
new educational software.

7
• Process innovation: involves a new or significantly improved production
or delivery method. In education this can be a new or significantly
improved pedagogy.
• Marketing innovation: involves a new marketing method. In education
this would be reflected in a new way of pricing an education service or a
new admission strategy.
• Organizational innovation: involves introducing a new organization
method. In education this can be a new way of organizing work between
teachers, in the administrative area, and changes in the relationships
between teachers and administrators.
Chen (2010) and Christensen, Horn and Johnson (2008) suggest that these
four types of innovative efforts are needed to modernize schools so that it is possible
for more students to graduate from high school and achieve success in higher
education or the workforce. Citing ineffective school systems that make it
challenging for teachers to teach and for students to learn, Chen (2010) and
Christensen et al. (2008) advocate for organizational innovations. They state that
current monolithic school structures support incremental change or “sustaining
innovation.” when it is actually the “disruptive innovation” that brings about radical
change or improvement in student learning.
Recognizing that all students learn differently, Christensen et al. (2008) call
for process and product innovations that create student centric schools. These are
settings where technology is integrated into programs, thereby increasing adult

8
attentiveness to students, while also customizing learning opportunities. Changing
“the way the world learns” will need to be accompanied by marketing innovations
that garner the support of philanthropies, foundations, and entrepreneurs, teacher
training colleges, graduate schools of education, and community members to fund
and support these innovative changes in schools (Christensen et al., 2008).
Fullan (2007) suggests developing the capacity of educational organizations
to engage in continuous improvement, and thus become innovative on a more
sustainable basis. Such organizational transformations efforts require simultaneous
individual and social change, which is difficult to accomplish. However, research of
innovative organizations from public, private, as well as non-profit sectors, identified
several factors that can lead to successful change. These factors include leadership
(Eyal & Kark, 2004; Jaskyte, 2004; Waldman & Bass, 1991), organizational culture
(Latta, 2009; Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008), organizational context (Elenkov &
Manev, 2005; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006) as well as the individual themselves
(Scott & Bruce, 1994).
Much like leadership, itself, the concept of innovativeness as a process of
organizational change can be described as a reframing effort, thus employing the
four-frame model of Bolman and Deal (2008).
Four-Frame Model
Bolman and Deal (2008) describe a four-frame model of organizational
thinking that consists of the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic
perspectives for managing and leading organizations (Table 1.1). By learning to

9
apply all four perspectives to various situations, leaders are better able to understand
what they are up against and move forward. The structural approach focuses on the
architecture of an organization, its units and subunits, rules and roles, goals and
policies. The human resource frame emphasizes understanding the people in the
organization, their strengths and weaknesses, reasons and emotions, desires and
fears. The political view sees the competition for scarce resources, competing
interests, and power struggles. The symbolic frame looks at issues of meaning and
faith, where ritual, ceremony, and culture are at the center of organizational life.
Today’s complex and uncertain environment requires that leaders look at an
issue from multiple points of view to find clarity and balance, while generating new
options, and strategies that can make a difference. Schools, as educational
organizations dealing with demands for improvements in student outcomes, teacher
quality, pedagogy, and curricular programs, can use multiframe thinking to find
innovative solutions.
School leaders have to consider the structural, human resource, political, and
symbolic factors that enable them to become innovative organizations and sustain the
innovativeness of their faculty over time:
• Structural aspects, such as the hierarchies and networks that stimulate
innovation;
• Symbolic features as manifested in the values, beliefs, and assumptions of
the culture of the school;

10
• Political influence of allocating limited resources, building coalitions to
gain support for innovation efforts;
• Human resource needs of individuals who want to find the work
meaningful in their lives.

Table 1.1
Overview of the Four-Frame Model
Frame

Structural
Human
resource Political Symbolic
Central
concepts
Rules, role, goals,
policies,
technology,
environment
Needs, skills,
relationships
Power, conflict,
competition,
organizational
politics
Culture, meaning,
metaphor, ritual,
ceremony,
stories, heroes
Source: Bolman & Deal, 2008

These four factors are interdependent and provide an underlying framework
for this study. As such, this study will incorporate these four frames into a three-
pronged organizational framework to explore the readiness of an organization to
create and sustain a climate of innovativeness, where individual innovative behavior
is encouraged and supported. Three components — organizational structure,
organizational culture, and leadership practices — will be the main focus of this
study. Figure 1.1 presents the four frames and their relationship to the three factors
of this study. Understanding the dynamics of how these factors bring about

11
successful innovation practices in organizations outside of education will be applied
to a case study of Punahou School in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Climate for Innovation
Organizational structure Organizational culture
Structural frame Political frame Human Resources
frame
Symbolic frame
Leadership Practices

Figure 1.1. Organizational framework for a climate for innovation
Adapated from Bolman & Deal, 2008

Organizational structure. Examining the structure of an organization and
adapting it to meet the challenges of change requires a review of the formal roles,
responsibilities among people to maximize performance (Bolman & Deal, 2008;
Senge, 2006). Two structural issues concern how to allocate work among the
individuals in the organization, and then how to coordinate these diverse efforts to
get things done. Leaders play a key role in determining the structure and how people
work together to accomplish the visions and goals of the organization. Whether
leaders function in hierarchical relationships or establish networking relationships
between team members, the challenge is to hold an organization together without
holding it back. The pressures of globalization, competition, technology, customer

12
expectations, and workforce dynamics have prompted organizations to rethink and
redesign organizational structures (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
In education, researchers have proposed the value of school structures that
support distributed leadership models (Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon,
& Yashkima, 2007; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001; Elmore, 2000),
professional networks (Elmore, 2007), and professional learning communities (Stoll,
Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006; Dufour, 2004) to improve school
productivity. Inherent in these structural designs is the desire to support teachers and
school leaders in working together on issues of instructional practice that are directly
relevant to their work, developing their understanding and skill around practices of
improvement (Elmore, 2007). With an emphasis on collaboration and continuous
improvement, these structural models also strive to build leadership capacity within
the school.
Organizational culture. By changing the relationships and responsibilities
among the members of the organization, the culture of the group is also influenced.
According to Denison (1996) culture is the “deep structure of organizations rooted in
the values, beliefs, and assumptions held by organizational members” (p. 654).
Senge (2006) also observes that no culture is static, it evolves in how members of an
organization live with one another day to day (p. 285).
Deal and Peterson (2009) state that school changes cannot succeed without
cultural support. Culture affects all aspects of school in that it fosters school
effectiveness and productivity; improves collegiality, collaboration, communication,

13
and problem-solving practices; promotes innovation and school improvement; builds
commitment and kindles motivation; amplifies the energy, and vitality of school,
staff, students, and community; and focuses attention on what is important and
valued. Fullan (2007) attributes the failure of past school change efforts to an
emphasis on restructuring rather than reculturating, where teachers come to question
and change their beliefs and habits.
According to Fullan (2007) most teachers do innovate, but often the
innovations they adopt are individualistic, on a small scale, and are unlikely to
spread to other teachers (p. 76). Cultivating a culture of innovativeness means
moving beyond the isolated classroom to the larger community. Identifying and
nurturing the behaviors that move individuals beyond initiation to broader phases of
implementation and institutionalization of innovative practice (Fullan, 2007) has the
potential for large-scale educational improvement.
Leadership. Kotter (1989) stated “only through leadership can one truly
develop and nurture culture that is adaptive to change” (p. 166). Leaders have shown
a strong influence on creativity in how they shape work environments and the
relationships with their followers, and thus the climate for innovation (Amabile,
1998; Jaskyte, 2004; Jung et al. 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Yet leadership is often
confused with management; the difference being that management is about planning,
organizing, and controlling, whereas leadership is a change-oriented process of
visioning, networking, and building relationships (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Kotter,
1988). The term transactional leadership is used to describe the practices that focus

14
on the management organization — what it takes to keep it running on a day-to-day
basis. Transactional leaders, dealing with structural frame issues, foster incremental
changes or sustaining innovations that result in improvements in ways of “doing
things better” (Bass, 1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Leithwood, 1992; Northouse,
2007; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Whereas, it is the transformational
aspects of leadership that bring about change in organizations.
To support and promote innovation, a transformational leadership style has
the capacity to motivate employees beyond expected levels of work performance and
bring about radical change (Eyal & Kark, 2004; Sarros et al., 2008). However, if
employees do not support a leader’s stance, divergent subcultures may arise in the
organization (Waldman & Yammarino, 1999), begging the question, does leadership
determine culture or is leadership impacted by the culture of the organization?
Understanding how transformational leadership behaviors move followers
beyond immediate self-interests using idealized influence, inspiration, intellectual
stimulation, and individualized consideration throughout the innovation process, is
important as we seek to cultivate future innovative leaders (Bass, 1999; Waldman &
Bass, 1991). Yet, the best leaders are both transformational and transactional (Bass,
1999; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). According to Judge and Piccolo (2004) transactional
leadership will use contingent reward practices to clarify expectations and establish
rewards for meeting these expectations. They also take corrective action by
monitoring follower behavior, anticipating problems and taking corrective action
before there are difficulties, thus using management by exception-active practices.

15
According to Mourshed et al. (2010) to sustain school improvement there
must be a continuity of the system’s leadership. Fostering development of the next
generation of leaders from within insures the perpetuation of purpose and vision.
However, Elmore (2000) cautions that school leaders are being asked to assume
responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume, and new structures for school
leadership, specifically distributed leadership models, are needed if we want to see
the large-scale improvement of instructional practice and performance.
While transformational leadership is key in developing a climate for
innovation, it is affected by the culture and structure of the organization. Thus,
leadership, culture and organizational structure are intertwined in the process of
innovation and change.
Statement of the Problem
Innovation is defined as the ability to implement newly designed services
and/products (Eyal & Kark, 2004). In education, the innovations called for are newly
designed teaching and learning practices to bring about the dramatic improvements
in student achievement and outcomes needed by today’s students. Akkermans,
Isaksen, and Isaksen (2008) assert that leaders must focus on the creation of a
climate for creativity and innovation in order to achieve the innovative outcomes
desired. By addressing the structure, or social architecture of how people work
together; the cultural issues surrounding shared beliefs, values, and assumptions; and
the transformational leadership practices needed to guide this change, such a climate
for innovation can be achieved.

16
In the industrial age, the traditional organizational structure of public
education followed a hierarchical model to management. Increased enrollments
forced schools to standardize education to meet the needs of the many children of
differing ages, ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic status, and abilities. As schools
grew and expanded the state system decentralized their efforts and districts
developed their own top-down structures. This bureaucratic system works to
maintain stability and support incremental improvement, but it does not support
innovation. Chapter Two reviews the research of organizational factors that support
innovation and it applications to education. In discussing school structure it is
necessary to understand the roles that culture and leadership play in the workings of
the organization.
Changing organizational climates can motivate people to change their
behavior to bring about successful change and improved outcomes (Akkermans et
al., 2008). Chapter Two reviews the literature on innovative behavior to identify its
characteristics, and how organizations encourage and support its development. The
findings suggest how schools can cultivate and support innovation among its leaders
and teachers, while developing a school’s capacity for continuous improvement and
institutionalization of innovation.
Purpose of the Study
This study will examine the factors that support a climate for innovation in
education. The variables to be explored are the organizational structure, the
organizational culture, and transformational leadership that encourage or hinder

17
innovation and innovative behavior. These multiple dimensions of school change —
structural frameworks, culture, and leadership practices — work together to
influence individual behavior. How schools develop and coordinate these factors
influences a school’s capacity for innovativeness or continuous improvement. This
leads to the following research questions:
• How does the organizational structure support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• How does the organizational culture support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• How do the leadership practices of the organization support or hinder the
development and sustainability of a climate for innovation?
The context for this study is Punahou School, a K-12 independent school in
Honolulu, Hawaii. By establishing an Institute for Teaching, Learning, and
Instructional Innovation (ITLII) on its campus, Punahou seeks to deepen faculty
collaboration and reflection, as it fosters and facilitates purposeful inquiry about
effective teaching (Scott, 2011). Being able to assess their current abilities toward
these ends and comparing these factors to the research on innovative organizations,
Punahou will have a better indication of their capabilities to move from vision to
practice. This study seeks to gather information that will identify to what extent
innovative behavior already exist at Punahou, and how can it be strengthened and
expanded to a school wide culture.

18
Importance of the Study
As schools work towards answering President Obama’s call for nationwide
innovation these findings can be used to suggest implications for shaping and
cultivating schools for the 21
st
century. School change is a complex and
multidimensional undertaking that requires the examination of structure, culture, and
leadership within educational organizations. Being able to assess the strength of
these factors in creating and sustaining a climate for innovation, one posed for
continuous learning and improvement, schools can direct energies and resources to
bring about successful change. The projected outcomes of innovative schools are
increased achievement for students, and improvement in the quality of the curricular
program, and the instructional expertise of teachers.
School administration and staff would benefit from a better understanding of
the complex factors that influence school change. Identifying the key elements
necessary for structural, cultural, and leadership behavioral change makes the
process transparent for administrators, as well as faculty. With the knowledge of
specific frameworks, models, and personal considerations, school teams would be
able to design specific plans for altering school structures, leadership models, and
individual development, as they first inventory the current capacity of their
organization for instructional innovation.
This study of Punahou as an educational organization seeking school wide
change serves as an example to other schools that are seeking to move its faculty and
students towards a future-oriented model of schooling. The challenges are many and

19
Punahou’s journey can serve as a starting point, identifying potential challenges, as
well as solutions.
Limitations
This research is based on a single case study of Punahou School, an elite
independent school with a select student body, which may limit the generalizability
of the findings to other educational institutions. The methodology is based on
qualitative research, gathering information from a purposeful sampling of the K-12
faculty. The method for collecting data was limited to a review of school documents,
and a single standardized open-ended interview conducted in the fall of the school
year.
As the researcher is a faculty member and mid-level administrator at the
school, her inside knowledge of the institution can provide added insights, while
potential bias may affect interpretation of responses. Participants may behave or
answer in some atypical fashion based on their familiarity or knowledge of the
interviewer.
Definition of Terms
The following are definitions frequently used in this study:
Climate: Recurring patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feelings that
characterize life in the organization (Akkermans et al., 2008).
Culture: the values, beliefs, history, traditions, etc., reflecting the deeper
foundations of the organization (Akkermans et al., 2008).

20
Disruptive innovation: the way to implement an innovation so that it will
transform an organization by using it to compete against the existing paradigm and
targeting those who are not being served (Christensen et al., 2008).
Innovation: the ability to implement newly designed services and/products
(Eyal & Kark, 2004).
Innovativeness: the capacities of an organization to engage in continuous
improvement (Fullan, 2007).
Leadership: exercise of high-level conceptual skills and decisiveness;
envisioning mission, developing strategy, inspiring people, and changing culture
(Evans, 1996).
School culture: complex webs of traditions and rituals built up over time as
teachers, students, parents, and administrators work together and deal with crises and
accomplishments (Schein, 1985; Deal & Peterson, 1990).
Sustaining innovation: purpose of these innovations is to sustain the
performance improvement trajectory in the established market (Christensen et al,
2008).
Structure: architecture of organization—the design of units, subunits, rules
and roles, goals and policies (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Transformational leadership: behaviors of leaders who motivate followers to
perform and identify with organizational goals and interests and who have the
capacity to motivate employees beyond expected levels of work performance
(Sarros, Cooper, & Santora, 2008).

21
Organization of the Study
Chapter One provided an overview of the study. Chapter Two is a review of
the literature focusing on the areas of structure and leadership of organizations, as
well as the research on innovation in education and issues of school culture and
teacher behavior. Chapter Three describes the design, methodology, and analysis for
this qualitative study. Chapter Four will report the findings from the interviews,
while Chapter Five will present a discussion the findings and its implications for
practice, and future research questions.

22
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Leaders seeking to meet the innovation challenge must do so in large
part by creating the work environment that supports creativity…
Leaders should focus on deliberately creating a climate for
innovation.
— Akkermans, Isaken, and Isaken (2008, p. 21)

Chen (2010) states that innovation happens when we “take the best elements
of what has been, integrate diverse sources of knowledge and talent, and create a
breakthrough that hasn’t been imagined before” (p. 25). Yet, even if individuals
have the capacity for innovation, they will only undertake these efforts if a climate
for innovation exists within the organization (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988).
According to Sarros, Cooper and Santora (2008) climate entails the degree of support
and encouragement an organization provides its employees to take initiative and
explore innovative approaches, which predicts the actual degree of innovation in the
organization (p. 146).
Looking more closely at what constitutes an organization’s climate for
innovation, Akkermans, Isaken and Isaken (2008) identify nine dimensions:
• Challenge/Involvement: the degree to which people are involved in daily
operations, long-term goals, and visions;
• Freedom: the degree of independence shown by the people in the
organization;
• Trust/Openness: the emotional safety in relationships;

23
• Idea-time: the amount of time people can, and do, use for elaborating new
ideas;
• Playfulness/Humor: the spontaneity and ease displayed within the
workplace;
• Conflict: the presence of personal and emotional tensions (a negative
dimension — in contrast to the debate dimension);
• Idea-support: the way new ideas are treated;
• Debate: the occurrences and disagreement between viewpoints, ideas,
experiences, and knowledge;
• Risk-taking: the tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity.
According to the research of Akkermans et al. (2008), if an organization was
successful in implementing new ideas, then the mean scores for the eight positive
dimensions were reported as being high, with a lower mean score for the negative
dimension of conflict. An analysis of their data concluded that a meaningful
relationship exists between organizational climate and innovation.
Many factors can influence organizational climate, such as the external
environment, culture, structure, size, and leadership behavior (Akkermans et al.,
2008). For this study, three factors — organizational structure, culture, and
leadership practices — are explored to understand how they affect the climate for
innovation in an educational institution (Figure 2.1, Influences on the Climate for
Innovation). Studies of organizations tend to present each of these factors as distinct
ideas and suggest that changing individual factors will change organizational

24
climate. Setting up new structures that define how people within the organization
work together can lead to changes in climate, but on its own, it will not lead to
innovation. Focusing on specific leadership practices has an effect on structure and
culture, but that is not enough to establish a climate for innovation. In this study we
suggest that all three factors — structure, culture, and leadership practices — are
inter-related ideas that function together to support organizational climate change,
which leads to innovation.

Figure 2.1. Influences on the climate for innovation

25
The importance of considering the interrelationship of structure, culture, and
leadership practices is its potential to produce large-scale improvement efforts in our
educational system. Elmore (2000) notes that we have been successful with
incremental changes in education, but it is the ability to take these efforts to larger
numbers of schools that is needed. Chen (2010) talks about “pockets of innovation
that are on the cutting edge of society, technology and culture” and the need for more
of these efforts to bring about major changes in schools. Christensen et al. (2008)
also identifies innovations that could dramatically “change the way the way the
world learns,” but notes that we lack the ability to take these promising innovations
and diffuse them on a grander scale. Incremental change, and slow response keeps
our education system out of sync with the rapidly changing global knowledge
economy of today.
The review of the literature explores how organizational structure,
organizational culture, and leadership practices support an organization’s ability to
undertake and sustain innovative behavior by creating a climate for innovation. An
organization’s structural framework defines the roles, responsibilities, and
relationships of the people within the organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The
quality of those relationships is strongly influenced by the organization’s culture and
leadership practices that persuade and inspire a shared purpose and vision for the
group. Identifying the key elements of structure, culture and leadership practices that
create a climate for creativity and innovation can inform school efforts in developing
the innovative capacities of teachers and administrators. In education, this innovative

26
behavior holds the promise of improving student outcomes on a large-scale basis
through innovations in curriculum (products), pedagogy (process), service
(marketing), and organization (structures for how teachers and administrators work).
The literature on organizational structure that supports a climate for
innovation suggests the need to move away from hierarchies, which reinforce
stability and predictability, and instead consider building teams for flexibility in
bringing about change (Chen, 2010; Christensen et al., 2008; Worley & Lawler,
2006). The research on leadership models that support innovation highlight the
transformational leadership practices, which have been effective in moving
innovative change forward in organizations (Evans, 1996; Hallinger, 2003; Jaskyte,
2004; Jung et al., 2003; Sarros et al., 2008). The third body of work summarizes
studies of organizational culture and school culture, and how it influences the climate
for innovation (Deal & Peterson, 2009; Elmore, 2004; Evans, 1996; Fullan, 2007;
Schien, 2010).
In conclusion, the major findings from the review of the literature of these
factors that affect a climate for innovation are then conceptualized as frames for
organizational change using Bolman and Deal’s Four Frame model (2008).
Managing the complexity of organizations requires that leaders view issues from
multiple perspectives of structure, human resources, political, and symbolic frames
in order to take the necessary actions toward improvement. Understanding what it
will take to create an innovative climate in education has important implications for

27
bringing about rapid, and large-scale improvement in learning for students, but
especially those who are currently underserved in our school system.
Organizational Structures That Support a Climate for Innovation
Bolman and Deal (2008) describe the structural frame as focusing on an
organization’s social architecture, which includes its goals, structure, technology,
specialized roles, coordination, and formal relationships. The organizational design
allocates responsibilities and then creates rules, policies, procedures, systems, and
hierarchies to coordinate the diverse activities into a unified effort. While
hierarchical structures are effective when organizations seek stability and
standardization, innovativeness and complex environments require a more flexible
and collaborative design with self-managing teams as possible structures for the
future (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
The difference in structure is illustrated by the example of BMW, the luxury
automaker, whose success comes from a combination of quality and rapid
innovation:
Just about everyone working for the Bavarian automaker—from the factory
floor to the design studios to the marketing department—is encouraged to
speak out. Ideas bubble up freely, and there is never a penalty for proposing a
new way of doing things, not matter how outlandish. (Bolman & Deal, 2008,
p. 51)

BMW’s success is contrasted with the rigid, bureaucratic structure of
American automakers, GM and Ford that are slow to respond to competition and
market trends.

28
Creating Teams and Network
In “built-to-change” organizations, hierarchical structures are flattened in
favor of cross-functional teams, which bring more employees closer in their working
relationships with customers, suppliers, and community (Worley & Lawler, 2006).
Networks among individual organizations, as well as within the organization, are
coordinated to take advantage of specific opportunities, much like how
screenwriters, camera crews, and other groups create a movie. Network structures
incorporate a shared leadership approach, where leaders from all levels of the
organization understand the environment and capabilities of the organization in order
to solve problems and make decisions quickly. Structures that are less hierarchical
and more flexible are able to spread their expertise over greater areas and effect more
change. These characteristics shape an organization for continuous improvement to
meet the demand for innovation in today’s environment of change and uncertainty.
Christensen et al. (2008), critical of the monolithic bureaucracy in our
schools, call for a change in the structure of our nation’s educational system.
Drawing from successful change efforts in the business sector, they also advocate for
flexible organizational structures, built around teams, to promote innovation and
creativity in education. According to Christensen et al. (2008), organizations
engaged in innovative efforts confront four types of tasks that are addressed by
different team structures. Three of the tasks and teams, and their relationship to
education, are described in Table 2.1. Functional and lightweight teams manage
sustaining innovations, or incremental changes, which are improvements or

29
adaptations within established theories, policies, or practices. Here the concern is
with “doing things better” (Christensen et al., 2008; Kirton, 1976). The more
innovative or disruptive change is carried out by heavyweight teams who work
outside of the system, and are less concerned with “doing things better” than with
“doing things differently” in terms of designing solutions or improvements that are
outside expected practices or procedures. These heavyweight teams are engaged in
what Christensen et al. (2008) calls disruptive innovation.
Christensen et al. (2008) illustrate the concept of disruptive innovation with
the example of the personal computer introduced by Apple. Originally this
technology was not seen as competition for the more expensive minicomputers
produced by the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) because of its low quality
and its seemingly use as a toy for children. But over time, the personal computer
improved in quality and was able to do the work that previously required mainframe
or minicomputer. Personal computers were more accessible and affordable, and took
the market away from DEC, which eventually collapsed. In the process, Apple
dramatically changed the computer industry spawning new opportunities and
directions.
Christensen et al. (2008) presents examples of educational innovations that
are a result of heavyweight teams working outside of traditional school systems.
They cite the efforts of charter schools such as, KIPP (Knowledge is Power
Program) Amistad, and North Star charter schools as well as the project-based
learning schools, such as the Metropolitan School (the Met) in Providence, Rhode

30
Island, that strive to do a better job educating students. At the Met high school
students are placed in real-world internships based on projects of their choice.
However, Christensen et al. (2008) argue that both KIPP and the Met schools are
sustaining innovations that define new schooling models, but do not address the
fundamental problems of learning (p. 214).

Table 2.1
Types of Tasks and Teams
Task Team Type Teams in Education
Improve individual steps in a
process; no interdependencies
with other groups so that
group can work
independently.
Functional or departmental
team: people with
specialized expertise.
Disciplines
Grade levels
Improvements affect another
group; components must fit
together.
Lightweight or
coordinative team: involves
representatives from each
functional group
coordinated by a manager.
Curricular projects
Schoolwide planning
initiatives
Architecture of a product or
process needs to change and
unpredictable
interdependencies rise.
Heavyweight teams:
involves representatives
from functional groups to
create something new
together.
Redesigning schools need
to take place outside of the
current school systems:
Charter schools, pilot
schools;
Institute student-centric
technologies to customize
learning for individual
students: Research &
Development laboratories.
Adapted from Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2008

31
“Disrupting what actually happens in the classroom by instituting student-
centric technologies is vital to customize learning for each individual student and to
improve motivation for all” (Christensen et al., 2008, p. 214). This redesigning of
school around student-centric technologies will lead to rethinking the way schools
are organized and how teachers are trained. They give the example of a charter
school, High Tech High in San Diego that is attempting to use technology as the
platform for the educational experience. Technology is also key component of the
New York City Department of Education’s School of One program. This prototype
for personalized classroom instruction customized to a student’s particular academic
needs, interests, and learning preference is currently implemented in three middle
schools and focuses on mathematics (http://www.schoolofone.org). However,
financial support for R&D laboratories, charter schools, as well as innovative pilot
schools, needs to be secured if these new architectures for education are to lead to
large-scale implementation.
Structures Develop and Change as School Systems Improve
Creating team structures can stimulate innovative ideas, but the findings of a
2010 McKinsey and Company research project identify other features of innovative
structures in education. Mourshed, Chijioke, and Barber (2010) in the McKinsey and
Company study, “How the world’s best schools keep improving,” note that
organizational structures in school systems vary depending on their stage of
improvement (Table 2.2). Schools seeking to improve poor performance are
provided with prescriptive teaching materials, technical skill building, external

32
coaches, and visitations by central leaders and administrators to reach goals for fair
achievement. The focus at this “poor to fair” stage is to reduce performance
variation, provide stability, and meet minimum quality standards, a function that
hierarchical structures accomplish. However, as schools continue to improve their
performance rising from “fair to good” and “good to great” levels, organizational
restructuring is needed to allow for school-based decision-making along with
increased opportunities for raising the caliber of teachers and principals through
training and coaching programs. As school performance continues to improve from
“great to excellent,” organizational structures decentralize pedagogical rights to
schools and teachers through the creation of school-based learning communities.
These school systems sponsor and identify innovative practices, which they then
share across schools.
Hence, Mourshed et al. (2010) make the case that innovation occurs as
schools achieve a high level of student performance, and improve the quality of
teachers and administrators by raising the bar for entering teachers, providing strong
preparation and professional development opportunities, along with support from
instructional coaches.

33
Table 2.2
Improvement Journey and Interventions
Improvement
Journey Poor to fair Fair to good Good to great Great to excellent
Theme Achieving the
basics of literacy
and numeracy
Getting the
foundations in
place
Shaping the
professional
Improving through
peers and
innovation
Interventions • Providing
motivation and
scaffolding for
low skill
teachers
• Getting all
schools to a
minimum
quality level
• Getting
students in
seats
• Data and
accountability
foundation
• Financial and
organizational
foundation
• Pedagogical
foundation
• Raising caliber
of entering
teachers and
principals
• Raising caliber
of existing
teachers and
principals
• School-based
decision-making
• Cultivating peer-
led learning for
teachers and
principals
• Creating
additional support
mechanisms for
professionals
• System-
sponsored
experimentation/
innovation across
schools
Source: Moursched et al. (2010)

Developing Structures for Continuous Improvement and Shared Leadership
Moursched et al. (2010) note that in excellent schools “teacher collaboration
becomes the driver of improvement because it leads to innovations in teaching and
learning” (p. 44). Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace and Thomas (2006) further
underscore that “to be successful in a changing and increasingly complex world…
whole school communities need to work and learn together to take charge of change,
finding the best ways to enhance young people’s learning” (p. 222). Professional
Learning Communities (PLCs) (Dufour, 2004), communities of practice (Wagner,

34
2006, 2008) and Professional networks for leaders (Elmore, 2007) are examples of
how teachers and administrators can work together to achieve their collective
purpose of learning for all students by creating structures to promote a collaborative
culture with a focus on results (Dufour, 2004).
As schools are redesigned as places where adults and young people learn, the
structures surrounding leadership practices are reconceptualized as a distributed
model rather than a hierarchy dependent on the skills of a single leader (Leithwood,
Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon, & Yashkina, 2007; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001; Elmore, 2000). Leadership cannot be the domain of one individual
or a small “senior” group because of the complex nature of work (Gronn, 2003).
Large-scale school improvements require concerted action among people with
different areas of expertise, rather than from the individual leader (Elmore, 2000). By
spreading out leadership responsibility among the community, schools are able to
insure leadership continuity, which sustains system improvement. By increasing the
opportunity for individuals to take on leadership roles, development programs that
emphasize effective leadership practices need to be provided to insure that individual
possess the skills and knowledge to be successful.
Summary
Several key ideas related to organizational structures that support a climate
for innovation are identified in the preceding literature. There is the trend of moving
away from hierarchical structures, which reinforce stability, towards teams and
shared leadership models that allow for greater flexibility and quicker processing and

35
response to change. Amabile (1998) points out that creating homogeneous teams,
where there may be high morale and less friction, does little to enhance creativity
because everyone has a similar mind-set. Instead organizations should bring together
teams with just the right level of diversity and supportiveness, difficult but powerful
as these people exchange ideas and are exposed to various problem-solving
approaches.
For schools starting the journey of performance improvement, a hierarchical
structure provides the support for establishing stability and standardization. The
centralized, hierarchical structure promotes incremental change of sustaining
innovation, as schools learn to “do things better.” As school systems raise the caliber
and expertise of its faculty and leaders, collaborative structures that encourage
teamwork and shared responsibility for school improvement are designed. This is
accompanied by the development of professional learning communities or networks
that support ongoing collaboration, inquiry, and problem solving to sustain
continuous improvement for teachers and leaders, which results in curricular,
pedagogical, service, or organizational innovations.
However, as Christensen et al. (2010) suggest disruptive change that leads to
greater productivity can only come as a result of teams working outside of the
system, where they have the freedom to “do things differently” from current
established policies, theories, and procedures.
In summary, the climate for innovation is supported by structures that
encourage teaming, shared responsibility for leadership, and professional

36
collaboration among the members of the organization. Programs to develop effective
leadership practices are needed as more members of the organization take on
leadership roles. Identifying the characteristics of effective leadership that influence
the development of a positive climate for innovation and creativity is discussed in the
next section.

Table 2.3
Characteristics of Structures that Influence a Climate for Innovation
Organizational Structures Educational Structures
Team structures allow for
flexibility:
• decrease in hierarchical
structures, flatten structure;
• create cross-functional
teams that can spread out
across a wider area;
• different types of teams for
different tasks.
School structures vary according to improvement
level:
• hierarchical structures ensure stability and
encourage sustaining innovations in schools
moving from poor to fair, fair to good;
• innovation occurs when faculty has the
professional knowledge to be able to collaborate
on instructional improvements.
Professional communities & networks:
• supports ongoing collaborative learning amongst
teachers and administrators;
• creates a climate for innovation.
Shared leadership:
• shared leadership of teams;
• sustains leadership capacity.
Shared/Distributed leadership:
• professional communities and networks are a
characteristic of distributed leadership;
• insures continuity of leadership and sustaining of
improvement efforts.

37
Leadership Practices That Support a Climate for Innovation
There has been much research on the relationship between leadership and
organizational climate (Akkermans et al., 2008; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006;
Elenkov & Manev, 2005; Jaskyte, 2004; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003; Sarros, Cooper,
& Santora, 2008; Scott & Bruce, 1994). Scott and Bruce (1994) found that leaders’
behavior predicted climate for innovation within organizations through the Leader
Member Exchange Theory (LMX). Jung, Chow, and Wu (2003) conducted a study
of transformational leadership and organizational innovation of Taiwanese
companies in the electronics/telecommunications industry. Their results produced
empirical evidence that transformational leadership stimulated creative behaviors
within an organizational climate that empowers employees. Through their support
for innovation, leaders encourage creativity and innovation.
According to Evans (1996) transformational leaders in education realize the
importance of strategic-systemic thinking that acknowledges the multiplicity and
complexity of organizational factors that impact its ability to change. Leading
innovation then means leaders need to have integrity, as well as a practical problem-
solving wisdom of education that enables them to make things happen. These
leaders, who are effective change agents, show clarity and focus, as they have a
predisposition for knowing what they want and pursuing it, as well as showing
strong convictions about how things out to be, concentrating on goals, and
exemplifying commitment These leaders also optimize collective involvement and
professional community.

38
In education, the term instructional leadership is much like that of
transactional leadership, as the school principal was given the responsibility for
coordinating, supervising, and developing curriculum and instruction in the school
(Hallinger, 2003). In the instructionally effective elementary school, the principal
was the instructional leader, and the structure was more of a hierarchy used to move
poor urban schools through change to improvement. This is reflective of the “poor to
fair” and “fair to good” schools in the Mourshed et al. (2010) studies, where strong
directive leadership was effective. Instructional leaders, as transactional leaders
focus on first-order changes where decisions are made that impact the quality of
curriculum and instruction delivered to students.
Transformational Leadership
On the other hand, transformational leadership practices focus on change and
nurture innovative practice and positive performance through individualized
consideration, intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and inspirational
leadership (Peterson, Walumbwa, Byron & Myrowitz, 2008; Sarros, Cooper, &
Santora, 2008; Jaskyte, 2004; Jung, Chow & Wu, 2003; Waldman & Bass, 1991).
These characteristics stimulate creative thinking and are evident in Bolman and
Deal’s four frame model as leadership viewed through human resource, political, and
symbolic perspectives in Table 2.4. The leadership practices of transformational
leaders influence both the culture and structure of organizations and therefore, the
overall climate for innovation.

39

Table 2.4
Reframing Leadership
Leadership is effective when
Frame Leader is Leadership process is Leadership practices
Structural Analyst,
architect
Analysis, design Transactional - managerial
Human
resource
Catalyst,
servant
Support,
empowerment
Transformational:
• building relationships, trust;
• individualized consideration;
• sensitivity to constituents
needs;
• empower others;
• intellectual stimulation;
• idealized influence;
• high performance expectations;
• role model.
Political Advocate,
negotiator
Advocacy, coalition
building
Transformational:
• networking;
• confront resistance;
• problems as opportunities.
Symbolic Prophet,
poet
Inspiration, meaning-
making
Transformational:
• articulate vision for future;
• inspirational leadership.
Adapted from Bolman and Deal, 2008

40
In their study of public organizations in the United States, Damanpour and
Schneider (2006) examined the environment and leadership that support the
adoptions of innovation. Their findings note that a leader’s attitude toward
innovation influences organizational outcomes by: 1) articulating a vision for the
future; 2) providing an appropriate role model; 3) fostering the acceptance of goals;
4) setting high performance expectations; 5) providing intellectual stimulation; and
6) providing individual support. These characteristics are elements of the
organizational culture and climate that influence an organization’s capacity for
change and innovation. Hallinger (2003) identifies these as the same practices
employed by transformational leaders in educational settings.
Damanpour and Schneider’s (2006) findings are further supported by the
work of Akkermans et al. (2008), where the Situational Outlook Questionnaire
(SOQ) was used with 140 subjects from 103 different companies representing 31
different industries in ten countries. Their research suggests that there is a
meaningful relationship between how individuals perceive their organizational
climate and how they observe their leader’s ability to support innovation. Thus,
leaders have a significant impact on the perceived organizational climate for
innovation.
A study by Jaskyte (2004) examined the link between leadership,
organizational culture, and innovation. In her study of nonprofit human service
organizations, Jaskyte sought to understand how managers shape and influence their
work environment to make it conducive to creativity and innovation. Their findings

41
indicate that transformational leadership practices—inspiring a shared vision,
enabling others to act, encouraging the heart, and modeling the way—supported
values of stability, teamwork, detail orientation and people orientation, which were
positively related to cultural consensus.
Elenkov and Manev (2005) added to the research about top management
(TM) leadership, innovation, and sociocultural context in their study of business
firms in twelve European countries. They state that TMs directly influence internal
changes in the organization as they set up the organizational structure, processes, and
culture that support innovation and take a leadership role in implementing
organizational innovation. As we will discuss in the next section, organizational
culture is another major factor that determines the climate for innovation.
In education, transformational leadership focuses on developing the
organization’s capacity to innovate (Hallinger, 2003). Terms such as shared
leadership, teacher leadership, and distributed leadership were popularized in the
1990s as schools sought to move away from top-down, inflexible, hierarchical
structures, towards more flexible, responsive, and context-specific models. However,
with transformational leadership teachers need a higher tolerance for ambiguity and
uncertainty from the principal, and an ability to live with the “messy process of
change” (Jackson, 2000) as leadership is shared among the school community. The
collaborative processes within a transformational leadership approach to school
improvement provides teachers with the opportunity to study, to learn about, to share
and to perform in leadership roles (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational leadership

42
creates a climate in where teachers engage in continuous learning and share their
learning with others in order to improve the school.
Leadership Practices Can Help or Hinder Innovation
Organization research supports the relationship between leadership and the
establishment of a climate or culture for innovation. The results of Akkermans et
al.’s (2008) research on leadership for innovation provides insight into the practices
that help or hinder leaders in their support of innovation in organizations as noted in
Table 2.5.
Implications of Akkermans et al.’s (2008) research on the climate for
innovation states:
Leaders should focus on deliberately creating a climate for innovation instead
of directly trying to influence their organization’s level of innovation. Since
leadership behavior has such a profound impact on the climate for creativity
and innovation, it is essential that leaders become aware of how to utilize
specific behaviors in a manner that achieves the desired innovative outcomes.

The research on the impact of leadership in the development of a climate for
innovation has identified specific practices or behaviors that foster creative
environments. There is an alignment between these practices in organizations and
the transformational practices in education where the climate for innovation is key in
school improvement efforts.

43
Table 2.5
Leadership Practices that Help or Hinder Innovation
Leaders help innovation by... Leaders hinder innovation by...
Controlling resource availability
Deliberately provide and insure resources
(financial, people, space and time)
Allowing the current workload pressure to
absorb all available time and resources
without considering the need for flexibility
and novelty
Arbitrarily assign limited resources
Delivering creativity and innovation training
Provide opportunities for learning about
creativity and innovation
Ignore the need for deliberate creativity
training and learning
Talk about innovation as a priority but
show a lack of understanding about
creativity and innovation
Fostering new ways of doing things
Encourage new thinking that leads to new
ways of doing things
Actively protect new ways of doing against
negative outside influences
Create opportunities where diversity of
people, knowledge and capabilities lead to
new and exciting results
Attract and value diversity (in people,
knowledge, capabilities)
Deliberately provide flexible structures to
implement the results of new thinking
Adjust deadlines and workload for novelty
to occur
Make effective judgment on when and how
to provide guidance and direction to
innovation project teams
Refuse to consider problems, new ideas,
and opportunities
Assigning resources without regard to new
and different ways of getting things done
Focus solely on short term opportunities
and business results
Focus solely on ideas that are in line with
business as usual
Apply the same evaluation metrics to
innovation as they do to business as usual

44
Table 2.5, continued
Leaders help innovation by... Leaders hinder innovation by...
Sharing information
Make sure new and relevant information is
available
Deliberately limit information flow
regarding new initiatives and projects
Approaching mistakes and failures
See failures and mistakes as learning
opportunities
Impose heavy restrictions and penalties on
those who want to take initiative
Including others in decision-making
Actively invite input in order to make
informed and better decisions
Help to identify barriers and stimulate new
thinking to circumvent them
Deliberately take action which shows trust
in people’s knowledge, expertise, and
experience
Force ideas on others without consulting
them in the decision-making process
Ignore requests and needs for feedback and
information
Focusing priorities
Set high expectations/ goals that maintain
high levels of engagement/ motivation
Focus on their own career advancement
Adapted from Akkermans et al. (2008)

45
Summary
The studies reviewed in this section support the notion that leadership can
contribute significantly to the development of strong organizational culture, thereby
contributing to a positive climate for organizational innovation and subsequent
innovative behavior (Sarros et al., 2008, p. 148). Transformational leadership rather
than transactional leadership practices focus on innovative change, by encouraging a
more flexible leadership structure involving shared leadership, teacher leadership, or
distributed leadership models. There are specific leadership practices that can help
rather than hinder the development of climates for innovation.
While the studies focus on research conducted in the business sector, they
hold the promise for seeking to make innovative changes in educational institutions.
But they also suggest that leadership and culture have a complex relationship that
affects a leader’s ability to influence innovation. Further discussion into the role and
influence of culture to enact change in organizations follows in the next section.
Organizational Culture That Supports a Climate for Innovation
Jaskyte (2004) states that leaders have a major impact on the formation of
organizational culture through their beliefs, values, and assumptions. The
development of a strong culture can have positive and negative impacts an
organization’s efforts to change. The work of Sarros et al. (2006) concurs with
Jaskyte’s (2004) findings in that a competitive, performance-oriented organizational
culture was strongly related to a climate conducive to organizational innovation.
However, Jaskyte (2004) also notes that a strong cultural consensus can center on

46
values that inhibit organizational innovativeness. The results of her study suggest
that in order for organizations to become more innovative, leadership practices have
to support values that foster innovativeness, such as innovation, aggressiveness,
outcome orientation, people orientation, and detail orientation. Jasktye’s study
(2004) reinforces the notion that strong culture can act as an impediment to
innovation as well as a supporter of innovativeness, depending on the leadership’s
ability to shift employee’s mindsets and perceptions to value the change initiative.
In education Fullan (2007) and Evans (1996) acknowledge that resistance is a
normal reaction to change, embedded in individual psychology and organizational
culture, which highlights the need for motivation and readiness in order to support
innovation. They argue that people need to find meaning in their life and work,
which suggests that in order for structural, technical, and other innovations to be
adopted and implemented successfully people must discover their own purpose or
rationale for the change.
According to Deal and Peterson (2009) while policymakers and education
reformers promote new structures and more assessments, these changes cannot
succeed without cultural support. It is culture that fosters school effectiveness and
productivity; improves collegiality, collaboration, communication, and problem-
solving practices; promotes innovation and school improvement; builds commitment
and kindles motivation; amplifies the energy and vitality of school staff, students,
and community; and focuses attention on what is important and valued (Deal &

47
Peterson, 2009). Understanding how culture impacts human behavior can explain
why schools struggle to reinvent themselves as innovative organizations.
Understanding Where Culture Comes From
Schien (2010) defines organizational culture as based on “shared learning
experiences that lead to shared, taken-for-granted basic assumptions held by
members of the group or organization” (p. 21). By understanding the dynamics of
culture one is better able to deal with the seemingly irrational and puzzling behavior
of groups and organizations, while also gaining a deeper perspective of one’s own
personality and character, and what it reflects about our societal beliefs and
assumptions. Thus, Schien (2010) states “culture is not only all around us but within
us as well” (p. 9).
According to Schien (2010), the way in which culture can and does change
depends on the stage of development of the organization — early growth, midlife, or
maturity. In the founding or early growth stage of organization life, culture evolves
through the actions and beliefs of the founder. There is an intolerance of ambiguity
and dissent, which often results in the development of a more homogeneous culture.
The emphasis in this early stage is on differentiating the organization from others, so
it makes its culture explicit to develop an identity.
An example of a founder, whose strong vision directed the culture and
success of their organization is Steve Jobs, one of the founders of Apple. Jobs
wanted the company to create products for children in the education market that
would be fun and easy to use. As Apple sought to become more market-oriented,

48
Jobs was fired. Though Jobs founded another company, he eventually returned to
Apple as the company sought to return to their roots of creating products that were
fun and easy-to-use, such as the iPhone, iPod for music, and iChat for
videoconferencing. Jobs created a strong culture in his organization that lead to the
innovativeness of Apple.
In the midlife stage the focus of organizational cultural change is on
managing succession. The founders or founding family relinquishes control, and an
opportunity to change culture and direction is possible. During this transition period
important elements of culture are difficult to identify because they have become
embedded in the structure and routines of the organization. This is a period of growth
for the organization as diverse subcultures develop based around different levels,
functions, products, or markets. As leaders learn to mesh these different subcultures,
the organization increases its adaptive capacity for future growth.
However, as organizations reach the maturity stage their continued success
make culture change more difficult. If an organization has had a long history of
success based on certain assumptions about itself and the environment, it is unlikely
to want to challenge or change those assumptions. As an organization matures, it also
develops a positive ideology and a set of myths about how it operates, which means
it builds up reputations that are out of line with reality. The espoused values of an
organization can differ much from its practices, so that it could leads to the decline
of the organization. An example of these incongruities occurred in 2009 where

49
financial companies and auto companies thought they could survive the
consequences of the housing bubble bursting (Schien, 2010).
Schien’s depiction of the life of an organization is similar to Evan’s (1996)
view of schools. Most schools are in the maturity stage, where culture is deeply
embedded in routines. “Traditional patterns of doing things have become so
ingrained that they seem to have a momentum of their own” (Evans, 1996, p. 46). If
the institution has been successful, they will not question or reexamine their
practices, thus revealing a culture that strongly inhibits innovation. But Evans
(1996) also notes that even when teachers dislike their schools, they do not welcome
change, but instead cling to the safety and stability of what they know.
Fullan (2007) asserts that teacher isolation contributes to the lack of change
implementation. Thus he makes the point that “significant educational change
consists of change in beliefs, teaching style, and materials, which can come about
only through a process of personal development in a social context” (p. 139). Elmore
(2004) supports this point by noting, “there are almost no opportunities for teachers
to engage in continuous and sustained learning about their practice in the settings in
which they actually work” (p. 73).
In their research of high school classroom settings, McLaughlin and Talbert
(2001) found that weak professional communities may stunt individual progress,
while strong teacher communities can be effective depending on whether teachers
collaborate to improve learning or reinforce each other’s ineffective practices (Figure
2.2). This relates back to what has been noted in organizational research that culture,

50
in this case the culture of professional communities, can either help or hinder
organizational improvement.
Fullan (2007) reaffirms what others have stated about culture change stating
that “in addition to attracting and training better teachers, we must change the very
cultures within which they work… this has proven to be an intractable problem to do
on any scale” (p. 153).

Figure 2.2. Professional communities of practice
Source: McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001

51
How Leaders Respond to Culture
Kotter (1989) states that “only through leadership can one truly develop and
nurture culture that is adaptive to change.” Kotter (2008) also concurs with Schien
(2010) by noting that organizations have the tendency to want to stay in a
comfortable equilibrium, which forces them towards complacency. But when faced
with problems the group may well experience anxiety and anger. He then argues that
organizations need to develop “change-friendly cultures” to sustain continuous
change by following an eight step process of successful change:
• Create a sense of urgency: help others to see the need for change and the
importance of acting immediately.
• Pull together a guiding team: make sure there is a powerful group guiding
the change.
• Develop the change vision and strategy: clarify how the future will be
different from the past, and how you can make the future a reality.
• Communicate for understanding and buy-in: make sure as many other as
possible understand and accept the vision and the strategy.
• Empower others to act: remove as many barriers as possible so that those
who want to make the vision a reality can do so.
• Produce short-term wins: create some visible, unambiguous successes as
soon as possible.
• Don’t let up: press harder and faster after the first successes. Be relentless
with initiating change after change until the vision is a reality.

52
• Create a new culture: hold on to the new ways of behaving, and make
sure they succeed, until they become strong enough to replace old
traditions.
This new culture constantly reinforces the behaviors of being alert, of being
curious, of doing it now, and of leading no matter where you are in the organization.
Kotter’s (2008) call for change-friendly cultures reinforces the theme that “if you
don’t learn to change, you die” (p. 38).
Another perspective of how leaders can bring about cultural change stems
from the work of Latta (2009) who studied the interaction between organizational
culture and change, specifically how a leader’s knowledge of organizational culture
affects the process of implementing change. She collected ethnographic data from a
four-month residency at a public research university and created the model of
Organizational Change in Cultural Context (OC
3
Model) to illustrate the utility of
cultural knowledge for informing the process of implementing organizational
change.
As a tool for leaders to support innovative change, the OC
3
model describes
how leaders can accommodate organizational culture at each of the eight stages of
change implementation. The OC
3
Model also takes into account variation among
subcultures; illuminating when alternative strategies are needed to effect change in
different parts of an organization. As leaders are able to understand underlying
cultural commitments that result in resistance to change, they are able to facilitate a
process for resolving the conflict.

53

Figure 2.3. Model of Organizational Change in Cultural Context (OC
3
model)
Source: Latta, 2009

According to Bolman and Deal (2008) as organizations change to adapt to the
demands of a complex and increasingly technological and diverse world, individuals
or groups often grieve the loss of the old ways, and are unable to move forward (p.
391). Organizations manage those tensions and feelings of uncertainty and
confusion, leading culture shifts by reframing the situation through the use of the
symbolic frame. Symbols take many forms in organizations: myth, vision, and value
set forth purpose, cohesiveness, and clarity; heroes and heroines, through their words
and deeds, serve as role models to admire and emulate; stories carry values and are
powerful forms of communication; rituals and ceremony offer ways for celebrating

54
success and facing failures; metaphor, humor and play capture complicated themes
into understandable images, encourages experimentation, flexibility, and creativity.
Leaders who understand the significance of the symbols of an organization can use
them to create cohesive and effective cultures within the organization.

Table 2.6
Tasks of Change
Task Goal Key factors
Unfreezing • Increase the fear of not trying.
• Reduce the fear of trying.
• Disconfirmation.
• Appropriate anxiety and guilt.
• Psychological safety.
Moving from loss
to commitment
• Make change meaningful. • Continuity.
• Time.
• Personal contact.
Moving from old
competence to new
competence
• Develop new behaviors
(skills), beliefs, and ways of
thinking.
• Training that is coherent,
continuous, and personal.
Moving from
confusion to
coherence
• Realign structures, functions,
and roles.
• Clarity regarding
responsibility, authority, and
decision making.
Moving from
conflict to
consensus
• Generate broad support for
change.
• A critical mass.
• Pressure.
• Positive use of power.
Source: Evans, 1997

To change culture in schools, Evans (1996) outlines the tasks that bring about
school change, which mirrors Schein’s (2010) work on changing organizational
culture. People have the natural tendency to hold onto what their current skills are,

55
afraid to try new ones especially when the changes are large and complex. So, the
first task is to free them from these fears, then new skills and knowledge can be
learned. As new competencies are developed, culture can change.
Deal and Peterson (2009) assert that our efforts at educational improvement
will not guarantee good schools for all students until school culture changes:
Reforms that focus only on changing structures or increasing school
accountability will never succeed without being embedded in supportive,
spirit-filled cultures. Schools won’t become what student deserve until
cultural patterns and ways are shaped to support learning. (Deal & Peterson,
2009, p. 248)

Summary
Culture and climate are closely linked, but while it is very difficult to change
culture because of deeply embedded values, it is easier to change the climate
(Akkermans et al., 2008).
The difference between culture and climate is that culture reflects what an
organization’s values, and climate is defined as what organization members
experience through recurring patterns of behavior, attitudes, and feelings that
characterize life in the organization (Akkermans et al., 2008). Strong organizational
culture can support innovation as well as impede it, depending on the values
expressed by the leaders of the organization.
Studies of organizational change have identified how an awareness of
organizational culture can mediate change (Latta, 2009). Other studies describe the
process of culture change where strong leadership creates a climate for innovation by

56
providing the necessity and motivation for change. Once the vision and structure for
change are developed, individuals need to find a meaningful purpose for change.
With these goals in mind organizations provide opportunities for individuals to learn
new skills or knowledge that empowers them with new competencies. As the group
members find success new cultures are developed. Table 2.7 summarizes the various
approaches to changing culture suggested in the research.

Table 2.7
Changing Culture
Kotter (2008) Schien (2010) Evans (1996)
1. Create a sense of
urgency.
2. Pull together the
guiding team.
3. Develop the change
vision and strategy.
4. Commmunicate for
understanding and buy-
in.
5. Empower others to act.
6. Produce short-term
wins.
7. Don’t let up.
8. Create a new culture.
1. Unfreezing: creating the
motivation to change.
2. Learning new concepts.
3. Internalizing new
concepts, meanings,
and standards.
1. Unfreeze by reducing
fear of trying.
2. Move from loss to
commitment by making
change meaningful.
3. Move from old
competence to new
competence.
4. Move from confusion to
coherence when
structures and roles are
realigned.
5. Move from conflict to
consensus where leaders
are able to generate
support for change.

57
Conclusion
Change, reform, and innovation require moving in new directions. Changes
that are merely surface-level modifications are considered sustaining innovations
(Christensen et al., 2008), as it sustains current patterns with minor adjustments.
More impactful changes, or disruptive innovations (Christensen et al., 2008), reflect
the implementation of new structures, new leadership, or the introduction of new
cultures, which move the organization in new directions. It is the interrelationship of
structure, culture and leadership factors that create a climate for innovative change in
organizations and in education.
The research studies of organizational structures for innovation suggest that
organizations with a low degree of formal structure are more innovative than more
formally structured organizations. Formal structures, such as hierarchies, are
segmented, often resulting in “silos” where communication between groups is
limited. In these centralized structures, small or incremental innovations are more
likely. However, networks or team-structured organizations are frequently found in
highly innovative organizations. But Mourshed et al. (2010) also suggest that the
appropriate level of structure is dependent on the stage of improvement of the
organization. As organizations struggle to gain stability and produce consistent
results, the more formal, centralized structures are valued. For organizations with a
strong vision and professional communities, shared or distributed leadership models
form the structural foundation.

58
The research of leadership practices note that the qualities of transformational
leadership support innovation. Key factors of transformational leadership include:
(1) articulating a vision for the future, (2) providing an appropriate role model, (3)
fostering an acceptance of goals, (4) setting high performance expectations, (5)
providing individual support, and (6) providing intellectual stimulation (Sarros et al.
2008). These factors are seen through leadership practices where leaders inspire a
shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and encourage the heart. Through
transformational leadership, organizations can build strong organizational culture
that contributes to a climate for innovation and influence innovative behavior
(Elenkov & Manev, 2005; Jun et al., 2003).
Research has also indicated that leadership behavior is a major determinant of
culture of an organization. When leaders understand group norms, they are able to
change them to foster creativity and innovation. A leader’s degree of cultural
awareness will determine the effectiveness of their ability to facilitate organizational
change (Latta, 2009). To bring about cultural change in an organization, leaders will
often generate commitment to innovation by stressing core values and promoting
group loyalty. They will also set a tone and atmosphere for innovation through the
use of organizational symbols, logs, slogans, and other cultural expressions.
Motivating individuals to pursue organizational goals and encouraging the need and
urgency for change also stimulates cultural change.
The knowledge that has been gained from innovative organizations can serve
to support changes in educational organizations, where rigid structures, hierarchical

59
leadership, and change resistance cultures have challenged large-scale improvement
efforts. By applying the key aspects of structure, culture, and leadership practices to
schools, large-scale improvement can be encouraged and the faculty can be
empowered to sustain continuous improvement that will contribute to the academic
achievement of all students. As Mourshed et al. (2010) in their McKinsey report
demonstrate, innovation is the vision for all schools as they continue in their journey
to improve.

Table 2.8
Creating a Climate for Innovation: Reframing Organizations
Culture
Structural Frame Political Frame
Human Resources
Frame Symbolic Frame
Leadership of
teams.
Leadership is
distributed.
Leadership cares
for the individual.
Leadership provides
inspiration.
Move from rigid
hierarchical
structures to
more flexible
team structures.
Move toward
distributed
leadership models;
Providing
resources and
support for change.
Enable
individuals to find
meaning in
proposed
changes.
Developing a vision
for the change and
bringing in diverse
subcultures together
around common
goals, language;
group loyalty.

60
The Climate for Innovation at Punahou School
The research establishes that relationships between the structure, culture, and
leadership practices create a climate for innovation in organizations. This study seeks
to understand these relationships at Punahou School, a K-12 independent school in
Honolulu, Hawaii that has set a new vision where teaching, learning and
instructional innovation is a schoolwide goal. The questions to be explored in this
research project focus on these factors:
• How does the organizational structure support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• How does the organizational culture support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• How do the leadership practices of the organization support or hinder the
development and sustainability of a climate for innovation?
Punahou faculty members will be interviewed to collect information about
the climate for this curricular and instructional change, in order to understand how
structural, cultural, and leadership factors encourage or impede the success of the
innovation initiative.

61
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow us to enter into the
other person’s perspective. Qualitative interviewing begins with the
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable,
and able to be made explicit. We interview to find out what is in and
on someone else’s mind, to gather their stories.
— Patton, 2002 (p. 341)

Schools are faced with the challenge of equipping our students with the skills
and knowledge to live and work in an increasingly diverse global and technological
world (Chen, 2010; Christensen et al., 2008; Friedman, 2007; Fullan, 2007; Wagner,
2008). The current educational system has been making incremental improvements,
but it is the large scale change, dramatic and often disruptive innovation that is called
for to meet the challenges of the 21
st
century and beyond (Christensen et al., 2008);
Elmore, 2008). To encourage innovative efforts organizations establish a climate or
degree of support and encouragement for its members. Akkermans et al. (2008)
contend that many factors can influence organizational climate, which in turn either
supports or hinders individual innovative efforts. By examining three factors that
influence organizational climate---structure, culture, and leadership practices—this
study seeks to understand how to create a climate for innovation in education that
will enable schools to produce the major improvements needed to raise student
achievement.
To investigate the factors influence on the climate for innovation, a single
case study was conducted at Punahou School, a private K-12 school where an

62
Institute for Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Innovation (ITLII) was recently
established on its campus. The study’s research design and qualitative methodology
explored the capacity of Punahou faculty to develop and sustain a climate for
innovation to support ITLII’s efforts. The following research questions guided this
study:
From the faculty’s perspective,
1. How does the organizational structure support of hinder a climate for
innovation?
2. How does the organizational culture support of hinder a climate for
innovation?
3. How do the leadership practices of the organization support or hinder the
development and sustainability of a climate for innovation?
In this chapter the method of the study is described, followed by a discussion
of the context of the study, Punahou School. Next, the selection of the purposeful
sampling of the faculty is explained. Then the study’s instrumentation, interview
protocol and questions, is presented. The chapter concludes with a section detailing
the process of data collection and analysis.
Method of Study
As opposed to quantitative research, qualitative methods can collect data
from a smaller sampling size to produce detailed, descriptive information that
deepens our understanding of individual variation (Patton, 2002, p. 227).
Instruments, such as open-ended interviews, aim to interpret what people have said

63
in order to explain why they may have said it. The use of open-ended, conversation-
like interviews enables the researcher to understand and capture the points of view of
other people without predetermining those points of view through prior selection of
questionnaire categories (Patton, 2002, p. 21). Qualitative researchers tend to be
concerned with meaning or the telling of the research participant’s story.
Two perspectives were valued in this study. First, a constructivism
perspective is considered to understand the perceptions of the faculty and the
consequences of their constructions for their behaviors and for those with whom they
interact (Patton, 2002). Constructivism is applied in understanding the organizational
culture issues. Second, a systems theory perspective is applied as a means of
understanding the school system as a whole and why is functions as it does, in this
case as an innovative organization (Patton, 2002, p. 133). For Punahou, this would
entail looked at the structure and leadership practices of the organization.
The study was designed as a single case study of Punahou School to gather
the perspectives of their faculty regarding innovation and how those perspectives
support or conflict with the goals for ITLII as articulated by President Scott (2010).
The qualitative methods design of this study is central in determining the effect of
school structure, school culture, and leadership practices because the researcher is
able to gather and the faculty points of view, their understandings, knowledge,
motives, attitudes, and beliefs about the subject of innovation at Punahou. The
interview information describes the faculty’s capacity for innovation, and

64
suggestions for strengthening the climate for innovation can be identified. Further
discussion of the context of the study follows.
Context of Study, Punahou School
Punahou’s mission statement emphasizes the development of students’ moral
and spiritual values alongside intellectual, academic, and physical potential that will
prepare them for college and challenges now and in the future. (See Appendix A for
the Mission for Punahou School). It also states a commitment to develop and
enhance creativity and appreciation for the arts, as well as cultural diversity and
social responsibility. To further demonstrate Punahou’s goals for student
achievement, its vision statements note that: 1) its educational program will be
strengthened through continuous examination and renewal; 2) spiritual development
and individual interdependence will be promoted; 3) the student diversity will reflect
the economic diversity of the Hawaii community; and 4) the school will “attract,
nurture, and retain an inspiring, dedicated, and knowledgeable faculty and staff,” and
create a work environment that is characterized by “high expectations, productivity,
healthy communication, ongoing support, and professional growth” (Appendix B,
Our Vision for Punahou School). The mission and vision of Punahou School reflects
strong student centered values, while also holding high expectations of its
professional faculty.
Organizational Structure of Punahou
At Punahou, the work of educating the over 3,700 students is allocated to the
300 full-time faculty members. The faculty is divided between the two major

65
divisions of the school, the Junior School (kindergarten to eighth grade) and the
Academy (grades nine to twelve). In the Junior School, under the direction of the
Junior School Principal, Supervisors, work with faculty in three smaller divisions: K-
1, Grades 2-5, and Middle school. In the Academy, the head administrator is the
Principal who directs the Deans of students, and Department Heads, who oversee
curriculum and instruction in their disciplines. Figure 3.1 illustrates Punahou’s
administrative structure.

Figure 3.1. Punahou School’s administrative structure

The President of the Punahou, works with the Junior and Academy principals
and other administrators who oversee the operations, to ensure that the mission and

66
vision of the school is achieved (Appendix C, School organizational chart). He also
directs the efforts of the Director of Instruction who manages Instructional and
Curriculum Development support for the school, as well as oversees Faculty
Professional Development. These responsibilities have recently been reinvented as
the Institute for Teaching, Learning and Instructional Innovation (ITLII) with the
Director of Instruction as the head.
The researcher is also an insider in this organization, as she holds a mid-level
administrative position as the Supervisor for the K-1 division. There is much that she
knows about the operation and recent history of initiatives of the school due to her
eleven years as Supervisor, and four previous years as a second grade teacher. She
has worked with many of the elementary staff, those most closely with teachers in
kindergarten to grade two, and is familiar with some of that concern them. This
background knowledge affords her the ability to investigate issues more deeply and
ask more specific questions about the current innovation initiative, while remaining
“empathically neutral”, which according to Patton (2002) is a “middle ground
between becoming too involved, which can cloud judgment, and remaining too
distant, which can reduce understanding” (p. 50).
Divisional differences in instructional structures. Instructional load and
course focus differs across the campus depending of the age of the students. Due the
large student population of the Junior School, over two thousand students,
kindergarten to eighth grade classes are organized in smaller divisions, each with its
own mid-level administrator, or supervisor.

67
Elementary, Kindergarten to fifth grade. In the K-4 classrooms, teachers
cover all areas of curriculum within the six and a half hour school day. There are
twenty-five students assigned to each self-contained classroom. In kindergarten and
first grade classrooms, each teacher is teamed with an assistant to provide individual
attentiveness to the younger students. In grades 2-5 assistants provide clerical and
playground or lunch supervision support. In fifth grade, teachers have their own class
of twenty-five students, but share the teaching with a partner. One teacher is
responsible for language arts and social studies curriculum, whereas their “switch
partner” is responsible for instruction in math and science. Therefore, each fifth
grade teacher carries a teaching load for fifty students, while specializing in two
subject areas. Grade level and division meetings are held after school at least once a
month.
Middle School. The sixth graders in the Middle school follow a similar
structure the fifth grade in that each sixth grade teacher has a homeroom of twenty-
five students, but specialize in the teaching of two subject areas, language arts and
social studies, or math and science, for their homeroom and their “switch partners”
students. This structure was designed to ease the transition into Middle School for
the students, where they are organized into teams in grades seven and eight.
Students in seventh and eighth grades are homogeneously assigned based on
their choices of electives. A core team of four teachers are assigned 92 students,
which each teacher specializing in a particular subject area, either language arts,
math, science, and social studies. Each teacher is responsible for one hour of

68
instruction for 4 classes per day. Two and a half hours are allotted daily for prep
time, which may include team or department meetings as well. Throughout the K-8
structure, additional specialists instruct the students in areas of Physical Education,
Art, and Music, as well as Language (Japanese, Mandarin, Hawaiian, Latin).
Academy, grades 9-12. The Academy faculty follows a college modular
schedule, where they have an average of four hours in-class contact time. Teachers in
the Academy belong to Departments by disciplines, but are also assigned to sub
departments within each department. For instance, within the science department
there are sub departments for biology, chemistry, and physics. Faculty are
responsible to attend Department meetings are once every two weeks, and sub
department meetings once a week. Beyond the core academic areas there are a
number of faculty in the Physical Education/ athletics, Music, Art, and Drama
departments as well.
Demographics of Punahou faculty. Punahou prides itself on being able to
attract and retain highly qualified and experienced faculty from local, national, and
international schools. Of the approximately 300 full-time faculty members, 190 have
Master’s Degrees or equivalent, and 70 have Ph.D. credentials or equivalents
(Punahou, 2009). While 87 faculty members have teaching experience for ten years
or less; 73 have been teaching for between 11-15 years, and 140 have 16-20 years or
more of classroom experience. Faculty members bring a diverse background of skills
and knowledge, as they are encouraged to continue their professional development

69
through advanced education (conference travel, advanced degree programs) and
other opportunities, such as learning fellowships and curriculum grants.
Sample and Population
To collect in-depth information from the faculty at Punahou, a purposeful
sampling method is used. Patton (2002) describes the value of information-rich cases
where “one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose
of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p. 230).
To insure that viewpoints from faculty across the K-12 campus, three faculty
members were selected from each division for the interviews: three teachers from
grades k-5; three teachers from the middle school; and three faculty members from
the Academy. The principals and the Director of Instruction were invited to
recommend faculty members who they thought would provide rich information for
the study. To create a sampling that would represent the typical faculty member, they
were asked to consider the following criteria when making their recommendations:
• Participation in professional development activities.
• Completion of at least three years of service at Punahou.
• Active participant in school programs beyond classroom/subject area
teaching.
From the lists of recommended faculty, the researcher selected the final nine
interviewees. To insure that the purposeful sampling represented the demographics
of the Punahou faculty, gender and ethnicity were considered in the final selection,
as were the representation of a range of disciplines — art, language arts, math,

70
science, and world languages. Further demographic details of the sample are
provided in Chapter Four.
Instrumentation
To conduct the study we interviewed the purposeful sampling of the K-12
faculty using a standardized open-ended interview. This type of interview was
selected because as Patton (2002) notes:
1. The exact instrument used is available for inspection by those who will
use the findings of the study.
2. Variation among interviewers can be minimized where a number of
different interviewers must be used.
3. The interview is highly focused so that interviewee time is used
efficiently.
4. Analysis is facilitated, as responses are easy to find and compare.
Documents that would provide additional background information on the
structure, culture, and leadership of Punahou were also used as a source of
information. These resources included Mission and Vision statements, 2009 WASC
self-study reports, as well as handbooks and Annual reports. According to Patton
(2002) documents prove to be valuable “not only because of what can be learned
directly from them but also as stimulus for paths of inquiry that can be pursued
through direct observation and interviewing” (p. 294)

71
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol was designed in four parts: 1) innovation at Punahou;
2) perspective of structural factors; 3) perspective of culture factors; and 4)
perspective of leadership practices. The questions regarding innovation served to
identify the faculty’s definition of innovation, as well as explore their knowledge of
Punahou’s innovative efforts and ITLII. The organizational structure questions
sought to illicit what the faculty knew about the ways the school is organized to
provide support innovative efforts. Questions investigating the organizational
cultural factors probed what influence the values, expectations or practices of the
teacher community had on individual innovative efforts. The questions focused on
leadership practice were designed to draw out examples of leadership behavior that
either supports or hinders a climate for innovation.
The following items are specific questions that were asked of the Punahou
faculty in the interviews. The Interview Protocol is presented according to each
research question.

72
Table 3.1
Interview Questions Linked to Innovation at Punahou
Innovation at Punahou
Is there a climate for innovation at Punahou?
• How would you define innovation or innovativeness in education? Can you
give an example?
• In your opinion, is Punahou an innovative school? Why or why not?
• What do you know about Punahou’s Institute for Teaching, Learning and
Instructional Innovation? Source of information? ITLII goals?
• Can you give an example of an innovation here at Punahou?

Table 3.2
Interview Questions Linked to Organizational Structure
Organizational structure
How does the organizational structure of Punahou support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• What opportunities does Punahou provide to support teachers in being
innovative?
• What resources are allocated to support innovativeness?
• What are other ways Punahou encourages the innovativeness of its faculty?
• Does the way the school is organized, around how people work together,
support or hinder innovation?
• What other organizational structures (how people work together) might
strengthen the climate for innovation?

73
Table 3.3
Interview Questions Linked to Organizational Culture
Organizational culture
How does the organizational culture of Punahou support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
• Is innovation valued by the Punahou faculty? Why or why not?
• Do you believe Punahou faculty are expected to be innovative? Why or why
not?
• Can you give an example of where this expectation was shared, confirmed, or
questioned by the faculty?
• What do you see as characteristics of an innovative teacher?

Table 3.4
Interview Questions Linked to Leadership Practices
Leadership Practices
How do the leadership practices of the organization support or hinder the
development and sustainability of a climate for innovation at Punahou?
• What leadership practices do you observe as being effective in creating a
climate that supports innovation?
• What leadership practices hinder or discourage innovation?
• Who should be responsible for implementing changes to support
innovativeness at Punahou? Explain your answer.

74
Patton (2002) suggests using probes to “deepen the response to a question,
increase the richness and depth of responses, and give cues to the interviewee about
the level of response that is desired” (p. 372). To get a more complete picture of the
faculty’s experiences and thinking detail-oriented probes involving “who”, “where”,
“what”, “when”, and “how” questions were used in the interview to follow up on a
response. Elaboration or clarification probes were also used to encourage the
interviewee to keep talking about an issue. This included questions such as “Can you
tell me more about that?” or “I’m not sure I understand what you meant, could you
say more about that?” These probes were not written out in the interview, but came
from “knowing what to look for in the interviews, listening carefully to what is said
and what is not said, and being sensitive to the feedback needs of the person being
interviewed” (Patton, 2002, p. 374). As the interviewers were also members of the
organization being studies, they had inside information that helped them develop
probing techniques.
Data Collection
Each interview was conducted on an individual basis, either in the teacher’s
classroom or the researcher’s office where it was quiet and free from interruptions.
An hour was allocated for each interview, and interviews were scheduled so as not to
conflict with teaching responsibilities. To insure the accuracy of the information for
transcription purposes, interviews were audio taped using an iPod as the recording
device. Participants were asked for their permission to record their responses during
an initial informational session prior to the actual interview. Recording the interview

75
allowed the researcher to intently listen and freely interact with the interviewee
without fear of missing important information or other nuances during the
conversation. In addition to the audio recording, pen and paper were used to note
important ideas or comments as needed.
It was necessary to involve an additional interviewer to conduct the interview
of one of the elementary teachers who worked directly with the researcher. This
precaution was taken so the teacher would feel free to respond openly and honestly,
without fear of repercussions from their remarks. The additional interviewer was a
member of the Academy faculty who had inside knowledge of the school, but did not
work directly with the interviewee. The additional interviewer was also familiar with
qualitative work as a member of the USC Hawaii Doctoral cohort of 2011.
The participants were informed that the purpose of the interview was to
gather information to better understand Punahou’s capacity to meet the innovation
goals of ITLII. Information about their teaching background for demographic
purposes was collected at the start of the interview. Each teacher was asked about
their: 1) teaching credentials; 2) years of teaching experience and previous schools
where they have taught; 3) grade levels taught; 4) participation in professional
development opportunities; and 5) special committee or leadership roles.
Care was taken during the data collection process to protect the
confidentiality of the interviewees so that the participants would feel comfortable
and confident in sharing their opinions and ideas openly and honestly. No names

76
were used when recording the information and all recordings were kept in a secure
digital folder on the researcher’s computer.
Data Analysis
The researcher chose to do all of the interview transcriptions herself, as it
provided the opportunity to become immersed in the data and begin to develop some
sense of major ideas or trends within individual conversations, as well as between
the different interviews. Each interview was transcribed on a three-column template
where the running time was noted in the left-hand column, while the verbatim
responses were recorded in the middle space. The right column was later used in the
coding of the data to note categories of responses (structure, culture, or leadership).
The transcripts were then reviewed and coded to identify the evidence of how
the structural framework, cultural expectations, or leadership practices influence
innovative behavior of the faculty. Responses that discussed how the organization’s
structural framework determines how people work together were grouped together. If
those responses also showed connections to idea of culture they were noted as S
C
or
S
L
for structure factors influenced by leadership practices. At times all three factors
were present in a response and coded as S
CL
.
Responses that referenced expectations, beliefs, or values were coded as
cultural factors. Further coding denotations were assigned when those responses
reflected structural influences (C
S
) or leadership practice connections (C
L
). Again if
all three factors were present within the cultural reference it was coded as C
SL
.

77
Interview responses that described practices or actions of leaders were
grouped together and reviewed. Responses that were related to structure were noted
as L
S
and the responses that pointed to cultural considerations were labeled L
C.
The
presence of all factors within a leadership response were coded L
sc
.
Analyzing the data into these different categories was challenging because it
required the researcher to consider the many possible perspectives presented by the
three factors and their combined possibilities. The researcher also had to be
cognizant of any biased interpretations due to her inside knowledge of the
organization and its faculty, as well as her own feelings about the innovation
initiatives. These are further discussed in the next chapter as part of the study’s
limitations.
After all the responses were coded and separated into individual categories
according to structure, culture, or leadership practices, the comments within each
category were further sorted into two categories: factors that indicated a support or
encouraged a climate for innovation, and factors that hindered or discouraged
innovative efforts. The combined categories of responses were also analyzed for
either their supportive or detrimental influence on the climate for innovation. The
analysis of the factors produced the themes within each grouping and will be
presented and discussed next.
This form of content analyses follows the constant comparative method, a
grounded theory framework, where the researcher begins with basic description and
moves to conceptual ordering by organizing data into discrete categories according

78
to their properties and dimensions (Patton, 2002, p. 490). By first identifying the
climate factor described in the interviewee’s responses, then categorizing it
according to a particular dimension of structure, culture, or leadership, themes
emerged that lead to the major findings.
To get a sense percentage of teacher talk related to the each of the three
factors of structure, culture or leadership, the lines of transcript were counted and
tallied to get totals of the amount of teacher talk devoted to each type of response.
This analysis helped to get an overall sense of the strongest influence on the climate
for innovation within Punahou. Further analysis was conducted on the combined
categories of responses, where multiple factors were identified in particular
responses. The lines of transcript lines were counted and totaled to reveal the most
influential combination of factors that influenced the climate for innovation. The
results of the analysis are presented in Chapter Four.
Conclusion
By conducting standardized open-ended interviews of a purposeful sample of
faculty members at Punahou information regarding the climate for innovation was
collected and analyzed. By choosing to select a purposeful sampling for her research,
the smaller number of information-rich cases allowed the researcher to gather more
in-depth data. Understanding why something works the ways it does is best
accomplished through qualitative methods of data collection and analysis.
Participants’ statements were coded by category and content analyses, following the
method of constant comparison, were conducted. Noting patterns and trends among

79
the responses in regards to factors of structure, culture, and leadership practices
yields information about the supports or barriers that influence the development of
innovative curriculum and instruction. This data is important to Punahou if the goals
of the Institute for Teaching, Learning, and Innovative Instruction (ITLII) are to be
achieved.
In Chapter Four the results of the research will be shared and major ideas will
be presented. Chapter Five then follows with a discussion of the major findings and
their relationship with the research literature, as well as the study’s significant
outcomes and its implications for Punahou, and other similar educational institutions
seeking to bring about innovative school wide change.

80
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
Change will always fail until we find some way of developing
infrastructures and processes that engage teachers in developing new
knowledge, skills, and understandings.
— Michael Fullan (2007, p. 29)

The aim of this study was to examine the influence of leadership practices, as
well as structural and cultural factors in creating a climate for innovation that enables
educational institutions to make changes that will lead to improvements in student
achievement. The study focused on school change in the context of Punahou School
as it seeks to advance itself as an innovative institution of twenty-first century
teaching and learning. While the school has achieved great success as a traditional
college preparatory institution, the challenge exists in whether the faculty can work
collaboratively to look beyond its academic accomplishments in order to develop and
employ innovative technologies, programs, and instructional strategies that will
benefit all Punahou students, as well as the broader community of local, national,
and international educators.
This chapter presents the data collected from the review of school documents,
and the standardized open-ended interviews conducted with a purposeful sampling of
Punahou’s K-12 faculty. Research Question One examined the organizational
structure of how people work together, rules, roles, policies, and environment at the
school to ascertain if those structures support or hinder the climate of innovation.
Information regarding school resources and opportunities that support teacher

81
innovativeness were explored with this question. Research Question Two explored
teachers’ perceptions of culture and it’s impact on the climate for innovation. Culture
was viewed through the embedded values and expectations of the faculty (Schien,
2010; Fullan, 2007; Jaskyte, 2004; Evans, 1996). Research Question Three explored
the kinds of leadership practices that effectively support innovation as observed by
faculty members. The qualities of transformational leadership (Sarros et al., 2008;
Jaskyte, 2004; Jung et al., 2003; Waldman & Bass, 1991) and Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four frame model of leadership were used to identify the characteristics of
school leadership practices.
The researcher will first describe the participants in the study, followed by
the discussion of the results.
Participants
This qualitative study used a case study approach to collect data by
interviewing faculty from the three major divisions of the school: Kindergarten to
Grade 5 (K-5), Middle School, and the Academy. A purposeful sample of nine
teachers participated in the interview. They were selected to represent the typical
demographic of Punahou faculty, with ten to more than twenty years of teaching
experience. Participants represented both male and female genders, and included
teachers who were born and raised in the islands, as well as those who moved to
Hawaii from out-of-state locales. In addition, members of the purposeful sample
included regular classroom teachers, teacher leaders, and instructors in specialized
areas of study, such as Art, English, Science, World Languages, History, and

82
Mathematics. It is important to note that a percentage of Punahou faculty are also
alumni and have responsibilities as parents of Punahou students. These
considerations were taken into account when selecting the members of the
purposeful sampling.
Three teachers, identified in the results as teachers E1, E2, and E3, represent
the faculty in kindergarten to grade five. As the researcher is a direct supervisor for
the kindergarten and first grade division of the school, and to maintain the integrity
of the process, she did not conduct the interview with teacher E1. Instead, a
University of Southern California (USC) doctoral student, who is a faculty member
in the Academy, was briefed on the project and agreed to conduct the interview.
Three faculty members from the Middle School are noted in the results as teachers
MS1, MS2, and MS3. The Academy faculty are named as teachers A1, A2, and A3
in the research results.
An interesting aspect of the purposeful sampling was the preponderance of
responses that referred to the influence of culture on the climate for innovation as
noted in Figure 4.1. Details of the climate factor analysis can be found in Appendix
D.
Further exploration of culture as an influence on climate will be discussed in
the results of Research Question 3.

83

Figure 4.1. Percentage of responses by climate factor

Results
This chapter presents the research findings as they relate to four areas of this
study: 1) innovation in education, 2) results of research question 1 - organizational
structure, 3) results of research question 2 - organizational culture, and 4) results of
research question 3 - leadership practices. The chapter ends concludes with a
summary of the five findings from the research results, which will be further
discussed in Chapter Five.
Innovation in Education
This study is focused on the climate for innovation in education, so it was
important to ascertain how each participant defined innovation in education.
Punahou has established the Institute for Teaching, Learning, and Instructional
11%
38%
5%
25%
6%
10%
5%
structure
Culture
Leadership
s/c
s/l
c/l
s/c/l

84
Innovation (ITLII) as a means to operationalize its vision of becoming an innovative
school of the twenty-first century. Determining the faculty’s knowledge of ITLII
would serve as a measure of their understanding of innovation efforts at Punahou at
this point in time. An analysis of the responses to questions about innovation are
summarized and discussed in two areas; the faculty’s definition and perceptions of
innovation in education, and their knowledge and understanding of ITLII, Punahou’s
innovation initiative. See Appendix E for a summary of the innovation in education
responses.
The responses that defined innovation represented two perspectives: 1)
innovation as an individual choice for personal change or improvement; and 2)
innovation as institutional change, that affects everyone in the school department or
division. Each of the participants defined innovation in education as something new
or different that individuals try in order to improve themselves or modernize
something they teach. This perspective is broad enough to include almost every
teacher as an innovator if they are attempting some type of change. Teacher E1, said,
“For me to be innovative might be trying out something that I’ve seen someone else
do. But it would be innovative for me because it would be new for me.” Academy
teacher A1, states a similar idea in her definition, “Innovation in education is when
we are able to take things that we know work well with students and find new ways
to apply them to other areas of work that we do.”
Faculty members identified technology initiatives as an innovative effort
currently influencing curricular programs and instructional practices across campus.

85
Technology is then an example of institutional or school wide innovation.
Elementary teacher E3, described how technology has influenced her teaching:
I think technology is one huge area that is part of innovation in education…
Every fourth grader begins the year with a laptop that they have for the entire
year. We use it every single day in the classroom, for every subject… It
evens out the playing field so the kids that were poor writers now have tools
to help them.

Related to technology, has been the inclusion of Lego Robotics as an elective for
Middle School students. Teacher MS1 commented on the influence of the robotics
program, by noting, “Actually every year almost every single student that has been
involved in the program either goes into computer programming, a technology-
related field, or engineering as a field.”
However, while the Academy faculty recognized the push for technology,
they were less enthusiastic about its influence in how they teach, as teacher A3
states:
I feel like a lot of places are jumping in with technology, jumping in with
trends, and I think that a lot of teachers here are very thoughtful and so
they’re taking their time and not jumping on because it’s a trend, and that
makes me really happy.

Another Academy teacher, A2 shared a similar view, “I don’t use computers very
much in the classroom…I haven’t seen the benefit for my math classes yet.”
So, while teachers acknowledge the importance of innovation in their own
teaching, the institutional innovative initiatives, particularly involving the use of
technology, received mixed reviews.

86
According to the summary of the information related to ITLII, there is no
consistent understanding among the faculty of the school’s innovation initiative at
this time. While everyone has heard of ITLII, only two of the nine people
interviewed had some idea of its goal. Teacher A1, from the Academy, expressed her
understanding by saying, “I know that it’s (ITLII) a vision of Dr. Scott’s to create an
environment in which teachers can freely share great practice both in Punahou and
outside of it and the structure of that is sort of in development.” E1, an elementary
teacher, had a similar understanding as she states:
It’s so that we can share, so we can get out of the individual classroom boxes
and see what other people are doing…We have got great minds in the school,
people who are really dedicated to the craft of teaching, and that if we could
create…some synergy between taking what one person’s doing over here and
how that sparks what another person knows or needs, that really great
innovative things can happen… that’s why is says, teaching, learning, and
instructional innovation.

However, many faculty members have a limited understanding of ITLII and
what its goals are. E2, an elementary teacher, shared, “I don’t really know too much
about what exactly it (ITLII) is, but it seems like it’s an opportunity to learn more
about certain technology…certain areas of education that others are interested in.”
Teacher A2, in the Academy, expressed similar sentiments, “I’ve only heard the
announcements in the big faculty meetings. It’s summer and they have people come
to campus. I don’t know very much about it.”
In sum, Punahou faculty members define innovation as individual change
rather than organizational development. According to the faculty’s definition of
innovation, as long as teachers are working to improve their practice, they are

87
considered innovative. There was also limited familiarity with ITLII, which is the
innovation initiative at Punahou. This information suggests that there is little
common understanding about the vision for innovation as a school wide goal,
therefore less support for innovation as institutional change So, based on the
perspective of the faculty, innovation when defined as individual change rather than
organizational development can hinder the development of a climate for innovation.
Results of Research Question One: Organizational Structure
The interview response data pertaining to structural issues were categorized
into four areas to examine the influence of organizational structure on the
development of a climate for innovation:
1. School structure: how people are organized to get work done.
2. Resources provided by the school: personnel, time, equipment/materials,
funding.
3. Administrative support: related to the provision or personnel, time,
equipment/materials, funding to support faculty.
4. Cultural influences on structure can influence a climate for innovation.
An analysis of the responses revealed two aspects of organizational structure
that had an influence on the climate for innovation: 1) the size of the organization;
and 2) the number of networking opportunities for faculty. Appendix F can be
reviewed for a detailed summary of the structure responses.

88
Size of the Institution
While Punahou is a large school, all the teachers acknowledge that smaller
formal and informal subgroups provide positive conditions for people to work
together. The elementary teachers cite their grade levels as supportive of their
professional development. As teacher E2 points out, “You hear a lot of chatter
around, among the teachers, your colleagues, who start talking about this and that.
Oh! I read this article, and this and that, and it kind of sparks your interest.”
Whereas, the middle school teachers reference their interdisciplinary teams as the
subgroup where innovative efforts are shared. MS2 had this to say about his team,
“We’re right here in the team space. So we’re there and so easily, I can just go next
door and ask a quick question. What do you think of this? What can I add to this?”
The Academy teachers find that sub departments actually support innovativeness
more than their departments because the smaller number of people allows
relationships to develop among teachers where a culture of trust and practice can be
nurtured. A2, an Academy teacher, said, “I can innovate in the sub department, such
as BCP (basic college prep), right. Now, could I have done that if I had the entire
department…maybe 25 people do it? I have a hard enough time getting six people to
do it.”
The faculty also recognized that the school provides many resources and
administrative support to encourage innovative efforts. Providing personnel such as
Curriculum Resource Teachers (CRT) to assist teachers with integrating technology

89
into their curriculum advances technological innovation throughout the campus.
Teacher MS3 reflects on the support she gets from Tom, the Middle School CRT:
I get emails from Tom about Google forms this week, or using the iPad or the
Smartboards, or something like that. He’s constantly offering workshops…
This week we’re doing the use of iPods, and the use of different kinds of
mechanisms to introduce to your classroom. But I’ve mostly attended them
because of Tom being the facilitator.

E3, an elementary teacher, receives the same support from the K-4 CRT, Helen, “I
had Helen up here and we did our lessons with clickers to respond to the Promethean
board. Helen had said, what do you want to do today in computer? I said, I want to
get the kids going on clickers. And there it’s done.”
The faculty values the support of administrators who encourage teachers to
design new ideas or participate in professional development opportunities. They note
that administrators also provide resources such as time and funding for teacher
collaboration. Teacher E1 notes:
Now, I have to say that I think Punahou does a lot to support teacher growth.
I mean, this is one of the most generous schools in terms of funding
Professional development. I mean, the amount of money I have to spend to
buy myself books or to go to conferences…I feel like this place is a dream
come true.

Teacher A1, confirms the support of her administrators in the Academy, when she
says, “Anytime in my own experience that I wanted to explore something or do
something, there have always been people nudging me along, saying here are all the
resources we have available, so try and look at that.” So the size of the organization
affords the faculty with many opportunities for innovativeness by providing
resources, administrators, and small group structures for collaboration.

90
However, teachers note that while small subgroup collaboration is provided,
there is a need for more K-12 collaboration. Curriculum continuity across the school
is difficult, even from one grade level to the next. With faculty spread out across
such a large campus, communication is hampered, even within academic
departments. When messages are shared with the entire K-12 faculty, such as at the
Opening Chapel on the first day faculty returns to school, there is the likelihood that
some leave the meeting without a clear understanding of what they heard, or any
opportunity to get their questions answered. Teacher E3, in the elementary division,
described it this way, “There are a lot of things going on in the Academy and vice
versa with the Junior School, that I think we would all benefit from…We don’t share
enough, what is it one day a year, Curriculum Day, where we have school wide
sharing and that’s not enough.” Teacher A1 notes the same dilemma in the
Academy:
I do think that on a department-wide scale, it is hard to (interact with others)
because the groups are so big, and because we meet relatively infrequently,
every couple of weeks, that maybe that vehicle isn’t super well designed for
innovation, department-wide.

But the teachers also recognize what an arduous task it would be to try and
change the structure of the school to create opportunities for more K-12
collaboration or changing the way people work to be more interdisciplinary. Even
just changing members on a team creates unrest and confusion. As teacher E1
commented, “We’re a big place and we’re complicated, incredibly complicated.”

91
The size of the organization can have a detrimental impact on the climate for
innovation.
Number and Nature of Networking Opportunities
Teachers across the sample were in agreement as to the value of
conversations and sharing among teachers, and the need for some type of structure to
make this happen. Physical adjacencies encourage teacher sharing in K-1 where
classroom share a common space. The team structures in the Middle School situate
the group of four core teachers in common spaces so that communication and
collaboration is nurtured.
Teachers recounted different ways they are able to network with other
teachers to share ideas and problems, both formally in grade levels, teams, and
departments, but also informally through extra-curricular activities such as yoga,
walking, hula, or other interests such as the local food group. Middle school teachers
will gather informally at lunch to share their interest in integrating technology into
their curriculum. The Academy brings new and experienced teachers together
through their mentoring at Punahou (MAP) program. Faculty from across the
campus can network during the summer by participating in summer workshops and
classes.
Yet, while teachers have made the effort to create these networking
opportunities they are still too few and far between to effectively support innovative
collaboration. In the Academy teacher A1 notes that because departments group
offices together cross-department conversations are difficult if interdisciplinary

92
teaching is a goal. Teacher MS2 has noticed that while each Middle school team
shares a common space, but it also can isolate them from interactions with other
teams. MS1, an art instructor, commented that the distance between the art rooms
and the Middle School classrooms is detrimental to communication and connections
between art and the other subject areas.
All of the faculty members interviewed recognized that negative influences
that can occur within certain networks. Innovation can be hindered by complacency
if groups remain the same for long periods of time. Teachers get comfortable doing
the same things, as MS2 says, “get stuck in a groove”, where new ideas are not
considered. The teachers observed that disinterest in professional development by
certain colleagues affect the rest of the team, thereby hampering group collaboration
on innovative projects. Teacher E1, in the elementary division, shared:
I think they (grade levels) can get kind of ingrown and very, it’s not like
cliquish, it’s not that, but it’s just, you’re kind of floating your own ideas with
the same group of people a lot, and I think that the school doesn’t have a lot
of what I call vertical cross-fertilization.

In the Academy, teacher A3 notes:
There are a couple of people who like, “We’ve done this. We don’t need to
do this anymore. Why are we doing this?” kind of offering resistance. And
I’m sure it’s that way in every department. You know the people that just
don’t want to talk about it.

Summary of RQ1 Findings
Punahou supports the professional development of its teachers by providing
numerous opportunities and financial support for their continuous learning. But the

93
size of the school makes it difficult for the faculty to collaborate and share their
knowledge and expertise with one another. Collaboration within grade levels or
departments is often hindered by the infrequency of meetings, heavy workloads, or
the homogeneous make up of the group. While there is an interest in professional
learning communities as evidenced by the funding available for professional growth
and the comments of the teachers, developing the structures for establishing and
maintaining regular networking opportunities can impact the climate of innovation
throughout the school.
The evidence regarding the two structural factors of school size and
networking opportunities, lead to the finding that while the size of the school is a
reflection of its success, it now presents a significant issue to be addressed in order to
develop and sustain an organizational climate for innovation.
Results of Research Question Two: Organizational Culture
The interview responses reflecting cultural influences comprised the largest
group of information to be analyzed. The data were categorized into three areas of
culture:
1. Individual values and expectations;
2. Teacher community values and expectations;
3. Institution values and expectations.
An analysis of the responses brought forth three aspects of culture that impact
the climate for innovation: 1) the expectation of school success; 2) the tension
between teacher autonomy, and organizational goal; and 3) the expectations for a

94
high achieving faculty. Appendix G presents a detailed summary of the culture
responses.
Expectation of School Success
The faculty cited Punahou’s reputation as a successful educational institution
and the expectation that its students reach high levels of achievement works to
encourage innovative efforts. Teachers refers to the long history of successful
achievements of its graduates, as teacher E1 states, “Punahou is a college preparatory
institution with 170 years worth of academic excellence and building leaders for the
islands and the world.” MS2 sees that Punahou needs to be innovative to continue to
draw students to its campus:
You have to be innovative or you’re not going to be successful …Kids’
parents pay lots of money for kids to come here so we better be innovative
and be looking at the latest research, and helping these children the best we
can.

According to the faculty, Punahou values innovation and the establishment of
ITLII on its campus further underscores that vision. Teacher MS2 believes that ITLII
is a way for Punahou to reaffirm itself as “being a leader, innovator in teaching,
putting ourselves out there.” As teacher A3 notes ITLII reflects the idea that
“Punahou wants to lead, that it wants to be on the cutting edge.”
However, faculty members admit that the world-class reputation of Punahou
puts a lot of pressure on the teachers not to make mistakes. A2, an Academy teacher
expressed it this way,
I think sometimes we live on our reputation. Now we have to live up to our
reputation, and so this goes back to my issue with we don’t admit mistakes

95
very well because we have this reputation as being the best school in the
state. And so you know Punahou can’t make mistakes because they’re the
best school in the state.

Teacher MS3 supports that view when she states:
I’m kind of worried that I’m going to make a mistake… For instance, I’m
doing something this year that is innovative, but I don’t want to let down the
parents or the students… I’m kind of proceeding in smaller steps than other
people. I don’t know, there’s always this fear.

The fear of making mistakes, or letting parents and students down can inhibit the
innovativeness of the faculty.
Teachers are also hesitant to criticize anything that may need improving at
Punahou for fear of being deemed disloyal. Maintaining that perfect image is a subtle
message that teachers have received by faculty and parents. Teacher E1 explains:
I think this is a really, really good school. And I think one of our problems is
when we think we are the perfect school. Or when we think that we have to
be the perfect school. And that it’s not okay to say, that we aren’t a perfect
school. There are days when I feel like it’s not okay to talk about things that
aren’t perfect, like you’re being disloyal.

Teacher A1 confirms that feeling:
One of the biggest obstacles to innovation here at Punahou… is the sort of
perfectness of this place. It provides a great deal of pressure, right, and so we
all want to do really well and we all want to do perfectly by our students.

Tension Between Teacher Autonomy and Organizational Goals
Teacher A3, in the Academy, made the observation that “there is a tension in
the school, as a whole, of how do you balance autonomy and consistency and
integration.” Punahou teachers value their autonomy in being able to decide what to
teach and how to teach it. Teacher MS1, says:

96
I think one of the wonderful things about Punahou as a teacher is you have
more individual autonomy to address how you deliver your curriculum. And
that I think gives a teacher a lot of opportunity to be innovative in how they
teach, and how they approach their subject matter.

Teacher E1 sees autonomy as part of empowerment and teacher buy-in of
innovation, “When people feel empowered, like they are part of the change, they’re
getting to choose it, where do they want to do it, how they want to be innovative,
then there’s way more buy-in.”
The teacher community at Punahou values the invitations to participate in
Professional Development opportunities or innovate, but they want to maintain the
freedom to choose whether or not to participate. Teacher MS3 describes it this way:
They put out these offers say, travel abroad or workshops on eating locally,
or they had that whole bee presentation, and things related to sustainability,
or all these endeavors that we certainly are all aware of and striving for. But
it’s all still an invitation and those that are interested will move forward on it.

Academy teacher A1 also acknowledges the invitations:
There’s an invitation to innovate, I guess that’s a better way to put it, and
there’s an open and warm invitation to innovate, and I think that if you’re
someone who really wants to act on that invitation and you go down that
path, and you open doors, you’ll find all sorts of things supporting you.

But teachers face a dilemma when it comes to their autonomy and the
organizational goals of creating collaborative communities and sharing innovative
practice. Teacher E1 expressed it this way:
There are people who are willing to share but they don’t want to be seen as
pushy or bossy. You know like, well, what make you think that you can tell
me anything about…We want to learn things, but we don’t want to be told
that we need to learn things.

97
Teacher A3 expressed that same dilemma:
I think there’s a fear of telling people what to do. I don’t like people telling
me what to do. I’d be the first one to get my hackles raised if someone told
me to do this. And I think that’s in a sense both a hindrance and part of why
innovation is possible. People can do a lot of their own and I think that can
also spark a lot of innovation.

The culture in teacher communities around the campus exerts strong
influence in how teachers work together and determines what behavior is expected.
The community culture can encourage innovative efforts, as noted in this statement
from MS1:
I think it’s the climate that we have here, as simple as that. It’s a climate
where innovation is appreciated as an institutional goal. And also it’s
appreciated when your colleagues do something new and innovative. And
there’s really a pretty good atmosphere of sharing something that you’ve
come up with or someone else comes up with and teaching each other.

The culture of teacher communities can hinder innovative efforts too.
Teachers are aware of the more traditional parts of the school where “you don’t rock
the boat” according to Teacher E1. Middle school teacher MS3 recognizes the same
situation:
Some people who feel that they are well and good established here, and
they’ve proven anything they need to, maybe staying put in a way… Though
it sounds kind of critical of those who are more traditional, in a lot of ways
they’ve been validated by kids, students, or parents or maybe even by other
teachers.

Hence another dilemma posed by the faculty, what to do with teachers who
aren’t growing, and don’t see innovation as their job. That leads to the next idea of
the expectations of a high achieving faculty.

98
Expectations of a High Achieving Faculty
A third aspect of culture that impacts the development of a climate for
innovation involves the individual’s values and expectations. As Punahou teachers,
the faculty members feel that they are expected to do great things. Innovation is a
standard for Punahou teachers. As teacher E1 has recognized, “I think that the
teachers who come to work at Punahou are pretty driven people… I feel like
people’s expectations of themselves here is real high.” This expectation of being a
high achieving faculty is also evident in the Academy, where teacher A1 remarked,
We work with teachers who are constantly, and sort of enduringly trying to
get better all the time. And there are teachers who have been here for their
entire careers, for decades, and they’re every single day trying to do the
absolute best job they can…And so to work in an environment that’s so
encouraging, but then it’s almost like nobody has permission to just to sort of
do what they have always done.

The faculty members value innovative characteristics such as flexibility, open-
mindedness, critical thinking, effective communication skills, and risk-taking
because they are not afraid to fail.
As noted earlier, these high expectations can have a negative effect on the
climate of innovation as teachers are afraid to make mistakes or perform poorly
because of Punahou’s reputation as the top school in the state, and it hires only the
best teachers. Innovation is expected by parents, students and other teachers as
reflected in this comment from E3, an elementary teacher,
I think that people who aren’t innovative are kind of looked down upon…I
think that you are admired if you are doing the latest and greatest. I think this
atmosphere promotes innovation…You’re pushed along to try these new
things.

99
The faculty noted further evidence of the detrimental effect of high
expectations on individual innovative behavior where innovation is seen as change,
and change is hard. Teachers noted examples where people have left the school or
retired when they could not manage the change required. But the dilemma persists,
as Academy teacher A3 asks, “What do we as a school do about teachers that aren’t
growing? I’d say that’s my biggest concern, is what do you do when a teacher
becomes stagnant, or how do you get rid of a teacher?” Teacher A1 asks a similar
question,
How do we make it (innovation) more school wide and how do we bring
people into that? How do we share that desire with people and nurture that
desire in people who are doing work, and doing good work, but not wanting
to innovate. Who don’t see it as part of their job.

Is it sufficient to have a sampling of people who are being innovative? Based
on Dr. Scott’s vision of the ITLII initiative, the goal is school wide innovation that
every member of the faculty strives to achieve.
Summary of RQ2 Findings
There are three aspects to culture that were gleamed from the responses: 1)
the institutional culture of a successful school; 2) the tensions between teacher
autonomy and organizational goals that are often evident in the culture of teacher
communities; and 3) the cultural expectations of individuals who are members of a
high achieving faculty. Each aspect of culture sends messages to the individual
teachers in terms of what’s valued and expected of them. When innovation is valued,

100
the messages push an individual to adopt innovative behaviors. When innovation is
hard or in conflict with teacher autonomy, innovative behaviors are discouraged.
In a traditionally successful school such as Punahou, there is a tension
between the accepted tradition teaching behaviors, and the new value of
innovativeness. The analysis of the cultural responses suggests the finding that the
long-standing achievements of the school have created a culture that perpetuates
traditional notions of success, which can hinder or discourage a climate for
innovation.
Results of Research Question Three: Leadership Practices
The interview responses that indicated the influence of leadership practices
on the climate for innovation were categorized according to Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) four frames of leadership:
1. Structural frame: the architecture of the organization, the design of units,
subunits, rules and roles, goals and policies.
2. Human resources frame: understanding people, their strengths and
foibles, reasons and emotions, desires and fears.
3. Political frame: organizations as competitive arenas of scare resources,
competing interests and struggles for power and advantage.
4. Symbolic frame: issues of meaning and faith, ritual, ceremony, story,
play, and culture.
The analysis of the leadership practice responses indicates that faculty
members value the symbolic role that leaders play in articulating a vision for the

101
school and setting directions. Among all the four frames, the human resource lens
garnered the most attention from the faculty, suggesting that teachers value a
meaningful relationship with their leaders where their strengths are recognized and
have their needs supported. The elementary faculty had fewer responses related to
the political and structural aspects of leadership, though these two frames are key in
school change efforts. The Academy faculty commented more extensively on all four
frames of leadership, which suggests that they have a more comprehensive
understanding of organizational systems. A detailed summary of the leadership
responses is noted in Appendix H.
The analysis of the interview response data produced the following two
aspects of leadership practices that impact the climate for innovation: 1) the
leadership practices used to handle structural issues; 2) the leadership practices used
to handle cultural issues.
Leadership Practices and Structural Issues
The structural issues that surfaced in the interviews pertained to three areas of
organizational life: 1) management of schedules so that a variety of small groups
would have opportunities to meet and collaborate; 2) attention to the development of
policies and procedures to reflect values of human resources frame; and 3) managing
resource allocation with an awareness of political implications.
Time to collaborate. Faculty would like the school’s leadership to manage
schedules and calendars to provide more opportunities for teachers to work together
to share curriculum, instructional practices, student learning issues, and come up

102
with possible new ideas and projects. These innovations would rise out of
conversations among grade level groups, departments, sub-departments, but also
diverse groups from across the campus, as stated by MS1, a Middle School teacher,
“We need people with multiple talents and directions, and an open-mindedness.”
Academy teachers concur that more conversations are needed among faculty
members to generate more ideas, as stated by teacher A3:
Most people are like me, in that I don’t always think best by myself, on my
own. I think better in conversation. And so I think making sense of what’s
going on and what they’re (students) learning and stuff would be better if
there is some kind of conversation.

Development of policies and procedures. Policies and procedures govern
working conditions and how work is to be completed among the various groups to
insure that quality of products and performance is maintained (Bolman & Deal,
2008). At Punahou the faculty comment that school leadership provide a non-
threatening environment to encourage more collaboration and innovative efforts.
Teacher MS2 notes that more people will share what they are doing if they “know
their job is not on the line” even if they try something and it goes wrong.
Teachers also appreciate when the school leadership is thoughtful in their
decision-making process by involving faculty input, listening to their concerns and
questions. Communication is key for leaders as they seek to introduce and implement
the initiatives. This involves drawing out ideas, but also quelling the voices of the
naysayers, as teacher A1 recounts hearing from her administrator, “No, we don’t just

103
do it because we’ve always done it this way. Let’s really ask these questions and
look at it.”
Allocating resources. Faculty were in agreement in their view that the
school leadership is responsible for providing the opportunity and resources needed
for teachers to be innovative, which includes scheduling time to meet with other
teachers, as well as providing funds for conference travel and purchasing
professional materials. As teacher E1 pointed out, “They (school leadership) support
people who are coming up with innovative ideas on their own and you say to them,
yeah, here’s money, here’s time, that sounds like a fascinating thing.”
Allocating resources pertaining to personnel is a leadership responsibility that
can support innovative efforts. The assignment of CRTs to support and promote
technology initiatives across the school enhances innovations in curriculum and
instruction. The addition of teaching assistants in the elementary school classrooms
increase the attentiveness to student learning needs thereby enabling teachers to try
new instructional and curricular ideas. Elementary teacher E2 recognized this,
“What’s also helped is that second grade and third grade has another assistant,
somebody to help. Cause if you want to be innovative and try new things, I think you
need help too, with the workload.”
The size of the school dictates the need for strong leadership for the school to
operate successfully, but the faculty members see the role of school leadership as
more supportive than directive in regards to structural issues, thereby increasing
teacher participation in innovative initiatives. Teacher MS3 describes it this way,

104
“Because we are so large I think there has to be clear-cut leadership, and leadership
that is not oppressive and prescriptive…leadership that makes those opportunities
and supports us morally, monetarily, in every way.”
Leadership Practices and Cultural Issues
School culture can influence leadership practices, just as leadership practices
influence school culture. The leadership responses that reflect and
interconnectedness with cultural influences demonstrate it in two ways, through: 1)
the political decisions that affect group culture; and 2) the human resource factors
that influence group culture.
Political decisions. The faculty observes that school leadership influences
culture and climate through their selective hiring and placement of teachers within
certain grades, teams, or leadership roles. As teacher MS2 states, “They’ve (school
leaders) got to look for the hiring of the type of individual who is going to have that
direction, that kind of aptitude.” Teacher A2 notes that in the Academy while the
principal makes the decision on hiring teachers based on goals and directions, “once
he puts someone in place, I think he’s going to say, you can go ahead and go.”
Teachers agree that school leadership guides change by putting certain people in
certain situations. Elementary teacher E2 notes that the diversity of the faculty
population generates innovative possibilities:
It’s (Punahou) innovative because I think we have such a faculty that is very
diverse. You’ve got people coming for all areas of the world with different
backgrounds, different ideas. I think have a good mixture of young teachers
with middle ground, and then you have very seasoned teachers.

105
School leadership style also affects the culture in terms of how it manages it
power and authority. Most teachers describe being invited to participate in
opportunities, where they are nudged, and not pushed to participate. Teacher E2
reports, “I think the climate is, things are not pushed. I feel things aren’t pushed on
me. There’s a comfort level. Things are just thrown out there and then it’s just the
support they (leadership) give us.”
Teacher responses indicate that even when leadership expresses a strong
direction, individual faculty want to maintain their ability to choose what they will
and will not do. However, there are other faculty members who trust in the judgment
of the leadership and want to support their efforts. As teacher MS2 says, “If my
principal or supervisor, someone above me, recommends something, I’m going to
read it because that’s our game plan and I think everyone should be on the same page
and following the same game plan to be successful.”
Several teachers supported school leadership and their decision-making
authority. They stated that once decisions are made about a certain policy or
procedure the leadership needs to follow-through with the appropriate action.
“Forcing people to realize that this is the direction we are taking” according to MS2.
Or as expressed by teacher E1, “When people are kicking and screaming and it’s
like, No, we are doing this. They’re (school leaders) the people who have the power
and the authority to say it.” However, those teachers who expressed the desire to
maintain their autonomy even when decisions and policies are made countered this
viewpoint, as expressed by teacher A3.

106
But I think after setting up the structure and creating opportunities, I think the
balance comes with knowing how much push is enough and then letting go
and making it autonomous so that the teachers are the ones doing it
themselves.

Human resource factors. Teachers value the recognition they receive from
the leadership for taking on additional responsibilities, stepping outside of their
comfort zone, developing innovative practices, not matter how big or small. Teacher
MS3 comments:
I guess just the recognition that we were doing this extra task always made
me feel valued… There’s a lot of gratitude sent your way by both teachers
and administration. They are quick to acknowledge you if you take on things
or if you do kind of move out of the sphere of your classroom… That kind of
one way relates to innovation in that they are acknowledging efforts to look
beyond what you do currently and to look beyond just your own simple
needs.

It is also a challenge for leadership to create collaborative cultures where
people will work together to generate new ideas. Faculty comment on the need for
developing the trust and respect that support risk-taking needed to create something
new. Elementary teacher E3 shares:
I think they (leadership) have to present the opportunity for learning and
changing. And I think creating a collaborative environment, where people are
willing to work together because when you have an innovative community,
people have to be supportive. The peers have to be supportive because you
need to bounce ideas off each other, ask questions, share ideas with others.
So, I think leaders need to promote that collaboration and give time actually
for that collaboration to happen.

Faculty members want their needs understood by the school leadership as the
innovation initiative of ITLII moves forward. Teacher MS1 believes that leaders

107
need to show “a degree of encouragement that how you’re spending your time is
useful and important.” Teacher E3 states it this way:
They have to be supportive of attempts because not everyone is going to
change at the same rate. So, I think everyone wants to feel validated in their
attempt to change, as small or as great as they may be.

Teacher A1 agrees that there are teachers who move slowly through change and the
effect this has on innovation:
Change happens really slowly, in that we have to talk about everything first
to sort of understand why we are doing it, which is really valuable. But then I
think the speed by which we allow for change can sometimes inhibit
innovation.

Teachers share that innovation means change, and change is difficult for most
people. By changing their practices in new directions, there is the fear on the behalf
of some teachers that they have been wrong about their teaching methods for the past
ten or fifteen years. Academy teacher A2 explains, “You’ve been here for thirty
years and you’re going to have to do this (change), it’s going to be difficult, why is
he making me do this?”
Summary of RQ3 Findings
Leadership needs to employ those practices that can support the needs of
their teachers, while also moving the institution forward with its innovation
initiative. These practices should reflect an understanding of the four frames of
organizational leadership in order to address the myriad of situations posed when
creating a climate for innovation. Structural issues involving resources allocation and
distribution, whether time, personnel, or funding requires political and human

108
resource leadership skills. Cultural issues involving working with the individuals
within the organization rely on leadership that is adept with human resource and
political frames in order to develop and sustain a climate for innovation.
The analysis of the leadership practice data posits that the challenge of
leadership is to create and sustain a climate for innovation with the structural and
cultural tensions in place at Punahou.
Conclusion
The qualitative data collected from the interview responses revealed much
about the faculty’s perceptions of the structural, cultural, and leadership practices in
place at Punahou and how these factors support or hinder the creation of a climate
for innovation. Five findings emerged from this study.
The first finding from the research study regards the faculty’s perspective of
innovation. Whereas, the organization is seeking school wide innovation through
ITLII, the faculty defines innovation as a personal change and choice reflecting an
improvement in individual practice. Bringing coherence between the school’s goal
for institutional growth through innovation and the faculty’s understanding and
commitment to the goals of ITLII will require deliberate and thoughtful action by
Punahou’s leadership.
Second, as a large institution Punahou is faced complex organizational
structure issues. The traditional success of the school had led to its growth over time.
But while the size is a reflection of its success, it now presents a significant issue to
be addressed in order to develop and sustain an organizational climate for

109
innovation. Punahou has organized the school into smaller divisions and subgroups
so that teachers can receive support from colleagues and area administrators. The
school also provides facilities, personnel, and opportunities for professional
development to encourage continuous improvement. Yet, because the divisions and
subgroups are spread out around the large campus, K-12 conversations, cross-grade
level, or department conversations are limited which hinders school wide initiatives,
such as ITLII.
Third, issues related to the organizational culture at Punahou are influenced
by its history of success. The long-standing achievements of the school have created
a culture that perpetuates traditional notions of success, which can hinder or
discourage a climate for innovation. The expectation for high achievement, as well
as the tension between teacher autonomy and organizational goals are seen in the
varying degrees of commitment to the goals of ITLII and school change.
Fourth, the research results note that the challenge of leadership is to create
and sustain a climate for innovation with the structural and cultural tensions in place.
Themes from the study of the structural and cultural factors were reflected in how
faculty identified the leadership practices that support innovation. Providing
resources and setting policies that encourage teachers to make changes is often a
structural concern for leaders. But the faculty had strong feelings that their individual
needs and wants, in terms of finding meaning and value in change, requires that
leadership frame issues using a human resources lens to influence the cultural
aspects of the organization.

110
The fifth finding from the research results point to the strong
interrelationships between organizational structure, culture, and leadership practices
that need to be coordinated and aligned to create and sustain a climate for innovation.
An analysis of the interview responses categorized by climate factors illustrates this
finding by noting that: 1) 46% of the comments identified the interwoven influences
of these three factors; 2) while culture was noted in 38% of responses by itself, it was
cited in combination with other factors in 76% of the responses; 3) structure by itself
was only noted in 11% of comments; and 4) leadership alone, was represented in 5%
of the responses. The researcher questioned whether her role as a mid-level leader
may have contributed to the limited number of leadership responses, as faculty
familiar with her position might have been hesitant to fully disclose their opinions
and thoughts. While this presents a limitation in the study, the overall trends in the
data support the view that changing the climate of an organization is a
multidimensional endeavor rather than a single focused effort.
In Chapter Five these findings from will be discussed in light of the research
on organizational climate that support innovation. Implications for practice and
future research will also be presented.

111
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION
In study after study, where cultural patterns did not support and
encourage reform, changes did not take place. In contrast, things
improved in schools where norms, values, and beliefs reinforced a
strong educational mission, a sense of community, social trust among
staff, and shared commitment to school improvement.
— Deal and Peterson (2009, p. 9)

The goal of this study was to explore the interrelationship between an
educational organization’s structure, culture, and leadership practices and how that
interaction enables a climate for innovation to be created and sustained. The context
of the study of was Punahou School, a traditionally successful K-12 private school in
Honolulu, Hawaii, where collaboration and innovativeness is expected to become
part of the daily practices of their faculty. The initiative for innovation at the school
is being guided through the newly established Institute of Teaching, Learning, and
Instructional Innovation (ITLII).
To explore the three factors that influence the development and sustainability
of a climate for innovation the following research questions were used:
From the faculty’s perspective:
1. How does the organizational structure support or hinder a climate for
innovation?
2. How does the organizational culture support or hinder a climate for
innovation?

112
3. How do the leadership practices of the organization support or hinder the
development and sustainability of a climate for innovation?
Qualitative study methods were utilized to gather data from a purposeful
sampling of the faculty to determine the school’s capacity to realize the vision of
ITLII. Individual interviews were conducted with nine members of the K-12 faculty.
The interviews were then transcribed and coded according to the structural, cultural,
or leadership influences reflected in the responses. Background information about
the school and the demographics of the faculty were collected from a review of
school documents, including Mission and Vision statements, as well as Annual
Reports and Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) Accreditation
documents.
Summary of Findings
An analysis of the qualitative data depicts Punahou's current capacity to
develop a climate for innovation. The data yield five findings pertaining to
innovation in education, organizational structure, organizational culture, and
leadership practices. These five findings identify factors that impact Punahou's
ability to move from a traditionally successful institution to an innovative institution
that addresses the challenges of educating students for the 21
st
century. These
findings are:
1. Based on the perspective of the faculty, innovation is defined as
individual change rather than organizational development. This

113
incoherence in definition can hinder the development of a climate for
innovation throughout the institution.
2. While the traditional success of the school has led to its growth over time,
the size of the school now presents a significant issue to be addressed in
order to develop and sustain an organizational climate for innovation.
3. The long-standing achievements of the school have created a culture that
perpetuates traditional notions of success, which can hinder or discourage
a climate of innovation.
4. The challenge of leadership is to create and sustain a climate for
innovation with the structural and cultural tensions in place at Punahou.
5. The strong inter-relationships between organizational structure, culture,
and leadership practices, suggest that all three factors need to be
coordinated and aligned to successfully initiate and manage innovation
that leads to school change.
Though innovation in education was not included as a research question for the
study, understanding the faculty's definition of innovation provided the context for
analysis of their responses.
The first finding asserts that innovation in education is a matter of individual
choice rather than an organizational goal. This finding is important because it
demonstrates the lack of understanding by the faculty of what brings about dramatic
change in an institution. Elmore (2008) has stated that when good practice and
performance only come from those who already embody the personal attributes and

114
characteristics that make good practice and performance possible, that proportion
seldom grows larger than one quarter or one third of the school or system. Chen
(2010) and Christensen et al. (2008) also acknowledge that “pockets of innovation”
in education exist, but more of these efforts are needed to bring about major changes
in schools. Change needs to focus on faculty moving away from just doing things
better (adapting practice) toward doing things differently (innovating). Punahou, by
creating ITLII, is putting forth the importance of a school wide focus on innovation.
At this time there is incoherence between the faculty’s perspective of innovation, and
what the school is envisioning in terms of their expected behavior and commitment
to institutional innovation.
The second finding claims that the size of the institution impacts the
development of a climate for innovation. This finding is significant because it brings
to light the structural challenges that large institutions, especially successful
traditional organizations, face as they strive to meet the changing demands of a
global, technological society. Bolman and Deal (2008) call for more flexible and
collaborative design in organizational structures to encourage and support
innovation. Creating teams and networks that bring together individuals with diverse
talents and perspectives fosters the creative work needed for innovation (Christensen
et al., 2008; Worley & Lawler, 2006). In schools, these teams form professional
learning communities (PLC) or networks where schools improve through teacher
collaboration around problems of practice (Dufour, 2004; Wagner, 2006). Punahou
has set up structures for small group collaboration within grade levels, team, or

115
departments, but further attention is needed to address the inadequate time for
networking and sharing of practice. But efforts need to be directed toward fostering
collaboration and teaming across the K-12 campus, where the knowledge and
expertise of the diverse faculty can serve to stimulate and inspire innovative practice.
The third finding demonstrates the great influence culture has on an
organization's ability to change, especially when strong traditional notions of success
exist. This finding underscores the need for the leadership to assess and address the
beliefs, expectations and values of the people within their organization, in order to
provide a meaningful context for change initiatives to succeed (Latta, 2009).
Research has noted that traditional patterns of doing things become ingrained in
older organizations, and if these organizations or educational institutions have been
successful, they will not question or reexamine their practices (Deal & Peterson,
2009; Fullan, 20007; Schein, 2010). Thus, culture will inhibit innovation.
McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) noted that even within a school strong and weak
teacher communities exist where both traditional and innovative views are reinforced
depending on the cultural values of the individuals within the communities. At
Punahou their long-standing history of success creates a culture often hesitant to
embrace innovative initiatives for fear of having the school lose its "perfect"
reputation. While there are innovative teacher communities within the institution,
there are also traditional communities of practice that will need the attention of
school leadership if Punahou is to develop a “change friendly” culture, where the

116
urgency for innovation is communicated and supported throughout the school
(Kotter, 2008; Schein, 2010).
The fourth finding emphasizes the importance of developing the strengths
and reinforcing the leadership practices needed to address the structural and cultural
tensions at Punahou. This is a major finding because it posits that leaders have been
provided the knowledge, experience, and skills to work with complex issues of
organizational change. Leaders influence internal changes in organizations by setting
up the structures, processes, and culture to support innovation (Elenkov & Manev,
2005). Their attitudes and transformational practices determine organizational
outcomes including culture and climate (Akkermans et al., 2008; Damanpour &
Schneider, 2006; Sarros et al., 2008). However, Elmore (2000) points out that
schools leaders are being asked to assume responsibilities they area largely
unequipped to assume. Without a plan for cultivating and educating the leaders
within its institution on matters of structure and more importantly cultural change,
Punahou will struggle to bring about innovation which leads to school wide
transformation.
The fifth finding widens the perspective for innovative change by drawing
attention to the interconnectedness between the structural and cultural factors, and
leadership practices in developing a climate for innovation. This finding is important
because it recognizes that transforming the climate in an organization is a
multidimensional challenge, where changes in structure and culture need to be
coordinated and aligned with strategic leadership practices. Akkermans et al. (2008)

117
identify nine dimensions of organizational climate for innovation, which according
to the researcher reflect the combined influences of structure, culture, and leadership
practices as noted in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1
Structure, Culture and Leadership Practices and the Climate for Innovation
Nine dimensions of an
organization’s climate for innovation
(Akkermans et al., 2008)
Structural
factor
Cultural
factor
Leadership
practice
Challenge/ involvement X X
Freedom X X X
Trust/ Openness X X
Idea-Time X
Playfulness/ Humor X X
Conflict X X
Idea-support X X
Debate X X
Risk-taking X X

Bolman and Deal (2008) acknowledge that complex organizations pose
challenges that require leaders to reframe situations in order to find successful
solutions. As Punahou continues to develop and entrust ITLII with the mission of
developing a climate for innovation within the K-12 institution, a broader plan for

118
addressing structural and cultural challenges with effective leadership practices are
demanded. Without attention to these factors, the inspired vision for the future
contributions to innovative teaching and learning will struggle to find faculty
support.
Implications for Practice
This study focused on understanding the influences of structure, culture, and
leadership practices on the development of a climate for innovation. Four
implications for practice can be drawn from the research results and its findings: 1)
defining the vision of innovation; 2) creating flexible structures where innovation
can take place; 3) strengthening the capacity of the school leadership to shape
practices towards innovative collaborations among the faculty; and 4) demystifying
the influences of culture and how it influences individual behavior of the faculty.
Key to any organization seeking change is defining what the change means in
terms of what they are hoping to achieve. This first implication is based on finding
one where individuals lacked an understanding of the goal for institutional
innovation, and therefore their behavior solely reinforced individual improvement,
thus creating incoherence within the organization regarding innovation. A
recommendation for practice focuses on the communication efforts of the
organization’s leadership and their ability to provide a clear understanding of
innovation, which includes how it is defined, the intended outcomes, and an
explanation of expectations. Transformational leaders consider the needs of their
organizations by providing clarity through the articulation of a vision for the future,

119
appropriate role models, fostering the acceptance of goals, setting high performance
expectations, providing individual support as well as intellectual stimulation (Sarros
et al., 2008). Leaders striving to develop and sustain climates for innovation
communicate and reinforce their vision for innovative practice among the members
of the organization. Time for regular follow-up conversations with smaller groups
within the organization is scheduled throughout the change process. These meetings
would serve to answer questions, reinforce the vision, clarify misunderstandings,
provide additional information, and celebrate successful efforts, which would
solidify a common vision for organizational innovation.
The second implication addresses the structural flexibility needed to foster a
climate for innovation. This recommendation stems from finding two that large
organizations struggle in their attempts to create diverse collaborative groups to
design new ideas and practices. Christensen et al. (2008) describe the different kinds
of teams capable of addressing the various tasks of an organization. When systems
need redesigning, or a change from traditional methods or practices is called for, a
separate team focused on research and design, will work independently outside of the
main organization, to accomplish this task. When the goal is to develop new ideas or
innovative practice, efforts to create teams of diversely talented and knowledgeable
individuals are warranted. These “heavy weight teams” come together on a short-
term basis, and work on a specific task or problem (Christensen et al., 2008). Their
collaboration brings to light creative possibilities that may not ordinarily surface in
traditional committee work. These innovative ideas are then shared with the broader

120
groups within the organization, to be implemented and revised until it becomes an
innovation that the entire organization is able to adopt successfully.
The third implication focuses on developing knowledgeable and skilled
leadership. This recommendation is based on the finding that leaders are often
challenged with multiple issues within complex organizations. Bolman and Deal
(2008) present a multiframe design that guides leaders in understanding the issues of
complex organizational change and what can be done about them. Mourshed et al.
(2010) further stress the importance of sustaining system improvement from one
leader to the next. They note that the most successful examples of leadership
continuity come from school systems that are able to develop their future leaders
from within. A strategic plan for cultivating and training leaders within the
organization focused on multidimensional leadership skills, knowledge, and
expertise should be designed to coincide with other change efforts.
The fourth implication for practice acknowledges the most difficult barrier to
organizational change, culture. Culture can be the strongest facilitator or barrier in
developing a climate for innovation, because it is rooted in the history, values,
beliefs, and tradition of the organization (Akkermans et al., 2008). The success of the
previous three implications for practice is dependent upon the leader’s ability to
influence the norms, values, and beliefs of the individuals within the organization.
Research has suggested that leaders understand the “human side of change” and have
a process for reducing the fear of making the change, developing new competencies,
while supporting people in their search for meaningful reasons to change (Evans,

121
1996; Kotter, 2008; Schein, 2010). It is vital that organizations devise methods for
assisting individuals in identifying their values and beliefs, and confronting their
resistance to the impending changes so that they are able to recognize and manage
the pressure from their work environment that influences their behavior. Latta (2009)
makes the recommendation that leaders identify the conflicts between existing
cultural commitments and those embedded in the change initiatives, and work to
resolve those conflicts through a process-based approach such as her OC
3
model.
Addressing culture is key if organizations are to create a climate for innovation
within their institutions.
Future Research
The data for this study on the factors that influence an educational
organization's climate for innovation represented the faculty perspective. An analysis
of the data identified the influence that leadership practices had on the structure and
culture of the organization. However, no information was gathered from the
leadership of the organization to evaluate their perspective of organizational climate.
To develop a fuller understanding of factors that influence an educational
organization's efforts towards school wide innovation, the study of how school
leadership sees their role and their influence within the organization is suggested.
Research has noted the influence particularly of middle-level management on the
organization's change efforts (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989). An analysis of the
organizational structure of school leadership, the culture of school leaders, as well as

122
their capacity to deal with the challenges of complex organizational issues would
benefit research in this area of innovation leading to school growth and change.
Conclusion
The changes taking place in the world today reflect shifts in the
demographics of our population, how we communicate and work with others in a
global society, and how schools are keeping up with increased demand for
proficiency (Wagner, 2006). Yet, as Wagner asserts even our best schools may not
be preparing our students for the 21
st
century and beyond. Chen (2010) and
Christensen et al. (2008) are promoting the notion of innovative change in education
is needed to address the achievement gap, and this infers dramatic shifts of
paradigms, and resources. Organizational research has provided much information
on how innovation can be successful implemented. Applying that research to
increase the number of successful schools where innovation in education holds the
key to improving student achievement is of vital important to our country, as our
rankings on the PISA continues to slide downward (PISA, 2009).
This study examined the efforts of a traditional K-12 private institution
seeking to increase its innovative capacity, and the challenges it faces in making this
change. With ample resources, Punahou is still confronted with structural, cultural,
and leadership challenges as it strives to realize its vision for a school wide climate
for innovation. Further research is needed in schools, even our most successful and
well-supported ones, to better understand the complex variables and their
interrelationships that create the innovative institutions our student deserve.

123
REFERENCES
Akkermans, H. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Isaksen, E. J. (2008, September). Leadership for
innovation: A global climate survey. Orchard Park, N.Y.: The Creative
Problem Solving Group, Inc.

Amabile, T. M. (1998, September/October). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business
Review, 77-87.

Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational
leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1),
9-32.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations, artistry, choice, and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Chen, M. (2010). Education nation, six leading edges of innovation in our schools.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class; How
disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America's
commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006, September). Phases of the adoption of
innovation in organizations: Effects of environment, organization and top
managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215-236. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x

Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls,paradoxes,
and promises (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619-654.

DuFour, R. (2004, May). What is a "professional learning community"? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.

Education at a glance, 2010: OECD indicators. (2010). Retrieved from OECD
website: http://www.oecd.org

124
Elenkov, D. S., & Manev, I. M. (2005, June). Top management leadership and
influence on innovation: the role of sociocultural context. Journal of
Management, 31(3), 381-402. doi:10.1177/0149206304272151

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington
DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F. (2007, April). Professional networks and school improvements. The
School Administrator, 20-24.

Evans, R. (1996). The Human side of school change, Reform, resistance, and the
real-life problems of innovation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform
organizations? A study of the relationship between leadership and
entrepreurship. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 211-235.
doi:10.1080/15700760490503715

Foster, N. (Ed.). (1991). Punahou, the history and promise of a school of the islands.
Honolulu, HI: Punahou School.

Framework for 21st century learning. (2009, December). Partnership for 21st
century skills. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from
http://www.21stcenturyskills.org

Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat, a brief history of the twenty-first century
(Updated and expanded ed.). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.

Hallinger, P. (2003, November). Leading educational change: reflections on the
practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 33(3), 329-351. doi:10.1080/0305764032000122005

Innovation: the OECD Definition (n.d.) Retrieved February 9, 2012 from
http://www.oecd.org

Jackson, D. (2000). The school improvement journey: Perspectives on leadership.
School Leadership & Management, 20(1), 61-78.

125
Jaskyte, K. (2004, Winter). Transformational leadership, organizational culture, and
innovativeness in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership, 15(2), 153-168.

Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership:
A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89(5), 755-768.

Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in
enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary
findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544. doi:10.1016/ S1048-
9843(03)00050-X

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 622-629

Kotter, J. P. (1998). Culture and coalitions. In R. Gibson (Ed.), Rethinking the future:
Rethinking business, principles, competition, control & complexity,
leadership, markets and the world (pp. 164-178). London: Nicholas Brealey.

Kotter, J. P. (2008, Spring). Developing a change-friendly culture. Leader to Leader,
2008(48), 33-38. doi:10.1002/ltl.278

Latta, G. F. (2009, August). A process model of organizational change in cultural
context (OC3 Model): The impact of organizational culture on leading
change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 19-37.
doi:10.1177/1548051809334197

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A.
(2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out
of the system. Leadership and policy in schools, 6, 37-67. doi:10.1080/
15700760601091267

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works:
From research to results (pp. 41-64). Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McLaughlin, M. & Talbert, J. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teachers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

126
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world's most improved
school systems keep getting better. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company
website:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Educati
on/Knowledge_Highlights/How%20School%20Systems%20Get%20Better.a
spx

Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership: Theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Peterson, S. J., Walumbwa, F. O., Byron, K., & Myrowitz, J. (2009, April). CEO
positive psychological traits, transformational leadership, and firm
performance in high-technology start-up and established firms. Journal of
Management, 35(2), 348-368. doi:10.1177/0149206307312512

Punahou School. (March 2009). WASC-HAIS Self Study: Punahou School 2009-
2010. Honolulu, HI: Schauble, Stewart, Dare, Fujioka, and Gallagher.

Punahou School. (August 2010). Annual Reports to the Board of Trustees, 2009-
2010 (Volume II). Honolulu, HI

Punahou School. (2010). Working at Punahou. Honolulu, HI.

Punahou School. (2011). Handbook 2011-2012. Honolulu, HI.

Sarros, J. C., Cooper, B. K., & Santora, J. C. (2008, November). Building a climate
for innovation through transformational leadership and organizational
culture. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 15(2), 145-158.
doi:10.1177/1548051808324100

Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4
th
Ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

“School of One.” (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.schoolofone.org

Scott, J. (2011, Spring). Finding our drive: Autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Independent School, 70(3).

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994, June). Determinants of innovative behavior: A
path model of individual innovation in the workplace. The Academy of
Management Journal, 37(3), 580-607. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/256701

127
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline, the art and practice of the learning
organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001, April). Investigating school
leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher,
30(3), 23-28.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006, December 1).
Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of
Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258. doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't
teach the new survival skills our children need--and what we can do about it.
New York, NY: Basic Books.

Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Transformational leadership at different
phases of the innovation process. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 2(2), 169-180.

Worley, C. G., & Lawler, E. E., III. (2006, August). Designing organizations that
are built to change (Monograph No. G06-6). Retrieved from Center for
Effective Organizations

128
APPENDIX A
THE MISSION OF PUNAHOU SCHOOL
(Punahou School Handbook, 2011-2012)
We are committed to provide an environment where students can:
• Develop moral and spiritual values consistent with the Christian principles on
which Punahou was founded, affirming the worth and dignity of each
individual.

• Develop intellectual, academic and physical potential to the fullest degree,
preparing them for college and for challenges facing them now and in the
future.

• Develop and enhance creativity and appreciation for the arts.

• Appreciate cultural diversity and develop social responsibility.

129
APPENDIX B
OUR VISION FOR PUNAHOU SCHOOL
(Punahou School Handbook, 2011-2012)
1. Educational Program: To promote an enlightened and challenging
educational program for Punahou students through a coherent and
appropriately integrated K-12 curriculum that is continuously examined,
renewed, and communicated in an effort to strengthen it.

2. Spiritual Development and Individual Interdependence: To help each
Punahou student to develop his or her fullest powers both as an individual
and as a member of a group; and to promote within them a sense of
responsibility towards and interdependence with their schoolmates, their
community, and their world.

3. Student Economic Diversity: To admit a qualified student body that more
closely reflects the economic diversity of the Hawai’i community.

4. Faculty and Staff: To attract, nurture, and retain an inspiring, dedicated, and
knowledgeable faculty and staff; and to create a work environment for all
employees that is characterized by high expectations, productivity, healthy
communication, ongoing support, and professional development.

5. Physical Plant: To maintain and improve Punahou’s facilities to
appropriately support and extend the school’s educational mission and vision.

6. Financial Management: To manage Punahou’s finances with respect for all
of its constituencies, and with financial efficiency and responsibility at all
levels of decision-making while supporting Punahou’s educational mission
and vision.

7. Institutional Advancement: To provide the necessary resources beyond
tuition to meet Punahou’s educational mission and vision; and to create
advocacy for the school among its constituents and within Hawai’i and the
global community.

8. Institutional Interdependence: To maintain and extend Punahou’s
interdependence with contributions to Hawai’i and the global community.

130
9. Technology: To foster and maintain an educational environment in which
technology is a tool which cultivates learning and enhances problem-solving
and communication.

10. Sustainability: To model and promote a sustainable educational community
and to educate our students for a sustainable future not only through
institutional action, but also through individual choices.

131
APPENDIX C
SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

132
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES BY CLIMATE FACTOR

133
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES ON INNOVATION IN EDUCATION
Teacher
Innovation in Education
I = Individual, personal change
S = School wide; division/ dept. change
ITLII
Scale of 1-4
1= No knowledge
2= Heard of it but not much else
3= Heard of it and knows a little of what it is
4= Knows what it is and its goals
E1 I/S: Focus on curriculum, technology
Personal: Trying something new for me;
slightly change something I already go;
renewing
Institution: Keep abreast of change in
our culture and society; create a vision
for our school
Classroom: teaching new content
Growth
4
Heard it from both B. and J.; on PAC
Share so we can get out of our ind.
classrooms and see what other people are
doing
Challenge: how are we going to do that;
change culture
E2 I/S: Focus on diversity of students,
technology
Ability to change and adapt
Being one step ahead
Searching for different ways to improve
Keep up with changing culture
2
Don’t know too much about what exactly it
is
Heard about it from J. and B. in big faculty
meetings
E3 I/S: Focus on Technology
Change and looking at new ways to do
things; technology is a huge part of
innovation in education
2
Actually I don’t know too much about that; I
heard J. talk about that on the first day of
school
MS1 I/ S: Focus on hands-on learning,
robotics
Doing something new but not
necessarily for the first time;
Something that reaches your students in
a new way; teaches them new content;
gets them interested in new areas
3
Know about it from a number of avenues; J.,
Summer lab school; but I feel like there’s a
number of unanswered questions; I’m still a
little bit uncertain about how it all wraps
together

134
Teacher
Innovation in Education
I = Individual, personal change
S = School wide; division/ dept. change
ITLII
Scale of 1-4
1= No knowledge
2= Heard of it but not much else
3= Heard of it and knows a little of
what it is
4= Know what it is and its goals
MS2 I: Focus on curriculum, technology
Trying things that are new, new to yourself;
borrow successful ideas from other teachers;
sharing with others who are excited about
trying out new things
3
I just know about it from the large
group Punahou meetings
Being a leader, innovator in teaching,
putting ourselves out there
MS3 I: Focus on technology
Not abandoning everything you’ve done
Trying to teach something you value in a new
way; technology has nurtured innovation
3
Heard it because of B. & J.
Not intimately involved myself
Umbrella kind of group that’s moving
Punahou forward
A1 I/S: Focus on honoring great teachers
Take things that we know work well with
students and find new ways to apply them to
other areas
Find new ways to approach materials or
engage students
Reimagining things you used to do
3
Know a little bit because I was on the
steering committee last year
Dr Scott’s vision to create an
environment where teachers can share
great practice
A2 I: focus on curriculum and instruction
Something that can be used by a teacher or in
the classroom to teach a concept better;
technology for some things but not actually
used much in class
2
I’ve only heard the announcements in
the big faculty meetings
A3 I/S: focus on problem solving skills of students
Pointing to something new and different
More towards getting at what we want the
kids to have when they leave
Moving away from what has been a more
traditional structure
Altering how classroom is run & end goals
Move from content to skill focused
2
I’ve heard it spoken of here and there,
but it’s really vague to me.

135
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF STRUCTURE RESPONSES

136
Table F.1
Summary of Structure Responses
Subgroup Teacher School structure: Resources: Administrative support: Cultural influences:
Elem.
(K-5)
E1 • Grade lev. divisions can
hinder innovation
• Adjacencies support talk
between grades
•Informal gatherings by interest
(local food group) of people
from across campus
• Encourage vertical cross-
fertilization of ideas
• Finding time for
conversations hard because we
are busy
• Sabbatical affected my
teaching
• Generous support of teacher
growth
• ITLII to encourage more
teacher sharing
• Change of culture needed to have
more teacher sharing
• Grade levels only know own
curriculum; floating ideas among
same people; horizontal sharing
• Innovation doesn’t happen in a
room by yourself; people spark
ideas in others
• We’re a big place and we’re
complicated
E2 • Classroom buildings support
conversation w/ adjacencies
• Learn as a grade level
• After school groups, clubs for
teachers
• Opportunities to change grade
levels
• Added personnel to help
with student workload
• Need time to talk about what
we’re doing, share interests
• Ability to communicate and
connect via tech. (email,
blogs, websites)
• Summer workshops • Changing grade levels is exciting
• Faculty with diverse knowledge
and experience
E3 • More collaboration with
people in different parts of the
school
• Supervisor support
• Not enough time for cross
campus sharing
• Technology (laptops,
interactive whiteboards)
• Support staff: IT, CRT
• Technology workshops
• Summer classes
• Summer lab school
• Curriculum Day
• Mainland conferences
• Professional Dev. Day
• Move towards more learner-
centered, personalized education
• On PD Days have groups meet
under themes, not divisions

137
Table F.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher School structure Resources Administrative support Cultural influences
Middle
School
(Gr. 6-8)
MS1 • Connect artroom to classroom
by connecting with teachers
• Size, proximity of classrooms
• Teachers collaborating with
other teachers on projects
• More time needed for faculty
to kick ideas around,
collaborate
• Scheduling of time for
teachers to meet
• ITLII
MS2 • Adjacencies as teams
• Mentor teacher in science as
new teacher
• Supervisor support
• Changing teams forces you to
be innovative
• Supervisor support
• More time to meet in small
groups to have conversations;
hard to innovate alone
• IT support
• Money
• Technology equipment
• Professional Days (time)
• Meeting with smaller groups to
discuss ideas before engaging in
large group, whole school
conversations
• Hard to innovate by yourself, best
ideas come from others
• After you teach for a while you get
stuck in a groove
• Building trust in large faculty is
tough
MS3 • Composition of people in team
makes a difference
• Informal lunch gatherings to
share technology ideas
• Physical adjacencies
• Not enough time to think and
talk about changes; gr. Lev.
meetings are rushed
• CRT support, invitations for
learning, ideas
• Librarian support for Prof.
Dev. materials
• Professional Dev. Day
• Curriculum Day
• Professional dev. funds
• Summer lab school
• Composition of team
determined by supervisor
• Possibility of complacency
working with same people, same
team, old-timers
• Team input of who they want to
work with

138
Table F.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher School structure Resources Administrative support Cultural influences
Academy A1 • School is big so message
dissemination is hard; large
departments
• More opportunities to
collaborate across
departments
• Physical set-up of offices
by departments
• Faculty partners, mentors
• Informal lunch groups
• Scheduling time for people to
meet
• Infrequency of meetings
• More opportunities for groups
to meet and talk beyond
Curriculum Day (time)
• Curriculum Committee
• Office of Instruction to support
ideas with resources
• Rely on middle administrators
to disseminate messages
• Leadership assigns faculty
partners
• Teacher choice in partners
• Change happens slowly because
we have to talk about it first to
understand it
A2 • School divided to create
smaller working groups
• Easier to innovate in
smaller groups
• Difficult to implement
ideas across the school
• Mentoring program to
help solve problem of t.
isolation (new teachers)
• CRT’s offer technology
support
• Summer workshops
• Curriculum Committee
• Hard to get people in large
department to agree to do things
• Problems with implementation
of programs, no follow-up
• If I want to learn then I can
• How to get faculty buy-in
• Implement similar ideas across
campus so behaviors will change

139
Table F.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher School structure Resources Administrative support Cultural influences
Acad.
(Gr. 9-12)
A3 • Lay out opportunities so
people don’t have to search
for them
• Restructure for more
curricular integration
• Curricular conversations
between Academy and
Junior School (K-8)
• Change physical structure,
adjacencies
• Dept. Heads need to
facilitate, sustain
conversations
• Messages shared in large
faculty meetings not clear
• Not enough time: workload,
class prep, grading, family
commitments
• Materials on educational
practice available in library
• CRT headquarters in library
• ITLII, Bruce
• Curriculum Committee
• Prof. dev. funds
• Summer lab school
• Get people to know one another
so they will work together
• Restructuring would cause
emotional turmoil, chaos; people
don’t agree
• Inner circle of people who
know what is happening
• Don’t think best on own, need
conversations
• Systematic structural change
would be needed
• Personalities can support or
discourage innovation
• People don’t show up when
technology workshops offered

CRT = Curriculum Resource Teacher (instructional technology)
DH = Department head
IT = Instructional/ informational technology
ITLII = Institute for Teaching, Learning, and Instructional Innovation
PD = Professional Development

140
APPENDIX G
SUMMARY OF CULTURE RESPONSES

141
Table G.1
Summary of Culture Responses
Subgroup Teacher Individual values & expectations Teacher community values & expectations Institution values & expectations
Elem.
(K-5)
E1 • Renewal of the roots of learning (play, healthy
living)
• Reflect on practice: does it help kids? Make them
better people?
• Drive to grow, do a good job
• Observer and learner: watch, read, listen, blog
• Reflect on experiences: what have I learned? What
am I going to leave behind in the field?
• Change is difficult, innovation involves change
• Empower people to choose to innovate to get buy-in; otherwise
they will resist; some may retire or leave
• Sometimes they need to be told they’re going to do it, ready or
not
• If people disagree with change they will express it ‘around the
water cooler’
• After sabbatical I was willing to share but nobody asked me to;
don’t want to be perceived as pushy or bossy
• We want to learn but don’t want to be told we need to learn
• Parts of the school are traditional, so don’t rock the boat
• ITLII is creating expectation that people will share
• School viewed as cutting edge, but it isn’t when
compared to other places
• Punahou is a good school
• We think we are the perfect school and it’s not okay to
say we aren’t perfect; it’s disloyal
• We’re a big school and so it’s complicated, not one
statement can describe us
• Punahou builds in expectation by selective hiring
• Punahou is a college preparatory institution with 170 yrs.
of academic excellence and building leaders
E2 • Drive to want to go and jump in; to learn more, do
more
• Flexible, risk-taker, can’t be afraid to fail, resilient,
creative
• Understand it’s a journey, process
• Resourceful, problem solver
• Value diversity of students, difference in learning
styles, creativity
• Integrate own philosophy, time, and commitment
when looking at innovation opportunities
• Motivated by what others are doing; try to keep up
• Don’t feel threatened or controlled or pushed in one
direction
•Willingness to learn new things, take advantage of travel
opportunities, prof. dev., leadership roles
• Culture has changes from being closed to more open access to
information and opportunities
• Communicate and connect with others using email, blogs,
websites
• Value diversity knowledge and experience of faculty
• Willingness to share work of grade level so it doesn’t always fall
on one person
• Making time to share ideas; spark new ideas
• Develop trust and mutual respect to share ideas freely
• Talk about changes that can help kids and seeing how they learn
best
• Newer faculty jump right in and go
• Feel vibes from colleagues; motivate others
• Punahou is a community both on campus and off;
alumni; always someone you can tap for an answer
• Punahou is innovative because every year there’s always
some new, something that changes
• Punahou values innovation, it’s what it has always been
about
E3 • Willing to step out of comfort zone
• Try different things
• Being willing to fail is hard
• Creative, patient, humble in attempts
• People who don’t innovate are looked down upon
• Atmosphere promotes innovation, pushed to try
• Share ideas with colleagues
• Expectation to innovate from peers, parents, students

142
Table G.1, continued
Subgroup Teachers Individual values & expectations Teacher community values & expectations Institution values & expectations
Middle
School
(Gr. 6-8)
MS1 • Have diverse interests
• Not afraid to fail, willing to try things out; take
risks
• Interests in problem solving
• Flexibility in choosing what and how I teach
(propose classes, projects)
• Hired to fulfill goals
• Teachers have individual autonomy, opportunities to be creative
• Value relationships with students (how you make them feel about
themselves and their abilities)
• Efforts appreciated by colleagues
• Teachers reticent to change; some have retired
• How much people are willing to do? Intended audience for sharing?
• Punahou has creative and
successful teachers
• Innovation is appreciated
• School expects you to do great
things
MS2 • Open to trying even though it will be lots of
work at first
• Goal of helping kids
• Open to change, new ideas; not afraid to make
mistakes
• Good communication skills, able to talk with
others
• Do a good job of trying new things, helping
students, communicating with parents
• Build trust in order to innovate and share ideas freely
• Excited about teaching, trying new things, learn from each other
• Younger teachers have many ideas, easy to talk to
• Hard to put yourself out there; afraid of criticism
• People have a hard time with change
• Punahou teachers one of the best on island
• Different teachers have different routines; some stuck in same
routine and don’t change
• Punahou stereotype as snooty and
preppy
• Punahou a top private school;
parents pay tuition for their children
to attend
MS3 • Innovative thinker, curious, open mind;
energy; personal striving
• Willing to look elsewhere, read for ideas
• In tune with young people and how they learn
best; listen to students
• Worried about making mistakes, so take things
slow, methodical
• Don’t want to let parents, students down
• Reflect on practices
• We are doing business as usual; offers, invitations put out for
interested to more forward; individual not group effort
• Teachers at a comfortable spot, don’t change; don’t have anything
to prove
• Traditional teachers validated by other teachers, parents, students
• Stick to things you value from your past experience
• Uphold traditions in a new way
• Acknowledgement by colleagues for taking things on, doing more
outside the classroom
• How am I going to do it all?
• How much people innovate depends on their time, energy, and
resources
• Older teachers take longer to change
• Faculty given message that
everyone needs to do something
innovative; standard of being a
Punahou teacher

143
Table G.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher Individual values & expectations Teacher community values & expectations Institution values & expectations
Academy
(Gr. 9-12)
A1 • Afraid to screw up; hesitant to try if it won’t work
• Flexible
• Constantly reinventing self, re-examining practice
• Don’t take self too seriously, can’t be afraid to fail
• Invitation to innovate; if you want to act you go down that path
• Sampling of innovative people sufficient
• Create desire in others to be innovative
• Teachers do good work but don’t want to innovate; don’t see it as their
job
• Nurturing community where mistakes are seen as a way to make
progress; model that with students
• People nudge others along
• Vision of innovation at Punahou
• Mission statement, provide opportunities for
innovation
• Make innovation more school wide
• School encourages excellence
• Punahou doesn’t make mistakes, polished;
perfectness; pressure
• Nobody has permission to do what they’ve always
done
• ITLII will support sharing
A2 • Analyze problem, brainstorm solutions
• I do some pretty good things, but I don’t share
unless I’m asked
• I won’t blog, post what I do, or seek out people to
share with
• Innovative teacher can adapt to almost any
situation
• Communicate with others; talk about what
happens in classroom; view other teachers
• Adopting an innovation means that I have been
doing something wrong; show me that it’s better
• If it’s important, I’ll give it time
• Selective hire
• Standardize practice when there are disputes about consistency (tests,
grading); this limits freedom
• Keep mouth shut for a few years; do what you’re supposed to; after a
few years you can voice your opinion
• Don’t value innovation because we don’t value change
• Chaos would ensue if we tried to change something we’ve always done
• There are absolutes in every department and getting them to change
their minds is a slow process
• What to do with teachers who aren’t growing, stagnant? How do you
get rid of a teacher?
• Punahou doesn’t want to make mistakes (on a
hire)
• Expectation to constantly innovate and change
(Perception of those outside of school)
• Expectation to do the best you can (Perception
from those inside the school)
• Punahou is not really reality because there are not
the major issues like in public education (violence)
• Pushed to improve by faculty, students, parents
A3 • Have clear goals of what they want to accomplish;
constant re-evaluating, tweaking,, make better
• Critical thinker, compare, question; be thoughtful,
take time; willing to appear backward
• Beware of trends
• Learn what you can, take what you think is good
• Change is personal, slow shift away from
autonomy
• People don’t take advantages of resources, opportunities; don’t have
desire; a waste
• Innovation needs to be an expectation; might lose faculty if people
don’t agree
• Allow people to question; not totally buy-in
• Teachers model learning process for students
• Everyone wants to be a better teacher
• Fear of telling people what to do, I don’t like people telling me what to
do
• People can do a lot of their own stuff which can spark innovation
• Dept. conversations needs to change, resistance by some faculty
• Punahou is not innovative; able to be thoughtful,
critical; pursuing our own course
• Tension in school, how do you balance autonomy
with consistency and integration without stepping
on people’s toes?
• Punahou not locked into standards that can
strangle innovation
• Punahou wants to lead, be cutting edge

144
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF LEADERSHIP RESPONSES

145
Table H.1
Summary of Leadership Responses
Subgroup Teacher
Four frames of leadership
Structural Human Resources Political Symbolic
Elem.
(K-5)
E1 • How to operationalize
vision of ITLII
• Schedule time
• Listen to teachers
• Support coming up with ideas
• PAC- understand constituents questions
• Understand people and their needs; non-
threatening
• Keep abreast of changes in culture, society;
what others are doing
• Make decisions
• Confront resistance, don’t back
down
• Allocate resources for PD
(money, time)
• Hire faculty to fulfill mission
• Authority to make people do
things
• Create vision
• Articulate and
communicate vision
E2 • Manage schedules,
personnel
• Schedule opportunities
to bring people together
• Sensitivity to people’s needs; things aren’t
pushed
• Intellectual stimulation via PD opportunities,
information; be aware of info. Overload
• Empower people, nudge them forward, take
leadership roles
• Listen to teachers
• Nudge out of comfort zone
• Recognition given for work done
• Arrange networks of people for
certain projects (trips)
• Inspire faculty at
Opening chapel
• Communicate vision
E3 • Schedule time and
opportunities for
collaboration across
school
• Provide information, articles on innovative
ideas
• Validate attempts to change
• Create collaborative environment, community
• Pushed along to try new things
• Present opportunities for
learning
• Set vision (J.)
• Set expectations for
innovation
• Atmosphere promotes
innovation

146
Table H.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher
Four frames of leadership
Structural Human Resources Political Symbolic
Middle
School
(Gr. 6-8)
MS1 • Develop clearer picture
of ITLII, structure
• Schedule more time for
collaboration
• Provide encouragement, recognition of efforts
• Individualize rewards based on individual needs
• Know people; what’s important to them; value
relationships
• T. have autonomy
• Support faculty collaboration
• Encourage teachers in their efforts
• T. feels free to take risks
• Communicate with T
• Allocate resources for equipment
(robotics, Wacom tablets)
• Hire faculty that will support school
directions
• Innovation is appreciated as
an institutional goal
• Set expectation that faculty
will do great things
• State philosophy
MS2 • Schedule time for
teachers to meet in small
groups throughout year to
discuss direction
• Develop a game plan
• Determine physical
adjacencies of teachers
• Build relationships between people so that they
can share ideas
• Encourage others to share
• Non-threatening
• Provide information on latest research to stimulate
thinking
• Trust leader’s judgment
• Excited about teaching and trying new things
• Communicate with teachers; listen to ideas
• Provide leadership opportunities (Team leader)
• Force people to realize this is the
direction the school is going in
• Allocate resources for PD
• Decide who collaborates with whom, set
up networks, teams
• Support parent’s needs for their children
• Confront resistance (people who don’t
believe in laptop program)
• Hire best teachers on the island
• Articulate vision of ITLII
throughout the year; Illustrate
vision with examples
• Articulate vision for
innovation; change (inspire
faculty, M.)
MS3 • Schedule time for
teachers to get together
• Clearcut leadership so
that everyone can do their
part
• Policies are not
oppressive or prescriptive
• Arranges PD opportunities
• Provide moral support
• Provide recognition, extra work is valued
• Listen to needs, perceptions
• Determine personnel decisions (hiring,
team assignments)
• Set expectation for curricular goals;
communicate them well
• Allocate funds for PD (monetary
support)
• Select faculty for special projects
(WASC)
• Articulate clarity of purpose
of ITLII
• Direction given in message
at the beginning of the year
chapel (inspire faculty)
• Sets clear goals

147
Table H.1, continued
Subgroup Teacher
Four frames of leadership
Structural Human Resources Political Symbolic
Academy
(Gr. 9-12)
A1 • Provide environment for innovation to
occur
• Develop structure to operationalize ITLII
• Schedule time for T’s to work together
• Empowers T to innovate; nudge people
forward
• Provide leadership opportunities (CC)
• Support T. needs, ideas
• Presents invitations to PD opportunities
• Encourage T. to try new things
• Confronts resistance;; shuts down
naysayers
• Invites questioning
• Allocate resources for R&D, PD
• Sets up faculty partnerships
• Articulate vision
(K., J.)
• Communicate
vision
A2 • Ongoing communication of goals,
direction
• MAP program brings faculty together
• Support teachers
• Consider needs of each department
because they work differently
• Try something if I want; autonomy
• Nonjudgmental conversation
• Good listener
• Thoughtful in how they make decision
and communicate with T
• Offer opportunities for PD
• Open to talking with T’s
• Put people in certain situation
• Hands-on style (dictate change,
micromanage)
• Hands-off style (delegate responsibility)
• Allocate resources (equipment, funds, time)
• Selective hire to shape direction, placement
• Guide change
• Make final decision
• Vision: Punahou
want to lead, be
cutting edge
• Articulate vision of
being a leader in
education (inspire Ts)
A3 • Allow time for thinking and discussing;
in small groups
• Provide resources to support teachers
(CRT)
• DH sustain conversations about
curricular ideas
• Scheduling cross-campus conversations,
logistics
• How to create clear curricular map k-12
• How much autonomy?
• Clearly laid out plans
• Let T’s know about resources
• Setting up new structure to allow for
innovative ideas
• Picking and choosing what’s best for
needs
• Keep people thinking and growing;
allow for skepticism
• Don’t alienate people; personal
relationships and communication
important for change to happen
• Consider needs of each department
• Consider needs of individual when there
is a change in the org.
• Critical thinking used in making decisions
about what works; beware of trends
• Allocate resources for PD (monies,
personnel, time)
• Tension between autonomy, consistency,
and integration
• Not locked into standards
• Allow questioning; see opportunities
• Set expectation that everyone will
participate
• Confront those who don’t agree
• Communicate
vision clearly (ITLII)
• Articulate
possibilities for
future (B.)
• Vision for school to
be cutting edge,
leaders (J.)
• Expectation of
technology use and
innovation (J.)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The focus of this study was on creating a climate for innovation in schools to lead to improvements in student achievement. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frame model of organizational thinking was used as a framework for the study.The study examined the influence of leadership practices, structure, and school culture in the context of a K-12 private school in Honolulu, Hawaii, that is seeking to advance itself as an innovative institution of twenty-first century teaching and learning.Qualitative methods were employed, centering on interviews of a purposeful sampling of the faculty. Questions were designed to obtain participants’ perspectives on the features of organizational structure, organizational culture, and the leadership practices that support or hinder the development of a climate for innovation. Participants’ statements were coded by category, and content analyses following the method of constant comparison were conducted.Major findings from the study identified several challenges that schools may face as they seek to become innovative institutions. One is the inconsistencies in the definition of innovation between individuals and the organization. The size of the institution would be a second challenge in bringing about innovative change. Third, a school culture based upon traditional notions of success would hinder a climate of innovation. A fourth challenge faces school leadership as they deal with structural and cultural tensions. The fifth finding suggests that the three aspects of structure, culture, and leadership practices need to be aligned and coordinated to successfully initiate and manage innovative change

Conceptually similar

PDF

Innovation in meeting the needs of students with disabilities

PDF

The perception of innovation in the delivery of services for Hawaiian students

PDF

The anatomy of the innovative organization: a case study of organizational innovation within a military structure

PDF

Google Apps: an opportunity to collaborate

PDF

Internationalization of higher education: a case study of three Korean private universities

PDF

Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments

PDF

Innovative collaborative systems of care for at risk youth

PDF

Organizational onboarding and socialization of adjunct clinical faculty in nursing education

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii

PDF

A closer examination of resource allocations using research based best practices to promote student learning: case studies of Hawaiian-focused charter schools in Hawaii

PDF

Principal leadership for diffusing innovation across an established, high-performing K-12 school system

PDF

Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii

PDF

The candor to live in ongoing educational innovation

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies that promote student achievement: case studies of rural elementary schools in Hawaii

PDF

Ho‘okumu a‘e: innovation, the perception of innovation within the Hawaiian language immersion program

PDF

Effective professional development strategies to support the advancement of women into senior student affairs officer positions

PDF

An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools

PDF

The role of ethnic culture in work-family balance among Armenian women in leadership positions in higher education

PDF

Perception and use of instructional technology: teacher candidates as adopters of innovation

Asset Metadata

Creator Wong-Kam, JoAnn C.W.N. (author)

Core Title Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2012

Defense Date 02/24/2012

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Climate,culture,Education,innovation,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,structure

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Brewer, Dominic J. (committee member), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member)

Creator Email jwongkam@hawaii.rr.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-6332

Unique identifier UC1111270

Identifier usctheses-c3-6332 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-WongKamJoA-606.pdf

Dmrecord 6332

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wong-Kam, JoAnn C.W.N.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA