University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

(USC Thesis Other)

A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A Path to K –12 Educational Equity: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Culture, and
Mindset

Kimberly C. Hartmann

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2023

© Copyright by Kimberly C. Hartmann 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Kimberly C. Hartmann certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Eric Canny
Robert Filback
Maria Ott
Nicole Maccalla, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study seeks to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school district-level leadership,
culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in application, and how it could
influence equity-based policies and practices. The Burke-Litwin change model is the theoretical
framework utilized in service of this study’s conceptual framework which provides an adaptive
lens for the organizational behavioral factors of leadership, culture, and individual values or
mindset. This success case study utilized a mixed-methods concurrent design with a nested
sample of 14 district- and site-level leaders, including the superintendent, of a large Arizona K–
12 urban/suburban school district. The study participants had successfully completed a nationally
recognized statewide cohort-based leadership development program focused on system change
and educational equity. The data collection process included a quantitative online cross-sectional
survey and qualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews which generated quantitative
descriptive statistics and qualitative open and axial thematic analysis utilizing emergent and a
priori codes based on the conceptual framework’s adaptive leadership, adaptive culture, and
adaptive mindset constructs. The study results revealed that (a) it is difficult, yet necessary, for
district leaders to accurately identify and consistently respond to adaptive challenges with an
adaptive response, (b) adaptive leadership does not necessarily lead to an adaptive culture, (c)
adaptive mindset may need to mature before the onset of equity-based policy and practice, (d)
leadership adaptiveness can vary by role and setting, and (e) K–12 adaptive change would
benefit from organizational change theory and increased collaboration. The adaptiveness of these
constructs is important because as external accountabilities and environmental factors become
more complex, the adaptiveness of K–12 systems and leaders becomes more essential to the
sustainability and continuous improvement of public education.

v
Acknowledgements
This study and academic journey would not have been possible without the love, support,
and encouragement of my personal, professional, civic, and academic heroes. I am forever
grateful and pledge to pay-it-forward as each of you have done for me.
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my dissertation committee chair, Dr.
Nicole Maccalla. Dr. M., thank you for your exceptional wisdom, patience, and responsiveness.
Your boundless energy, care, and commitment to excellence is inspirational. Thank you to my
committee members, Dr. Eric Canny, Dr. Robert Filback, and Dr. Maria Ott, for so generously
sharing your knowledge, research, insights, and personal time. Your thoughtful guidance and
inquiry pushed ideas further and deeper. You represent the very best of the University of
Southern California Rossier community.
A special thank you to the Arizona K–12 district leaders and the Center for the Future of
Arizona who have inspired this work. Your commitment, passion, and generous support are the
gold standards of public education leadership and innovation.
This experience was made more exceptional by my Organizational Change and
Leadership classmates and cohort. Your personal stories, support, and wisdom raised the bar for
excellence, kindness, and selfless leadership. A special call out to the “Fab-Five” Jay, Jerry,
Wanda, and Zach, you were each a lifeline in this endeavor. We did it!
This incredible journey would not have been possible without the steadfast support of my
family and dear friends. I am forever grateful. Finally, a very special thank you to my husband,
Bob, and children, Jack and Brigi, and sister Pea, for your unwavering love, support, and
encouragement. You lift me up every day. Thank you for being a part of this journey.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ...........................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem ..........................................................................3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions ................................................................5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................5
Overview of the Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks ...............................................6
Definitions .......................................................................................................................8
Organization of the Dissertation .................................................................................... 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review ............................................................................................... 11
K–12 History and Context ............................................................................................. 11
Organizational Leadership ............................................................................................. 15
Organizational Culture ................................................................................................... 21
Organizational Mindsets ................................................................................................ 25
Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 29
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 36
Chapter Three: Methodology ..................................................................................................... 38
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 38
Overview of Design ....................................................................................................... 38
Research Setting ............................................................................................................ 40
The Researcher .............................................................................................................. 41
Data Sources.................................................................................................................. 42

vii
Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................. 49
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 52
Chapter Four: Findings.............................................................................................................. 53
Theme 1: The Adaptive Leadership Challenge: Maintaining Adaptiveness .................... 57
Theme 2: The Adaptive Culture Challenge: Building Capacity ...................................... 66
Theme 3: The Mindset Challenge: Placing Into Practice ................................................ 75
Theme 4: Site-Level Adaptive Leadership Practices ...................................................... 82
Theme 5: Change Model Capacity Development ........................................................... 84
Summary of Findings .................................................................................................... 88
Chapter Five: Recommendations ............................................................................................... 90
Discussion of Findings .................................................................................................. 90
Recommendations for Practice....................................................................................... 98
Limitations and Delimitations ...................................................................................... 114
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................ 115
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 118
References .............................................................................................................................. 119
Appendix A: Survey Items and Rationale ................................................................................ 133
Appendix B: Interview Protocol .............................................................................................. 135

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources 39
Table 2: Summary of Survey Respondents 43
Table 3: Summary of Interview Participants 46
Table 4: Summary of Study Themes by Research Question 55
Table 5: Adaptive Leadership Subconstructs and Summary of Findings 58
Table 6: Adaptive Culture Subconstructs and Summary of Findings 67
Table 7: Adaptive Mindset Subconstructs and Summary of Results and Findings 76
Table 8: Summary of Recommendations by Conceptual Framework Construct 100
Table 9: Summary of Case Study Normalized Levels of Adaptiveness by Construct 111

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Change Model 30
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework 35
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework Subconstructs 36
Figure 4: Case Study Normalized Levels of Adaptiveness by Construct 111

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Despite 20 years of concerted equity-based policy effort, the kindergarten through 12th
grade (K–12) achievement gap has not closed (Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Fusarelli & Ayscue,
2019). The achievement gap is defined as the persistent disparity in academic achievement
between minority and disadvantaged students and their White counterparts (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2011). Educational equity refers to the condition that would be achieved if
one’s racial identity no longer predicts in a statistical sense how one fares within the educational
system (Racial Equity Tools, n.d.). The most recent National Assessment of Education Progress
(NAEP) nation’s report card results found the math and reading achievement gap between the
top and bottom 10% of student performance of 12th graders at its largest gap since NAEP began
testing 12th graders in 1992, which demonstrates the problem (National Center on Education and
the Economy, 2020a). As a result, educational equity has not been achieved, particularly within
historically marginalized (Noguera, 2009) and lower socioeconomic (Hanushek et al., 2019)
student populations.
Nationally, school system leadership and accountability models have remained constant
over the past 20 years with the school district and state being the primary unit of change
(Chrispeels et al., 2008; Daly & Finnigan, 2016). Despite the districts stated pivotal role as a
catalyst for change, K–12 student outcomes have remained static (Stanford Center for Education
Policy Analysis, n.d.). Creating the conditions for educational equity is an example of an
adaptive problem. An adaptive problem is one in which both the problem and the solution are
novel, ill-defined, and challenge current belief systems (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997).
This is the case with educational equity. Federal educational policies have proven to be largely
inadequate (Bishop & Noguera, 2019) and broadly interpreted by states producing inconsistent
2

and often inequitable results (Fusarelli & Ayscue, 2019). Bishop and Noguera (2019) noted
ambiguity as a root cause of student performance due to out-of-school factors. Hanushek et al.
(2019) postulates that educational gains such as parent increasing level of education and per
pupil spending have been offset by quality of teaching force and collective-bargaining
agreements. Further evidencing the complex and adaptive challenge of achieving educational
equity.
Real change occurs when those involved within the system recognize they too must
change, thus changing current belief systems (Kania et al., 2018; Senge et al., 2015).
Neuroscience research describes this powerful psychological construct of belief systems as a
mindset. Crum et al. (2017) defined a mindset as a set of socially constructed conscious or
unconscious attitudes held by an individual. Schein (2017) and Schneider et al. (1996) described
organizational culture as an enduring set of shared beliefs, values, and behaviors, accumulated
and taken for granted over time by its members. Consequently, an individual or collective
mindset is a byproduct of organizational culture. Thus, leadership, culture, and mindset are
closely entwined factors of any organizational system, with K–12 being no different.
In summary, K–12 adaptive challenges such as educational equity and system change,
require the development of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset, beginning with K–12
district-level leaders. Current research on the adaptiveness of K–12 organizations in Arizona is
minimal. By applying adaptive leadership, culture, mindset, and system theories, this study
examined the adaptive practices of K–12 leaders to better understand what that looks like in
application and explore their influence on equity-based policies and practices.
3

Context and Background of the Problem
Arizona is the 14th largest public school system in the United States serving 1.1 million
K–12 students across 691 public school districts (Arizona School Report Cards, 2021; Public
School Review, 2022). Arizona’s most recent 2020-2021 assessment, the Arizona Measurement
of Educational Readiness to Inform Teaching (AzM2), found 38% of students proficient in
English Language Arts (ELA), declining 4 points; and 31% of students proficient in math,
declining 11 points when compared to 2018-2019 assessment data, which is the last assessment
given due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Arizona Department of Education, 2021). According to
the University of Arizona’s Making Action Possible (MAP) initiative based on the 2020-2021
AzM2 results, an achievement gap persists between White students and Hispanic/Latino and
African American students across all grade levels and subject areas; this is demonstrated by a
difference of 27 points in third-grade ELA and 25 points in eighth-grade math (MAP, 2021).
This is an educational equity issue. Arizona’s K–12 public school student enrollment is now a
majority Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) with 45% Hispanic/Latino, 38% White, 5%
Black, 4% Native American, 3% Asian, and 5% two or more races (Arizona Department of
Education, 2021). The achievement gap is important to address as BIPOC students represent
62% of Arizona students with a growing Hispanic/Latino population (Arizona School Report
Cards, 2021). Thus, the achievement gap of 27 and 25 points impacts over 682,000 Arizona
students. The academic success of all students is critical to Arizona’s future and a core tenant for
the Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA), a leading nonprofit innovator of statewide initiatives
in education, workforce, and civic engagement.
The CFA and the state of Arizona have invested in the Beat the Odds (BTO) K–12
School Leadership Academy (SLA) program because strong schools are led by strong leaders.
4

As noted by Leithwood et al. (2004), principal leadership accounts for nearly 25% of a school’s
total impact on student achievement. BTO is in its 6th year of a 12–15-month cohort-based, job-
embedded, executive development program for K–12 district and school leaders. The program
curriculum is based on a nationally recognized National Institute of School Leadership (NISL,
2016) program focused on system change and educational equity and inspired by the BTO
research of high-performing majority Latino and lower socioeconomic Arizona schools (Waits et
al., 2006). The BTO program is well aligned with the constructs and subconstructs of this study.
As stated in a recent program evaluation report, the BTO program serves two important
functions, to prepare school leaders to lead for excellence and equity and to close the student
achievement gap (Garcia et al., 2021). To date, the program has trained more than 365 school
leaders across 52 Arizona public school districts impacting more than 130,000 students (CFA,
2021). The school leaders in this study are all graduates of the BTO SLA and have been
identified by CFA as an exemplar district based on their promising leadership capabilities and
values during and post-training. The school leaders in this study included 14 district- and site-
level leaders, including the superintendent, three administrators, and 10 school principals of a
large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district (“the District”).
In addition, the District has demonstrated favorable student achievement results as
compared to state averages. The District’s most recent AzM2 2018-2019 assessment data
indicates student proficiency in third-grade ELA is 43% and eighth-grade math is 40% as
compared to the state proficiency of 35% and 27%, respectively (Arizona Department of
Education, 2021). In addition, the District’s BIPOC student assessment results indicate student
proficiency in third-grade ELA is 29% and eighth-grade math is 25%, a 6% and 9% favorable
variance over state BIPOC proficiency (Arizona Department of Education, 2021). Although the
5

District is a high-performing urban-suburban district, there is still room for improvement. The
District’s full district-level leadership team participation in the BTO program, its recognized
promising practices by CFA, and favorable student achievement results, uniquely position the
District as a success case study to examine the adaptive practices of district leaders in a large
Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and practices. This success case
study analyzed a large urban/suburban school district in Arizona and its leadership team with a
concurrent mixed-methods approach that included the use of a survey instrument and interviews.
The research questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture, and mindset
of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
2. How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset
practices and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a large Arizona
K–12 urban/suburban school district?
3. What are the general recommendations for K–12 leadership development training
programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets?
Importance of the Study
The result of this study adds to the research that supports the leadership development of
K–12 district leaders such as superintendents, administrators, and school principals. Research
demonstrates that a coherent, systemwide approach to K–12 leadership leads to improved school
6

(Chrispeels et al., 2008; Johnson et al., 2015; Leithwood, 2017; Wang et al., 2018) and student
outcomes (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Rice et al., 2001; Waits et al., 2006). What is less known is
how to replicate high-performance K–12 organizations (Evans, 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2016;
Master et al., 2020). Thus, this study contributes to the research of organizational change and
adaptive practices of K–12 district-level leaders with a focus on the less researched Burke-Litwin
organizational change model behavioral science factors of leadership, culture, and mindset. The
study advances this model with a conceptual framework that utilizes an adaptive lens for each
factor in the context of a K–12 environment. In addition, the study expands the equity-based
mindset research beyond educators to include district- and site-level leadership (Littenberg-
Tobias et al., 2021). The adaptive nature of these organizational factors is important because as
external accountabilities increase (Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008; Daly &
Finnigan, 2016) and environmental factors become more complex (Bennis, 1999; Heifetz, 1994;
Kania et al., 2018), the adaptiveness of K–12 organizational factors of leadership, culture, and
mindset become more critical. Unless we better understand the adaptiveness of the K–12
organizational factors of leadership, culture, and mindsets, we risk maintaining the status quo of
adaptive challenges such as educational inequities and sub-optimize the talents and future of a
growing majority of Arizona’s student population.
Overview of the Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks
This study utilizes the Burke-Litwin organizational change model (Burke & Litwin,
1992). The organizational change model is a causal framework that conceptualizes 10 internal bi-
directional organizational factors within three levels of organizational change that include
transformational, transactional, and individual. The change model factors of leadership, culture
and individual values are of particular interest for several reasons and create the context for this
7

study’s conceptual framework. First, Burke and Litwin (1992) provided a definition for each
factor noting leadership as the executive(s) providing direction, culture as the way things are
done, and individual values as the underlying psychological factors that drive action. Second,
Burke and Litwin (1992) noted that the framework’s middle and right-side behavioral science
factors of leadership, culture, and individual values are often overlooked by management, with
most of the attention attributed to the left-side management science factors of mission and
strategy, structure, and skill building. Third, the three behavioral science factors of leadership,
culture, and individual values have a direct causal relationship to system policy and practice.
Thus, leadership, culture, and individual values have a direct effect on district-level equity-based
policy and practices that influence student and school performance. The Burke-Litwin (Burke &
Litwin, 1992) theoretical framework is used in service of this study’s conceptual framework
which views each behavioral science factor of leadership, culture, and individual values through
an adaptive lens.
The conceptual framework in this study is premised on the notion that an adaptive
challenge such as K–12 educational equity may require adaptive practices. As such this study
leverages the research of several thought leaders in adaptive research which includes adaptive
leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Northouse, 2019), adaptive cultures (Costanza et al., 2016), and
adaptive mindsets (Filback & Greene, 2013; Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021) to construct the
conceptual framework. Heifetz (1994) defined adaptive leadership as more of a process or
practice than trait-based characteristics to address organizational adaptive challenges. An
adaptive culture is defined as an organization with a belief system that values and exhibits an
action-orientation towards change (Costanza et al., 2016). An adaptive mindset builds on the
construct of the Filback and Green (2013) Educator Mindsets for Equity framework which
8

identifies the equity mindset qualities of equity, asset-based, aware, and context-centered. These
equity mindset qualities are the individual values and underlying psychological factors that
define an adaptive mindset. Together, these three bodies of adaptive research inform this study’s
adaptive conceptual framework. This is important because the conditions for closing the
achievement gap will require equity-based policies and practices. Equity-based policies will
require adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices. Using the literature, this study
explored the organizational change factors of leadership, culture, and mindset through a
conceptual adaptive lens to analyze the practices of K–12 leaders to better understand what that
looks like in application and evaluate their influence on equity-based policies and practices
through a survey instrument and interviews.
Definitions
Achievement gap refers to the persistent disparity in academic achievement between
minority and disadvantaged students and their White counterparts (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2011).
Adaptive culture refers to an organizational belief system that values change and exhibits
an action-orientation towards change (Costanza et al., 2016).
Adaptive leadership is more of a process or practice than a position of authority or trait-
based characteristics and requires accurate diagnosis and then action of an adaptive challenge
(Heifetz, 1994).
Adaptive mindset refers to a set of conscious or unconscious attitudes held by an
individual that is characterized by four qualities: equity, asset-based, aware, and context-centered
(Filback & Green, 2013).
9

Adaptive problem refers to a challenge in which both the problem and the solution are
novel and ill-defined, challenge individual belief systems, and require the locus of control to shift
from the leader to the stakeholders (Heifetz, 1994).
Educational equity refers to the condition that would be achieved if one’s racial identity
no longer predicts in a statistical sense how one fares within the educational system (Racial
Equity Tools, n.d.).
K–12 educational system refers to the consolidation of primary schools, kindergarten
through eighth grade; and high schools, ninth through twelfth grades in the United States
(Kolber, 2020).
K–12 district-level and school-level leadership refers to district-level or central-office
leaders to include the superintendent and typically direct report assistant superintends,
administrators or directors, and the school-level leader as the principal (Chrispeels et al., 2008).
Organizational culture refers to a group’s accumulated learning resulting in a set of
shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that come to be taken for granted over time (Schein, 2017;
Schneider et al., 1996).
Organizational leadership refers to executives providing overall organizational direction
and serving as role models for all employees (Burke & Litwin, 1992) while demonstrating
cognitive, emotional, and spiritual intelligence and volitional action (Gill, 2002).
Organizational mindset refers to an established set of conscious or unconscious attitudes
held by an individual (Dweck, 2006).
Transformational organizational factors refer to organizational factors most influenced by
external factors and initiate the most significant and sustained organizational change (Burke &
Litwin, 1992).
10

Transactional organizational factors refer to organizational reactionary and altering
factors that drive short-term organizational change (Burke & Litwin, 1992).
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One reviews the problem, the
background of the problem, the guiding research questions, the theoretical and conceptual
framework overview, and key terminology. Chapter Two provides a review of existing literature
in support of this study’s conceptual framework elements of organizational leadership, culture,
and mindset. Each element is reviewed as an untextualized organizational factor, within the K–
12 environment, and then with an adaptive lens. Chapter Three provides the methodology for the
design of the survey instrument, selection of the interview participants, and analysis. Chapter
Four outlines the study’s data and results. Lastly, Chapter Five proposes recommendations and
implementation strategies informed by the study’s findings and existing literature to advance K–
12 adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices in service of equity-based policies and
practices.

11

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The problem of practice this literature review addresses is the adaptiveness of K–12
district-level leadership, culture, and mindsets to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and practices. The review begins
with a brief history of K–12 education in the United States, accountability and leadership
preparation, and Arizona’s K–12 challenges. This setting provides the context as to why
addressing the achievement gap is a complex adaptive challenge. The remainder of this chapter
reviews the three organizational change behavioral science factors of leadership, culture, and
mindset. Through the literature, each of the factors is reviewed from three perspectives which
includes an untextualized organizational factor, within the K–12 environment, and finally with
an adaptive lens. The review concludes with a deeper analysis of this study’s conceptual
framework.
K –12 History and Context
This section of the literature review provides a historical context of K–12 public
education in the United States, background on its accountability and leadership preparation, and
the complexities of the Arizona education system. The K–12 public education accountability
model has remained static over the last 20 years as the student population has dramatically
changed, external expectations have significantly increased, and outside-classroom context has
substantially impacted in-classroom results (Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008;
Daly & Finnigan, 2016). These factors all contribute to the complex adaptive challenge of
educational equity as it relates to closing the achievement gap.
12

K –12 Education in the United States
Public education began in the United States in the late 18th century with the formation of
the K–12 school system in the early 19th century. K–12 is a unique United States based construct
that includes the consolidation of primary schools’ kindergarten through eighth grade and high
schools’ ninth through twelfth grades (Kolber, 2020). Along with the United States population
growth, the K–12 system has also grown. According to the National Center for Educational
Statistics (NCES) in the 2020–2021 school year, there were 13,450 public school districts in the
United States serving 49.4 million K–12 students (NCES, 2020, 2021a). Public school students
represent 90% of the student population in the United States (Public School Review, 2019).
Although the student population had significantly grown and changed in the 20th century, the
education accountability system had remained mostly static. Not until the 21st century, did
accountability systems defined as student outcomes, begin to emerge.
K –12 Accountability and Leadership Preparation
The 21st century witnessed a shift in the public school leadership model. The previous 40
years, from 1960–2000, the school was viewed as the unit of change for education with a balance
of control between the district central office and the school (Chrispeels et al., 2008). Since 2002,
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has shifted the focus of change from the school to the
district and state (Chrispeels et al., 2008). The shift in responsibility has been accompanied by a
transfer in accountability. In 2010, Race to the Top continued to push school reform and
accountability with an emphasis on increased teacher and student performance evaluated through
standardized testing (Ford et al., 2020). NCLB and the more recent Every Student Succeeds Act
(ESSA) in 2015 are attempts to balance accountability with state and district autonomy. Thus,
emphasizing the importance of school district-level leadership with the superintendent uniquely
13

positioned to coordinate and lead change (Daly & Finnigan, 2016). However, the shift in
accountability has not necessarily come with new district-level tools or leadership preparation. A
literature review by Gaetane et al., (2009) on education leadership preparation and training for
social justice concluded with a growing concern for the readiness of education leaders to meet
students’ current needs. Thus, district-level leaders require appropriate leadership preparation to
address complex problems such as educational equity and closure of the achievement gap.
Arizona Achievement Gap Challenges
Arizona’s achievement gap is a persistent challenge with many contextual considerations
that make the Arizona achievement gap an adaptive challenge. Although the state had made
progress between 2003 and 2019 in statewide student performance as compared to the nation,
narrowing the gap between Arizona and the nation from 9.6 points to 3.6 points, the achievement
gap has persisted between White students and Hispanic/Latino and African American students
across all grade levels and subject areas, as demonstrated by the most recent 2020-2021 AzM2
assessment results of a 27 point difference in third-grade ELA and 25 point difference in eighth-
grade math (MAP, 2021). In response, the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) 2022–
2026 5-year strategic plan identifies student equity and achievement as the number one strategic
priority, intending to increase proficiency for all students and close the achievement gap (ADE,
2022). Arizona currently ranks 46th of 50 states in K–12 educational performance based on the
most recent Quality Counts report card (EdWeek Research Center, 2021).
Factors related to the achievement gap challenge include the state’s high number of
English language learners (ELL) and its historically restrictive new-language policy, the in-
classroom student-to-teacher ratios and per-student funding, as well as the large number of
students living at or below poverty. A controversial statewide Proposition in 2000 mandated the
14

use of the Structured English Immersion (SEI) model for ELL students. The mandate has proved
detrimental to student achievement. Garcia et al. (2010) analyzed Arizona standardized reading
and math test scores for ELL and non-ELL students in grades third through fifth between 2004
and 2009. Their study found ELL students scored 49 to 59 points lower in reading and 36 to 55
points lower in math when compared to their non-ELL counterparts. Similarly, Heineke and
Cameron (2011), former Teach for America Phoenix-based teachers, conducted a qualitative
study with eight English language development classroom teachers to understand the impact of
the SEI model. The researchers concluded that teachers can and do mediate for the non-
performative SEI model; however, true reform will require district- and state-level attention
(Heineke & Cameron, 2011).
The SEI model is not the only challenge for ELL students. Arizona has one of the lowest
per-student investment and student-to-teacher ratios in the country. The Education Data Initiative
ranks Arizona 49 out of 50 in per-student annual funding, with an annual investment of $8,044 as
compared to the national average of $12,624 per student (Hanson, 2021). A direct impact is
Arizona’s K–12 in-classroom student-to-teacher ratio of 20.4 as compared to the national
average of 15.6 (NCES, 2018). Last, Arizona students experience high poverty rates, ranking
39th out of 50 states, with nearly one in five children under 18 in families with income below the
poverty line in 2019 (Center for American Progress, 2022). Thus, the aspiration of closing the
Arizona K–12 achievement gap is a complex problem that involves inside- and outside-
classroom challenges which include historically nonperforming ELL policies, below the national
average per-student funding and related student-to-teacher ratios, and a high rate of childhood
poverty.
15

In summary, as the United States and Arizona K–12 public education student population
has shifted, along with increasing demands of state and district-level accountability, many of the
internal support systems have not, further widening the gap in student achievement. The next
sections review the literature as it relates to the internal organizational factors of leadership,
culture, and mindset.
Organizational Leadership
This section of the literature review provides an overview of organizational leadership.
The review begins with an untextualized overview of leadership and its role in organizational
change. The following section provides a deeper domain-specific review of K–12 district- and
school-level leadership and its role in organizational change. The final section closes with a
review of adaptive leadership as it relates to organizational change and adaptive challenges.
Leadership is Critical to Change
Organizational leadership is described as individual characteristics, a collective system,
and a catalyst for organizational change (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Gill, 2001; Northouse, 2019;
Senge, 1990). Gill (2001) argued that although organizational change needs to be well managed,
it also requires effective leadership and transformational change, which requires the need for
intellectual and emotional change. The literature describes leadership characteristics in a variety
of ways including cognitive, spiritual, and emotional intelligence (Gill, 2001); as a teacher,
designer, and steward (Senge, 1990); and the ability to self-regulate, be self-aware, and a positive
role model (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Most leadership models include the baseline traits of
intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2019). The
research now posits that in today’s complex organizations, personal attributes alone are not
enough. Effective leadership and organizational success require a focus on the followership
16

(Northouse, 2019; Spears, 1996), being a lifelong learner and fostering a learning organization
(Senge, 1990), and the ability to analyze an organization from a structural, political, human
resources, and symbolic perspectives (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Thus, leadership is more than a set
of characteristics, it is also a component of a system.
Leadership is also described as a broader system that evolves through learning and shared
values. Senge (1990) described a leader’s work as building a learning organization. In Senge’s
seminal work, The Fifth Discipline (1990), he described the learning organization as a generative
environment in which participants are intrinsically motivated to stretch the boundaries between
reality and vision. Garrin (2014) identifies intrinsic motivation as the underpinnings of social
change agency and self-knowledge as the mechanisms of social change leadership orientation.
The model posits individual values transform into collectivist ideals (Garrin, 2014). Thus, the
social change model of leadership includes individual values, group values, and societal values,
with the leader as the catalyst of organizational change. Senge and colleagues posited that real
change happens when the leader recognizes that they too are a part of the system that must
change (Senge et al., 2015). Therefore, inherent in leader-led system change, is the leader’s
intentionality and action-orientation towards change.
A leader must also manifest action. Gill (2001) described the action orientation as the
volitional action or behavioral skill required of leadership. Costanza et al. (2016) viewed
leadership and culture intertwined and identified a leader’s action orientation as a critical
prerequisite to organizational success in the for-profit private sector. A similar assessment has
not been explored within the K–12 sector, providing a gap and opportunity in the literature. The
literature thus far has described leadership as individual characteristics, as a collective system,
17

and as a catalyst for organizational change. These qualities of effective leadership can also be
considered in the K–12 sector.
K –12 Leadership
The literature describes K–12 leadership as district-level superintendent and
administrative leadership, school-level principal leadership, and its collective influence on
student achievement. There has been significant research with regards to K–12 district- and
school-level leadership and its direct influence on school improvement, however a more distal
relationship to student achievement. The literature also links effective district- and school-level
leadership as critical to system coherence and its favorable connection to student achievement
(Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fullan & Quinn, 2018). Although, how such system coherence is
sustained is less researched. The review begins with district-level leadership.
District-level leadership effectiveness and student achievement were analyzed in a case
study conducted by Chrispeels et al. (2008) in which five K–8 schools from a Southern
California school district were paired with similarly performing outside district schools. One
school from each pair was randomly selected to participate in a 3-year leadership development
program. The study identified the importance of central-office leadership mental model
congruency with school-level leaders. The study found a positive correlation between central-
office leaders that participated in the leadership development program and student achievement
as evidenced by improved student adequate yearly progress performance in the paired
participating districts. Similarly, Ford et al. (2020) conducted a meta-analysis of the use of social
cognitive theories of motivation in school and instructional improvement and found that the
district-level leadership is the key player in meeting the needs of school-level leadership. Ford et
al. (2020) explicitly noted the school-level principal as a leader and learner, and district-level
18

leaders as responsible for their development. Finally, Fullan and Quinn (2016) conducted an in-
depth case study analysis of successful United States and Canadian districtwide school reform
initiatives. The culmination of the researchers’ work was the design of a system coherence
framework with district-level leadership identified as the heart of educational systemwide
change. Although district-level leadership is key to congruent mental models, leadership
development, and system coherence; school-level principal leadership has also been found to be
critical to school improvement and student outcomes.
School-level leadership also matters. Leithwood et al. (2004) indicated principal
leadership accounts for nearly 25% of a school’s total impact on student achievement. The
research team conducted a major research project through the Universities of Minnesota and
Toronto and found educational leadership critical to student outcomes with superintendents and
principals as the most influential and most important for “in trouble” schools, where leadership is
needed most. Although linking school leadership to positive school outcomes is possible, directly
linking school leadership to student achievement is more difficult. The National Center on
Education and the Economy has contributed to the development of school leaders and student
achievement through its NISL evidence-based programs and research.
Two such studies have linked school principal participation in an intensive NISL
executive development program (EDP) with positive student achievement results. The first study
included 36 Pennsylvania (PA) district principals that participated in an intensive NISL EDP 2–
year (2008-2009) cohort-based program. The results demonstrated student gains of .5 per year
which translated to 1,225 more students achieving proficiency (Nunnery et al., 2011a). Similarly,
the researchers evaluated the results of 38 Massachusetts (MA) district principals in a 2-year
(2009–2010) cohort-based program and found increased student achievement at statistically
19

significant levels (Nunnery et al., 2011b). Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Education
through an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant provided a similar NISL EDP cohort-based
program to principals in three states, 332 schools, and 118 school districts (Master et al., 2020).
The final report 3 years later did not find an increase in student achievement. The researchers
hypothesized that unlike the PA and MA studies, the lack of systemwide buy-in and integration
with other districts- and state-level systems, may be critical to driving student and school
outcomes of scale (Master et al., 2020). These findings indicate that school-level leadership can
produce positive school improvement. However, broader systemwide coherence is likely critical
to actual student achievement outcomes (Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Master
et al., 2020). Most recently, Grissom et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive K–12 literature
review with statistical analysis on principal effectiveness and student performance. The
researchers’ found principals are at least and likely more impactful than a classroom on student
achievement and positive school outcomes. Suggesting the Leithwood et al. (2004) study not
only accurate, but likely understated. Thus, district-level and school-level leadership are critical
to K–12 school improvement and student achievement; however, leadership alone may not be
enough to solve a complex adaptive challenge such as the achievement gap.
Adaptive Leadership
Complex adaptive challenges require more than a top-down approach and will become
more ubiquitous in an increasingly complex society. Bennis (1999) stated that “shrinking world
with increasing technological and political complexities … offers fewer and fewer arenas in
which individual action, top-down leadership, suffices” (p. 1). Heifetz (1994) and Heifetz and
Laurie (1997) stated that top-down leadership can solve technical challenges, but adaptive
problems require many stakeholders. Heifetz’s (1994) seminal research on adaptive leadership
20

posits that adaptive leadership is more of a process and practice than a trait-based set of
characteristics. Adaptive work is required when deeply held beliefs, values, or attitudes are
challenged, requiring the locus of control to shift from the leader to the stakeholders (Heifetz,
1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). The key to real change is empowered teams (Bennis, 1999;
Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Thus, the complex adaptive challenge of student
achievement and closure of the achievement gap may require district leadership, resources, and
an adaptive leadership approach to solve this adaptive challenge. Although the theory of adaptive
leadership has not been explored in the context of K–12 organizations, it has been successfully
applied in other sectors.
Researchers have examined the successful application of the adaptive leadership theory
in the sectors of the United States Army Operations (Boylan & Turner, 2017), higher education
problem-solving (Benzie et al., 2017; Randall & Coakley, 2006; Sunderman et al., 2021), and
public policy “wicked problems” (Head & Alford, 2013). Each of the studies acknowledge an
adaptive problem cannot be solved with a technical solution.
In summary, the literature describes leadership as a set of characteristics, part of a
system, and a catalyst for change. K–12 leadership is defined at the district and school level with
a critical influence on school improvement and student achievement. Adaptive leadership is
viewed more as a process and practice than a set of characteristics and a means to solve adaptive
challenges. Furthermore, Heifetz (2009) described leadership as two distinct processes of
diagnosis and then action. Taking-action is one of the two differentiating characteristics of an
adaptive culture. Thus, drawing a deeper connection between leadership and culture.
21

Organizational Culture
This section of the literature review provides an overview of organizational culture. The
review begins with an untextualized overview of culture and its role in organizational change.
The following section provides a deeper domain-specific review of K–12 culture and its role in
organizational change. The final section closes with a review of adaptive culture as it relates to
organizational change and complex adaptive problems.
Culture Is Critical to Change
Organizational culture is the collection of enduring shared beliefs, values, and behaviors,
accumulated and taken for granted by its members over time (Schein, 2017; Schneider et al.,
1996). Organizational culture is an elusive concept without context. Schein (2017), a seminal
researcher on organizations and organizational change, describes culture as a composition of
cultural models, climates, and settings. The cultural model represents an organization’s shared
value and belief systems, cultural climate is the physical artifact, policy, and practice
manifestations of the model; and cultural settings is when two or more people work together to
accomplish something (Schein, 2017). Lakos and Phipps (2004) capture the notion of culture as a
shared mental model, drawing connections to the individual and collective organizational
mindset. The research also states that values and belief systems or mental models are explicit and
implicit (Godsil et al., 2014; Schein, 2017). The implicit notion of cultural models is important to
the theory of change because implicit and unconscious values can be more powerful than explicit
and consciously stated or espoused values (Godsil, et al., 2014; Schein, 2017). Thus, culture is
implicit and explicit; and something we can see, feel, and experience consciously and
unconsciously (Schein, 2017; Schneider et al., 1996). The distillation and distinction of the
22

components of the cultural model, climate, and setting are critical if organizational change is a
goal.
The theory of organizational change recognizes the complexity of culture. The theory of
change is described as internal and external factors (Burke & Litwin, 1992), micro-systems
nested within larger macro-systems (Schein, 2017), and the necessity of change to tangible
cultural artifacts to drive change in intangible cultural models (Schneider et al., 1996). More
recently, Kania et al. (2018) built upon the extensive body of literature and seminal work of
systems change and systems-thinking practitioners and have identified six conditions for system
change. The authors posited the six conditions that hold social or environmental problems in
place include (a) policies, (b) practices, (c) resource flows, (d) relationships and connections, (e)
power dynamics, and (f) mental models. The authors noted that the implicit condition of mental
models is the most difficult to detect and among the most transformative to change (Kania et al.,
2018). Thus, mental models and individual mindsets are essential to transformational change.
The concept of cultural models, climate, and settings along with the theory of change, equally
apply to K–12 organizations.
K –12 Cultural Models, Climate, and Settings
Cultural models, climates, and settings have been defined in the context of K–12
organizations. Rueda (2011) described K–12 cultural models as dynamic and often invisible
individual values, attitudes, and knowledge that are manifested into the cultural climate of
organizational practices, policies, and reward structures; and the cultural settings as the visible
workspaces and classrooms of which organizational policies and practices are enacted. Several
in-depth studies have been conducted to identify the critical organizational components of high-
performance educational systems nationally and internationally. Across the studies, the
23

researchers consistently identify the climate aspects of culture in terms of pedagogy, resource
allocation, instructional systems, and accountability (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Johnson et al., 2015;
NCEE, 2020b; NISL, 2016; Rice et al., 2001). The researchers also regularly identify the setting
aspects of culture in terms of collaboration, capacity building, and effective management systems
(Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Johnson et al., 2015; NCEE, 2020b; NISL, 2016; Rice et al., 2001).
The climate and setting aspects of culture identified across the studies are what Burke and
Litwin (1992) would describe as transactional level and primarily management science-related
organizational factors. The transformational level and behavioral science-related factors of
leadership and culture, and mindset, although acknowledged, are not as nearly attended to,
consistent with the Burke and Litwin (1992) findings. The literature review also indicates that
although the components of high-performance systems have been identified, the systems can be
studied, but not imitated (Fullan & Quinn, 2016); and although a lot is known about high-
performing systems, what is less known is how to achieve them (Evans, 2017). Thus, the
transformational, transactional, and individual factors of the cultural models and climate of high-
performance systems may provide important insight to achieving and sustaining an adaptive
culture.
Adaptive Cultures
Acceptance of and action-orientation towards change are two characteristics of an
adaptive culture. There is minimal literature regarding the culture of change within the K–12
system. However, one study in the for-profit sector uniquely identified the cultural characteristics
of long-term surviving successful organizations through a mixed-methods study that may be
relevant. Costanza et al. (2016) viewed organizational leadership and culture as intertwined. The
authors identified six adaptive characteristics of long-term successful and surviving
24

organizations. Two of the six adaptive cultural characteristics, development of capabilities and
collaborative action planning, are examples of cultural climate and setting factors also found in
high-performance K–12 organizations (Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Rice et al., 2001). The remaining
four characteristics include the need to anticipate, be open to, execute, and sustain change
(Costanza et al., 2016). Senge (1990) similarly noted that adaptive organizations must act
through experimentation. Senge noted that de Guess and his colleagues identified a small number
of organizations with a survival rate of greater than 75 years. The key to their survival was the
ability to run “experiments in the margin” (Senge, 1990, p. 7). The action-oriented cultural
dimensions are rarely if at all, mentioned in the K–12 literature. One such study on adaptive
culture does exist for post-secondary institutions. Finch et al. (2010) conducted an applied
research study of the changing cultures of colleges and universities and found that a critical
factor in determining a university’s capacity for effectiveness and prolonged existence were
aligned with learning organization principles which include personal mastery, team learning,
mental models, shared vision, and system thinking. Further identifying the less observable but
important cultural mental model and mindsets that underpin cultural climate and settings. Thus,
drawing closer connections between organizational culture and mindsets.
In summary, this section provides an analysis of organizational culture and its role in
organizational change, a deeper domain-specific review of K–12 cultural models, climate, and
settings and their role in high-performance systems, and a review of adaptive culture
characteristics in long-term surviving and successful organizations. Finally, the literature
identifies connections between surviving higher education learning organizational cultures and
mental models, thus drawing deeper connections between organizational culture and individual
mindsets.
25

Organizational Mindsets
This section of the literature review provides an overview of organizational mindsets.
The review begins with an untextualized overview of individual mindsets and their role in
organizational change. The following section provides a deeper domain-specific review of K–12
mindsets and their role in organizational change. The final section closes with a review of
adaptive mindsets as it relates to equity-based policy and practice.
Mindset Is Critical to Change
Mindsets are regularly mentioned in the organizational literature in the context of
psychology, organizational theory, and social cognitive theory. Crum et al. (2017), neuroscience
researchers, describe a mindset as a conscious or embodied expectation that is socially
constructed. Clinical research indicates that a mindset can account for 60-90% of a patient’s
medical condition including pain, anxiety, and depression (Crum et al., 2017). Thus, a mindset is
a powerful psychological construct. Organizational change literature also identifies the powerful
construct of mindsets in terms of mental models, motivation, and ideology. The research
indicates the importance of a leader’s ability to surface, align and challenge mental models
(Finch et al., 2010; Morrison & Milken, 2000; Senge, 1990) and maintain a sense of urgency,
motivation, and cooperation (Agócs, 1997; Alper, 2000; Costanza et al., 2016; Kotter, 1995).
Morrison and Milken (2000) noted that silence as a barrier to organizational change occurs when
unspoken yet dominant ideology prevails within organizations. Morrison and Milken (2000)
indicated that implicit bias and belief systems give rise to structures, policies, and practices,
which create environments of collective silence. This connection between belief systems,
structures, and environments is an example of the social cognitive theory’s triadic reciprocity
model of the person, the behavior, and the environment (Bandura, 2000). The triadic model
26

supports the Burke and Litwin (1992) change model’s bi-directional causal relationship between
individual values and organizational policies and practices. Finally, the literature identifies
motivation and the will to change as a critical mindset in organizational change. Kotter (1995)
states that most organizational initiatives fail for lack of urgency with 75% of an organization’s
management believing that business as usual is acceptable. Thus, mindsets are a powerful
psychological, social cognitive, and organizational construct in organizational change with
related research in the K–12 systems as well.
K –12 Mindset
Although mindsets are less discussed in the K–12 literature in the context of
organizational change, the construct is reviewed as it relates to leadership qualities and
development opportunities. Two themes that emerge are trust and social justice. Two studies
identified trust as an essential organizational factor present in successful K–12 district change
initiatives. The King and Stevenson (2017) qualitative study of teacher-led sustained change
initiatives identified “bottom-up change with top-down support” or “organic leadership” as a
precursor to school improvement with trust as an underlying factor. Similarly, Davidson (2016)
phenomenological study found principal trust and trustworthiness as key to sustained internal
and external relationships and system alignment in rural school districts.
The construct of social justice is most frequently mentioned in the context of school
district- and school-level leadership and leadership development programs. First, social justice is
defined as the advancement of rights and education for all children (Celoria et al., 2016) and is
held out as an exemplary mental model at the K–12 leadership level (Bradley-Levine, 2016;
Farley et al., 2019; Gaetane et al., 2009). However, three recent qualitative studies found the
transfer of social justice to the educational workplace is more questionable. The studies
27

identified several challenges that included the graduates of an education leadership development
program exhibited a suboptimal understanding of critical social justice theories as well as
misalignment of principal and student population demographic identities (Kemp-Graham, 2015),
minimal evidence of actual workplace transfer because of unclear ideation about leadership and
authority (Bradley-Levine, 2016), and lack of clarity in professional standards expectation and
evaluation tools for education leaders and administrators (Celoria et al., 2016; Farley et al.,
2019). Finally, a literature review on education leadership preparation and training for social
justice concluded with a growing concern for the readiness of education leaders to meet today’s
current needs (Gaetane et al., 2009). These findings are a concern when compared to the recent
National Center on Education and the Economy (2020) study of national and international high-
performance educational systems in which equity, excellence, and efficiency are considered the
heart of leading practices in globally competitive educational systems. Thus, a social justice or
an equity-based mindset is critical to a high-performance education system.
Adaptive Mindset
Educational equity has been researched and conceptualized by several educational equity
thought leaders. Milner (2010) reframed the achievement gap as an opportunity gap and
identifies five teacher-centric mindsets that include the ability to (a) reject color blindness; (b)
work through cultural conflicts; (c) understand the myth of meritocracy; (d) shift from low-
expectation, deficit mindset; and (e) reject context-neutral mindset. Filback and Green (2013)
built upon this work and others to develop the Educator Mindsets for Equity framework which
has since been adapted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Teaching Systems
Lab. The MIT study utilized the Filback and Green (2013) research as the conceptual framework
for a massive open online curriculum Becoming a More Equitable Educator, which 5,678
28

educators have attended through June 2020 (Buttimer et al., 2022; Littenberg-Tobias et al.,
2021). The researcher found that low-efficacy equity educators converge with high-efficacy
equity educators with an effect size of .88 because of the equity-based mindset training
(Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). Thus, an equity-based mindset as a social justice construct has
been researched and can be improved within an educator context. However, there has been
minimal research on equity-based mindsets with district- or school-level leadership. In fact,
Littenberg-Tobias et al. (2021) have identified expanded educational stakeholders as an area for
future research.
In summary, the literature discusses mindset in the context of psychology, organizational,
and social cognitive theory, drawing deeper connections between the person, behavior, and
environment. The K–12 literature describes mindsets in terms of leadership characteristics and
leadership development opportunities in social justice. The successful development of educator
adaptive mindsets has been studied with an opportunity to expand research with district- and
school-level leaders.
Conclusion
The review began with a brief history and context of K–12 education in the United States,
its accountability and leadership preparation, and Arizona’s K–12 challenges. The review also
provided an overview of the behavioral science organizational change model elements of
leadership, culture, and mindsets, and how these important factors influence organizational
change inside and outside of the K–12 system. The literature demonstrates that the behavioral
science factors of leadership, culture, and mindsets are critical to the K–12 sector. However,
these factors are less researched in the context of K–12 organizational change. The research
noted gaps in the replication of high-performing K–12 systems (Evans, 2017; Fullan & Quinn,
29

2016) and how the characteristics of an adaptive culture influence the K–12 sector (Constanza et
al., 2016). In addition, the adaptive mindset research of educators should be extended to K–12
district- and school-level leaders (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). Current research on the
adaptiveness of K–12 organizations in Arizona is minimal. Thus, by applying the adaptive
leadership, culture, mindset, and system theories, this study sought to examine the levels of
adaptiveness of K–12 school district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand
what that looks like in application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and
practices. The results of this study add to the research that supports the leadership development
of K–12 district-level leaders. The next section provides a deeper review of the relationship
between this study’s conceptual framework elements of leadership, culture, and mindsets.
Conceptual Framework
Drawing from the work of the Burke-Litwin change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992), the
conceptual framework utilized for this research study includes the organizational factors of
leadership, culture, and mindset as critical behavioral science factors to adaptive challenges.
These less attended-to social behavioral factors represent a direct causal relationship with the
change model’s system policy and procedure factor. Figure 1 illustrates the Burke-Litwin change
model and highlights the conceptual framework’s behavioral science factors of culture,
leadership, and mindset, each with a direct causal relationship with the systems (policy and
procedure) factor.

30

Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Change Model

As outlined in Chapter One, the purpose of this study is to analyze the adaptive practices
of K–12 leaders to better understand what that looks like in application and evaluate their
influence on equity-based policies and practices. Thus, the conceptual framework uses an
adaptive lens for leadership, culture, and mindset elements. The adaptive construct for each
element is defined in the literature as follows.
Adaptive Leadership
The conceptual framework element of adaptive leadership is based on the work of
Heifetz (1994) in which leadership is defined as more of a process or practice rather than a
position or trait and recognizes that adaptive problems cannot be solved with technical solutions.

31

The adaptive leadership model includes six steps (a) get on the balcony; (b) identify an adaptive
challenge; (c) regulate distress; (d) maintain disciplined attention; (e) give the work back to the
people; and (f) protect voices from below (Heifetz, 1994). Northouse (2019) further elaborates
and describes the adaptive process as the ability to anticipate, identify, and understand complex
systems; empower broader participation and stakeholder engagement; and shift the locus of
control from the leader to those impacted, while balancing distress and discipline. A
distinguishing indicator of an adaptive problem is one that typically challenges stakeholders’
existing values and belief systems, often resulting in a conflict that adds to the complexity of the
problem (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz et al., 2009: Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Heifetz (1994) states that
adaptive challenges require the inclusion of voices from below or low-status group members,
suggesting the need for an equity-based mindset and values. Thus, in the context of K–12 policy-
making, it may be necessary for a district superintendent to first identify a complex versus
adaptive challenge such as the achievement gap and then determine an inclusive group of
stakeholders such as other administrators, teachers, parents, and community members with
diverse identity and cognitive backgrounds to tackle the challenge. And then empower the
stakeholder group to analyze the adaptive challenge recognizing tension is an indicator and tool
to address the underlying belief systems that may be holding the challenge in place. Finally,
Heifetz (2009) stated adaptive leadership is two distinct processes of diagnosis and then action.
Taking-action is one of the two differentiating dimensions of an adaptive culture demonstrating a
connection between leadership and culture constructs.
Adaptive Culture
The conceptual framework element of adaptive culture is based on a unique mixed-
methods histometric study conducted by Costanza et al. (2016) in which the authors identified
32

that the longest surviving and thriving organizations in the 20th century were high in values
toward change and action-oriented. The research included the collection of organizational
leadership and culture predictor data through an analysis of Forbes magazine interviews and
articles for the past 100 years. The research began with a literature review that initially identified
nine adaptive cultural characteristics that were eventually narrowed to six characteristics within
two dimensions through exploratory factor analysis. The value for change dimension includes
the characteristic of (a) anticipation; and the action-orientation dimension includes the
characteristics of (b) open to change; (c) development of capabilities; (d) collaborative action
planning; (e) executing change; and (f) sustaining change. Thus, the desire for change and action
orientation to achieve change are both necessary for the long-term success and survival of an
organization. Costanza et al. (2016) defined an organizational adaptive culture as “a pattern of
shared beliefs, values, and behaviors that indicate the organization is aware of and concerned
about environmental changes, and oriented toward agile and flexible action to address such
changes” (p. 381). Thus, connecting internal and external organizational belief systems,
consistent with the Burke-Litwin change model.
This definition of an adaptive culture supports the conceptual framework in two ways.
First, an adaptive culture acknowledges organizational leadership needs to be concerned with
environmental changes, consistent with Burke and Litwin’s (1992) recognition that most
transformational change is initiated by the external environment and will require new behavior
sets from its members. The emphasis on the external environment also aligns with K–12’s reality
of increased external accountability at the state and district-level (Chrispeels et al., 2008; Ford et
al., 2020). Second, the adaptive culture definition acknowledges that shared beliefs, values, and
behaviors are prerequisites to organizational change (Costanza et al., 2016). Kania et al. (2018)
33

also acknowledge these unseen and implicit conditions that hold a system in place as the most
difficult to detect and among the most transformative, if changed. In the context of K–12, a
district superintendent is in the unique position to anticipate, identify, and view the nexus of
internal and external change as a catalyst for adaptive complex problem-solving. And at the same
time, prepare school leadership to embrace, act on, and celebrate such change. Ultimately,
creating a culture of change. Thus, if an organization’s ability to change is dependent upon its
members’ shared values and belief systems, then understanding K–12 district-level leadership
mindsets is also critical to this problem of practice, demonstrating a connection between culture
and mindset.
Adaptive Mindset
The conceptual framework element of adaptive mindset builds on the construct of the
Filback and Green (2013) Educator Mindsets for Equity framework from the work of Bartolome,
2008; Hancock, 2011; Milner, 2010; and Pollock, 2008. The framework includes four paired
mindsets subconstructs, one adaptive and one maladaptive, defined as (a) equity and equality; (b)
asset and deficit; (c) aware and avoidant; and (d) context-centered and context-neutral. MIT
Teaching System Lab researchers, Littenberg-Tobias et al. (2021) and Buttimer et al. (2022)
have developed survey instruments with high-performance psychometrics to evaluate the pre-
and post-training behaviors that indicate favorable participant change towards an adaptive
mindset. The following section defines the construct of each adaptive mindset as summarized by
Hall Mark (2013).
The subconstruct of an equity mindset is described as more than equal inputs or access
with a focus on outcomes and results (Boykin & Noguera, 2011). The subconstruct of an asset
mindset is defined as a high or low expectation of others or students based on a notion (Milner,
34

2010). The subconstruct of an aware mindset takes into consideration contextual and cultural
realities and recognizes the richness and resourcefulness of communities (DeSantis, 2010;
Milner, 2010). The subconstruct of a context-centered mindset considers the importance of social
context that includes urban/rural, public/private, state/city/community; its influence on the
learning environment; and avoids the oversimplification of groups or culture (Milner, 2010;
Pollock, 2008). These four adaptive mindset subconstructs of equity, asset, aware, and context-
centered collectively represent the adaptive mindset framework. In the context of K–12 problem-
solving, district and school leaders along with extended stakeholder groups, must first be aware,
understand, and care about the whole student and his or her culture and context, before they are
able to identify and address the underlying belief systems of complex adaptive problems.
Thus, the conceptual framework for this study leverages the research of several thought
leaders in adaptive work which includes adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Northouse, 2019),
adaptive cultures (Costanza et al., 2016), and adaptive mindsets (Filback & Greene, 2013;
Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). Figure 2 illustrates the Burke-Litwin change model (Burke &
Litwin, 1992) transformational, transactional, and individual organizational factors in service of
this study’s conceptual framework. The nexus of organizational leadership, culture, and mindset
represents a direct causal relationship with organizational policy and practice. This study
theorizes that the nexus of the adaptive organizational change elements of leadership, culture,
and mindset will create the conditions for equity-based policy and practice as it relates to
adaptive challenges such as the closure of the achievement gap.

35

Figure 2
Conceptual Framework

Figure 3 summarizes the subconstructs of the conceptual framework’s adaptive elements
of leadership, culture, and mindset as described by the original researchers.
36

Figure 3
Conceptual Framework Subconstructs

Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence on equity-based policies and practices. This study
contributes to the research of organizational change and adaptive practices of K–12 district-level
leaders utilizing a conceptual framework with a focus on the less researched Burke-Litwin
change model behavioral science factors of leadership, culture, and mindset, utilizing an adaptive
lens for each factor in the context of a K–12 environment. In addition, the study expands the
equity-based mindset research beyond educators to include district- and site-level leaders,
important system stakeholders (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). The adaptive nature of these
organizational factors is important because as external accountabilities increase (Bishop &
37

Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008; Daly & Finnigan, 2016) and environmental factors
become more complex (Bennis, 1999; Heifetz, 1994; Kania et al., 2018), the adaptive
capabilities of K–12 systems and leaders become more essential to the sustainability and
continuous improvement of public education. Adaptive challenges cannot be solved with
technical solutions. Without adaptive change, we risk maintaining the status quo of educational
inequities and sub-optimize the talents and future of a growing majority of Arizona’s student
population. The next chapter summarizes this study’s approach to examining the adaptive
elements of leadership, culture, and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school
district.

38

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three presents the research questions, design, data collection, and analysis
methods for this study. In addition, this chapter provides an overview of the study’s setting, and
sequencing, as well as a discussion of the validity and reliability of the selected methods. Finally,
this chapter concludes with the researcher’s positionality and ethical considerations. The purpose
of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school district-level leadership,
culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in application, and how it could
influence equity-based policies and practices of a large Arizona urban/suburban school district.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture, and mindset
of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
2. How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset
practices and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a large Arizona
K–12 urban/suburban school district?
3. What are the general recommendations for K–12 leadership development training
programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets?
Overview of Design
This study used a success case study mixed-methods concurrent design with a purposeful
and nested sample. A success case study method identifies a potential success case and then
collects data from participants to examine the nature of its success (Brinkerhoff, 2005). A mixed-
methods approach was chosen to draw on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative
research and minimize the limitations of each (Creswell & Creswell, 2019). This study’s data
39

collection methods included a survey instrument and a semi-structured interview protocol. The
survey data and descriptive statistics along with the interview data allowed for the triangulation,
illumination, and diversification of the study’s mixed-methods data results. Data triangulation
can provide greater credence with similar findings, illumination can add greater depth to the
findings, and diversification can provide a broader and more nuanced set of findings, than could
be found with one method alone (Bergin, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The in-depth
interviews were a nested sample of survey participants. Interviews are recommended when a
phenomenon is not easily observed or is a historical event (Creswell & Creswell, 2019). Table 1
summarizes this study’s research questions and selected data collection methods.

Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Survey Interviews
RQ1: What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-
level leadership, culture, and mindset of a large
Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?

X

RQ2: How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive
leadership, culture, and mindset practices and their
influence on equity-based policies and practices of
a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school
district?

X
RQ3: What are the general recommendations for K–
12 leadership development training programs and
enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset?

X

40

Research Setting
The study site and participant selection approach was a purposeful sample of K–12
school district- and site-level leaders that have successfully completed the CFA BTO SLA
program. The BTO SLA program is a 12–15 month cohort-based, job-embedded, EDP for
Arizona K–12 district and school leaders based on a nationally recognized NISL (2016) program.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described a purposeful sample to be used when the researcher
wants to gain meaning and understanding, thus selects participants from which the most can
be learned. The participant selection strategy was a BTO graduated district in which CFA
viewed as a star performer. Brinkerhoff (2005) suggested identifying potential success cases
through review of records, performance, or simply asking people. The star performer criteria
was a district in which the full district leadership team has completed the CFA BTO training
and the participants have demonstrated exemplar leadership capabilities and values during-
and post-training as identified by CFA. The rationale for this sample selection strategy was to
identify participants that were the most likely to exhibit the conceptual framework elements of
adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended a unique
sample to capture a researcher’s desired phenomenon of interest and Maxwell (2013) noted an
exemplar case study approach critical to testing theory.
One large urban/suburban Arizona K–12 school district (“the District”) uniquely met this
study’s criteria. The District is one of the largest and most established unified K–12 school
districts in Arizona and serves over 50,000 students that reflect the state’s student demographic
population. The District’s most recent AzM2 2018–2019 assessment data indicated student
proficiency in third-grade ELA is 43% an eighth-grade math is 40% and as compared to the State
proficiency of 35% and 27%, respectively (Arizona Department of Education, 2021). While the
41

District is a success case in the context of Arizona schools, there is still potential for significant
improvement. The District leaders in this study have each completed the CFA BTO training and
have been in a district- or school-level leadership role for at least 3 years at the time of this study.
The Researcher
My professional experiences as a management consultant and former elected school
board member influenced my postmodern, critical realism, pragmatic worldview, and approach
to this study. The management philosophy of pragmatism believes in pluralistic viewpoints with
a practical approach to problem-solving (Saunders et al., 2019). Postmodernism recognizes
invisible power structures and critical realism explains what one sees and experiences through
underlying structures (Saunders et al., 2019). Thus, the intersection of these worldviews
influenced this study’s focus on the Burke and Litwin (1992) system theory and its underlying
behavioral science elements of leadership, culture, and mindset in the context of influencing
policy and practice. The researcher’s predisposition was mitigated through a mixed-methods
design approach with quantitative and qualitative methods to increase study reliability and
validity through pairing the deductive, objective benefits of a survey instrument with the
inductive, context-centered benefits of in-depth interviews (Morgan, 2014). In addition, the
researcher had a prior experience with a key participant of this study also addressed through the
study design.
As a former elected school board member of another large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban
school district, the researcher had a professional relationship and high regard for a participant in
this study which could create a risk of unconscious bias and favorable valence. As such, the
researcher employed mitigating practices of data triangulation, saturation, and alternative
explanation to disconfirm or challenge researcher expectations, as well as low-inference rich
42

thick description in documentation to increase the study’s credibility, dependability, and
confirmability (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Sources
The study approach utilized a mixed-methods concurrent design with a quantitative
online cross-sectional survey and qualitative in-depth semi-structured interviews. A concurrent
approach is used to provide additional in-depth understanding of the quantitative and qualitative
results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This section covers additional detail for each of the data
sources used in this study.
Survey
The study included an online survey to examine the levels of adaptiveness of district- and
site-level leadership, culture, and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school
district. Survey instruments should be used when researchers are interested in obtaining
information about the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, values, and perceptions of the
research participants (Johnson & Christensen, 2014).
Survey Participants
The study participants were a purposeful sample of district- and site-level leaders of a
large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district that have successfully completed the CFA
BTO SLA program. The survey invitation was sent to nine district-level leaders including the
superintendent and 12 site-level leaders for a total of 21 invited participants. Each invited
participant had been in a District leadership role for a minimum of 3 years at the time of this
study. The district-level administrative roles included the superintendent, assistant
superintendents, the directors of teaching and learning, school improvement, special education,
gifted programming, professional development, and community education; and site-level
43

principals. Fourteen of the 21 invited district- and site-level leaders responded to the survey for a
67% response rate. Survey respondents were not asked to provide any demographic information
other than to self-identify as a district-level (administrator) or site-level (principal) leader. Table
2 summarizes the survey respondents.

Table 2
Summary of Survey Respondents
Respondent role Number Percentage
District level (administrator) 4 29

School level (principal) 10 71

Total respondents 14 100

44

Survey Instrumentation
This online survey instrument examined the levels of district leadership, culture, and
mindset adaptiveness. The survey item constructs and subconstructs were adapted from existing
survey instruments of adaptive leadership (Northouse, 2019), adaptive culture (Costanza et al.,
2016), and adaptive mindset (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). The researcher received permission
from the original researchers to utilize the survey instruments and items. In addition, Dr.
Northouse validated the relevant use of the adaptive leadership instrument within the context of
K–12 education. Similarly, Dr. Littenberg-Tobias was supportive of extending the use of the
mindset instrument beyond K–12 educators to K–12 district- and site-level leaders as district
leadership was identified as a future research opportunity by the original research authors
(Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). The online survey instrument items included 33 closed-ended,
two open-ended, and one demographic item.
The survey instrument’s closed-ended items, Likert-type scales, and anchors were all
closely adapted from the original survey instruments. The survey items aligned with the study’s
conceptual framework constructs of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset and support RQ1.
The survey’s closed-ended questions included 12 adaptive leadership items with a five-point
scale and response options from strongly disagree to strongly agree with a neutral anchor; nine
adaptive culture items with a seven-point scale and two anchors (not at all to a great extent); and
12 adaptive mindset items with a six-point scale and response options from strongly disagree to
strongly agree without a neutral anchor. The two open-ended items were aligned with the
adaptive culture dimensions of “value” for change and “taking-action” and support RQ2. See
Appendix A for the Adaptive Leadership, Culture, and Mindset Survey Instrument.
45

Survey Data Collection Procedures
The survey instrument utilized in this study was administered via Qualtrics (Qualtrics,
Provo, UT), an online data collection program licensed through the University of Southern
California (USC). The online survey was administered in the late summer/early fall of 2022 and
allowed for a 3-week data collection period. A pre-drafted email by the researcher with a survey
link, instructions, and participant information sheet was sent from the superintendent to the 21
potential study participants. The instruction and information sheet included the survey purpose as
well as the confidential, anonymous, and voluntary nature of the survey. The survey took an
average 37 minutes to complete, and a 10-minute median time. The survey responses were
collected securely online via Qualtrics with no external access outside of the researcher. The data
were stored within Qualtrics and Google drive using USC’s two-way verification data security
system.
Survey Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were computed for the conceptual framework constructs and
subconstructs of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset. A mean score and standard deviation
were calculated for each construct and subconstruct. A higher mean score indicates greater levels
of leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness. The consolidated self-assessment survey results
can be utilized as a baseline leadership development and organizational capacity building tool by
the District.
Interviews
This study included in-depth semi-structured online interviews to understand the district-
level adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban
school district. Interviews are a useful research method to find out what is not easily observed
46

such as a participant’s thoughts, beliefs, and knowledge (Johnson & Christensen, 2014) and past
events that cannot be replicated (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interview Participants
The interview participants were a nested sample of the study survey respondents. The
participants included district- and site-level leaders. Each participant had been in a District
leadership level role for a minimum of 3 years at the time of this study. Seven of the 21 invited
district- and site-level leaders agreed to be interviewed. Interview participants are referred to as
P1 through P7 to protect the confidentiality of the participants. Table 3 summarizes the interview
participants.

Table 3
Summary of Interview Participants
Participant role Number Percentage
District-level (administrator) 3 43

School-level (principal) 4 57

Total respondents 7 100

47

Interview Instrumentation
The in-depth interview protocol utilized a semi-structured interview approach that
included behavior, feeling, and knowledge questions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described
interviews as the means to find out what cannot be directly observed which includes behaviors,
feelings, interpretations, mindsets, and thought processes of the research participants. The semi-
structured protocol provided for participant consistency and allowed for additional probes to
further explore relevant emergent topics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were
conducted online and used information and communications technology (ICT). The ICT tools
used were Zoom meeting synchronous video with recording and Otter.ai technology for verbatim
transcription. The interview protocol included 16 standardized open-ended questions to solicit
feelings, behaviors, and knowledge in the present and past tense to increase reliability (Patton,
1987). The protocol’s open-ended questions were aligned with the study’s conceptual
framework.
The study’s conceptual framework included the constructs of adaptive leadership, culture,
mindset, and related practices of the K–12 district-level leaders. Each of the interview questions
were aligned with one of the constructs and subconstructs. Questions one through five were
open-ended behavior and knowledge questions related to the adaptive leadership six
subconstructs. Questions six through 10 were open-ended feeling, behavior, and knowledge
questions related to the adaptive culture six subconstructs. Questions 11 through 14 were open-
ended behavior and knowledge questions related to the adaptive mindset four subconstructs.
Because the interviewees were district- and site-level leaders, the questions focused on policies
and practices versus classroom experiences. Question 15 was a general recommendations
question aligned with RQ3. Question 16 was an intentional open-ended catch-all question to
48

solicit any ideas or thoughts the interviewees chose to share that were not covered in the semi-
structured questions. See Appendix B for the interview protocol.
Interview Data Collection Procedures
The interview data were collected during the fall of 2022. Interviews ranged from 35 to
74 minutes with a 55-minute average length, were conducted virtually through Zoom, and
recorded upon consent. The virtual nature of the interview provided more flexibility for the
participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol included potential follow-up
probes, and an area to take descriptive field notes, record relevant quotes, and capture personal
reflections (Bogden & Bilken, 2007; Burkholder et al., 2020). The interviews were conducted
and recorded synchronously utilizing Zoom and transcribed utilizing Otter.ai. The recorded
interviews and verbatim transcription increased the trustworthiness of the data (Bogden &
Bilken, 2007). The interview notes and transcriptions were reviewed immediately after the
interviews to enhance detailed low-inference data (Bogden & Bilken, 2007; Burkholder et al.,
2020). The recorded interviews and transcription were stored on the researcher’s hard drive
which is backed-up offline to ensure confidentiality and limit external access.
Interview Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted throughout the interview data collection process. Merriam
and Tisdell (2016) stated data should be collected and analyzed simultaneously in qualitative
research. Upon completion of each recorded interview, the interview notes were reviewed, and
observation comments, reflections, and notes were added. Each recorded interview was
transcribed in verbatim language. The first phase of the analysis included an iterative review
process of the interview notes which used open coding to capture categories based on emergent
and a priori codes from the conceptual framework’s constructs and subconstruct. Merriam and
49

Tisdell (2016) stated each category of data should be a potential answer or part of an answer to
the study’s research questions. The same process was applied to the recorded transcriptions and
compared. The second phase of analysis included axial coding in which the open coded
categories were grouped into broader themes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated analytical or
axial coding goes beyond descriptive themes and requires researcher interpretation and reflection
of meaning. The cumulative captured categories and broader themes were captured in a separate
memo in which some categories generated new categories as new patterns and meanings
emerged. The final data set was compared and analyzed with the results from the quantitative
data collection method. The third phase of analysis utilized the final data set to sort all the
evidence and identified five broader themes.
Validity and Reliability
This study utilized several strategies to achieve a high standard of reliability and validity.
To minimize threats to internal reliability, the survey and interview data were compared through
the mixed-methods research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Salkind, 2014). To support internal
validity, the survey and interview instruments were peer-reviewed and piloted (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
This study’s quantitative survey instrument was carefully aligned with the study’s
conceptual framework and research questions to examine the levels of K–12 district-level
leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness. The purposeful selection of survey participants
met the study’s criterion. The superintendent encouraged district- and site-level leader
participation to enhance the study’s response rates. The survey instrument items, Likert-style
scales, and anchors were closely adapted from existing instruments’ high psychometric
properties when possible (Salkind, 2014). The survey scales of measurement produced ordinal
50

and interval descriptive data to increase study reliability and validity (Salkind, 2014). This
study’s survey instrument items were a purposeful subset of the original adaptive leadership,
culture, and mindset instrument items to minimize survey participant fatigue. The survey
instrument’s psychometric properties vary based on the conceptual framework element. Each
conceptual framework element is discussed separately.
This study’s adaptive mindset survey items were developed by the MIT Teaching
Systems Lab. The original survey items in all cases had a Cronbach alpha score of greater than
0.80, indicating a high level of internal consistency (Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). In addition,
the concurrent criterion validity of the original mindset equity items were correlated with the
validated Colorblind Racial Awareness-Blatant Racial Issues (CoBRAS-BRI) scales (Littenberg-
Tobias et al., 2021). This study used three of five original survey items for each of the four
adaptive mindset subconstructs creating a new short-scale. The psychometrics for the new short-
scale were rerun by Dr. Littenberg-Tobias. The new short-scales maintained an alpha score
between 0.70 and 0.80 with one item at 0.60. The new short-scales were highly correlated with
the existing full scales at 0.9 or above, with only one subconstruct at 0.8. The adaptive mindset
item scales and anchors were consistent with the original instrument.
The original adaptive culture rating scales were developed by Costanza et al. (2016) with
a histometric study method and tested through exploratory factor analysis. The original adaptive
culture scales utilized inter-rater reliability to minimize threats to internal reliability and validity.
The original study identified two adaptive culture dimensions of value toward change and action-
orientation with eight supporting characteristics. This study used six of the eight original
characteristics with the highest exploratory factor loads of 0.63 to 0.99. The selected adaptive
51

culture items, scales, and anchors were consistent with the original instrument, except for the
separation of two double-barrel items and replacement of the term “organization” with “district.”
The original adaptive leadership scales developed by Northouse (2019) do not have
supporting psychometrics, although widely used across sectors, including the USC’s
Organizational Change and Leadership program. This study used two of five original items for
each of the six subconstructs. To increase instrument reliability and validity and decrease the
social desirability bias of responses, the adaptive leadership items were administered in a 360-
degree approach. The use of this method is recommended in a low-stakes environment in which
the data is not used as a decision-making or developmental tool (van der Heijden & Nijhof,
2007). This approach was discussed with Dr. Northouse and received his support. The
superintendent self-reported and the other participants rated the superintendent’s level of
leadership adaptiveness. The selected adaptive leadership items, scales, and anchors were
consistent with the original instrument, except the term “leader” was replaced by
“superintendent.”
This study’s qualitative protocols were carefully aligned with the study’s conceptual
framework and research questions to examine the district-level adaptive leadership, culture, and
mindset practices of the K–12 school district. The interview participants were a purposeful
nested sample of the district- and site-level leaders that participated in the quantitative survey
protocol. Specific strategies were utilized to enhance the study’s credibility and trustworthiness.
These strategies included a semi-structured interview protocol with standardized interview
questions, a pre-prepared interview note-taking protocol for observer comments and reflections,
and recorded interviews with verbatim transcription (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Study credibility
52

and trustworthiness were enhanced through triangulation of data methods, and disconfirmation or
alternative explanations of researcher expectations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
There are clear responsibilities as a researcher with human participants. Glesne (2011)
states that research participants must have enough information to understand the purpose of the
study as well as their ability to withdraw and do not experience unnecessary risk. In this
voluntary study, the participants were all adults and provided a verbal consent to participate with
the right to withdraw without penalty. The school district is a pseudonym, and the identity of
participants in the study are confidential. All documented notes were stored offline in a password
secure environment. Separate permission was collected for recorded interviews. No
compensation or incentives were provided to minimize influencing outcomes. Participant
discussion and documents are confidential and were not shared with any study participant.
Interviews were one-on-one to limit any power dynamic. The study was submitted to USC’s
Institutional Review Board standards to ensure it met ethical and exempt criteria and received
approval.
The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and practices. The study data were
collected from a large Arizona urban/suburban K–12 school district. The findings are reported in
Chapter Four.

53

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this concurrent mixed-methods nested sample success case study was to
examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school district-level leadership, culture, and mindset
to better understand what that looks like in application, and how it could influence equity-based
policies and practices. The study utilized a quantitative online cross-sectional survey with
descriptive analysis of the conceptual framework constructs and subconstructs and a qualitative
in-depth semi-structured interview method. The union of the three adaptive constructs—
leadership, culture, and mindset—creates the conceptual framework for this study. These three
constructs are behavioral science factors within the Burke and Litwin (1992) organizational
change model, the theoretical framework for this study. The following research questions guided
this study:
1. What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture, and mindset
of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
2. How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset
practices and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a large Arizona
K–12 urban/suburban school district?
3. What are the general recommendations for K–12 leadership development training
programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets?
The mixed-methods concurrent approach proved valuable in the study’s data analysis
phase. The interview and survey data triangulated and often illuminated adaptive leadership and
culture findings, while it diversified the adaptive mindset findings providing a more nuanced
analysis of the data. This chapter reveals that this study identified (a) it is difficult, yet necessary,
for district leaders to accurately identify and consistently respond to adaptive challenges with an
54

adaptive response, (b) adaptive leadership does not always lead to an adaptive culture, (c)
adaptive mindset may need to mature before the onset of equity-based policy and practice, (d)
leadership adaptiveness can vary by role and setting, and (e) adaptive change would benefit from
organizational change theory and increased collaboration. These findings are represented in the
study’s five themes. Table 4 summarizes the study’s five themes as they relate to the study’s
three research questions.

55

Table 4
Summary of Study Themes by Research Question
Theme Conceptual
framework
Description RQ 1 RQ 2 RQ 3
1 Adaptive
leadership
The leadership challenge: maintaining
adaptiveness
It is critical for a leader to respond to adaptive
challenges with a consistent adaptive
response, particularly when emotions are
charged.
X X
2 Adaptive
culture
The culture challenge: building capacity
Adaptive leadership does not automatically
lead to an adaptive culture. Unaddressed and
underlying conflicts as well as limited
collaborative action planning and
developmental capabilities inhibit cultural
adaptiveness.
X X
3 Adaptive
mindset
The mindset challenge: placing into practice
The adaptive mindset subconstruct of equity
may be less mature than its counterpart
subconstructs of asset, awareness, and
context-centered, with full adoption into
practice and policy as a work-in-progress.
X X
4 Adaptive
leadership
and
culture
Site-level adaptive leadership practices
Levels of adaptive leadership are not fixed and
depending on the context we might see
variable degrees of adaptiveness within
roles and settings.
X
5 Adaptive
leadership,
culture,
and
mindset
Change model capacity development
Preparing K–12 leaders for adaptive change
requires increased collaboration and change
theory knowledge enabled through new
strategies, tools, time, and “real-world”
application.
X

56

Themes 1 through 3 address RQ1 and RQ2: What are the levels of adaptiveness of
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school
district? How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices
and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a large Arizona K–12
urban/suburban school district? These three finding sections each begin with a joint method
display table that summarizes the mixed-methods survey results and interview findings for the
conceptual framework constructs and subconstructs, with a deeper narrative and data analysis
that follows. Theme 4 delves deeper into RQ2 and the demonstration of adaptive leadership
within context or role and setting. Theme 5 addresses RQ3: What are the general
recommendations for K–12 leadership development training programs and enacting adaptive
leadership, culture, and mindsets?
Last, it should be noted that all survey items were aligned with the study’s conceptual
framework constructs of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset, with descriptive statistics
utilized to summarize the survey results. An average mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were
identified for each construct and subconstruct. The higher the M the greater the levels of
adaptiveness and presence of the construct or subconstruct within the district. The lower the SD
the stronger the alignment of the survey respondents. For example, a SD of 1.0 or less indicates
the survey respondents’ strong alignment whether a favorable or unfavorable valence. A SD
between 1.0 and 2.0 indicates a response with more variation among the survey respondents.
This is important because learning behavior research states for a principle or belief system to be
true, it must be shared by its members (Cauwelier, 2019; Edmondson, 1999). Interview
participants are identified as participants P1 through P7 or leaders to maintain anonymity.
Occasionally, administrators including the superintendent are referred to as district leaders and
57

principals are referred to as site leaders if the level of leadership is important to the finding. The
remainder of this chapter summarizes the study’s five thematic findings and concludes with a
summary.
Theme 1: The Adaptive Leadership Challenge: Maintaining Adaptiveness
Theme 1 aligns with the conceptual framework construct of adaptive leadership and
addresses RQ1 and RQ2: What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture,
and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district? How do district leaders
demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices and their influence on equity-
based policies and practices in a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
It is critical for a leader to respond to adaptive challenges with a consistent adaptive
response, particularly when emotions are charged. In the survey and interview results, the
respondents identified that consistently maintaining all six subconstructs of adaptive leadership
can be challenging. The survey respondents rated overall leadership adaptiveness as moderate (M
= 3.9, SD, 1.13) with strong alignment on a 5.0 scale. The respondents rated four of the six
adaptive leadership subconstructs with a greater level of adaptiveness. These included get on the
balcony (M = 4.3, SD = .89), give the work back to the people (M = 4.2, SD = .92), and protect
voices from below (M = 4.1, SD = .93), regulate distress (M = 4.0, SD = .79), as compared to the
remaining two subconstructs, maintain disciplined attention (M = 3.6, SD = 1.10), and identify an
adaptive challenge (M = 2.9, SD = 1.45). Interestingly, through data triangulation, interview
findings often illuminated the survey results. Table 5 summarizes the six adaptive leadership
subconstructs, the survey results, and a summary of the interview findings. A deeper narrative
follows.

58

Table 5
Adaptive Leadership Subconstructs and Summary of Findings
Subconstruct Survey results
5.0 scale
Summary of interview findings
M SD
Get on the
balcony.
4.3 .89 Nearly all interviewees can step back and see the complexities
and interrelated dimensions of a situation and noted the
attributes of an adaptive challenge.

Identify an
adaptive
challenge.
2.9 1.45 All interviewees accurately recognized an adaptive challenge,
however, over half articulated a technical response to an
adaptive challenge when strong emotions were involved.

Regulate
distress.
4.0 .79 It is necessary for the leader to be trusted to support the team
through difficult situations with psychological safety
identified as a critical precondition for success.
Maintain
disciplined
attention.
3.6 1.10 Teamwork, alignment, and shared vision are present;
however, when situations are challenging, lack of
accountability, recurring conversations, and avoided
discomfort can occur.

Give the
work back
to the
people.

4.2 .92 All interviewees provided examples of empowered and
supported teams and stakeholder groups to solve their own
problems.
Protect
voices
from
below.

4.1 .93

Proactive inclusion of external community voices and input is
present; however, possible internal exclusion can occur
when opinions challenge the status quo.
Overall
composite
3.9 1.13

The adaptive leadership get on the balcony subconstruct is the degree to which a leader
can step back and see the complexities and interrelated dimension of a situation (Northouse,
2019). Eighty-six percent of the survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly agree” that the
leader is good at big picture thinking. In addition, when interviewed, six of the seven participants
59

clearly articulated the complexities and interrelated dimension of a situation and utilized terms
such as “systems” (P1), “bring up out of weeds” (P3), and “big helicopter view” (P6). Participant
1 described the district’s leadership team response to COVID-19, “We would come back and try
to problem-solve together because they’re never isolated problems; a communication problem is
connected to technologies, is connected to our instruction or digital materials, and so on.” In
addition, the interrelated dimensions of resources were also often noted by the interviewees. P2
explained how school resources are adjusted for student learning variation, “So, again, aligning
lots of different pieces, whether it’s curriculum resources or budgets, or staffing models, or
coaching. … Putting different systems and structures in place to ensure that we’re aligning the
resources.” Interview participants also described the complexities in terms of balancing the
differing and sometimes conflicting needs of stakeholders. Participant 7 described balancing
external political pressures with student needs and internal resources: “One of the challenges we
face is the political climate. … Students’ social-emotional need … with the demands that we put
on the sites to identify, assess, and address those needs.” Thus, the survey and interview
respondents demonstrated the ability to get on the balcony and recognized the complexities and
interrelated dimensions of an adaptive situation which is critical to recognizing an adaptive
challenge.
As described by Heifetz (1994) an adaptive challenge is one in which both the problem
and the solution are novel, ill-defined, and challenge current belief systems. All seven
interviewees accurately recognized and articulated an adaptive challenge and noted a novel and
ill-defined problem and solution as “brand new” (P1), “intractable” (P3), and “complex” (P6);
and they identified the underlying challenged belief system with descriptors such as “vulnerable”
60

(P1), “fearful” (P2), and “struggling” (P3). For example, P3 described adaptive challenges facing
the school district by sharing,
I would say that some of the problems that we’re facing that are incredibly complex, are
the intractable ones that we’ve never been able to solve: … declining enrollment,
changing demographically, and our students are underperforming according to national
benchmarks.
While P1 described the sensitive nature of current district topics such as transgender policy, “and
so it’s a whole lot of vulnerability and new learning, and it’s so sensitive, that makes it really
difficult.” Therefore, the interview participants clearly identified and articulated the attributes of
an adaptive challenge as novel, ill-defined and challenge current belief systems. However, in the
survey results, respondents indicated a technical response to an adaptive challenge when
emotions were charged. Eighty-six percent of the survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly
agree” that “when events trigger a strong emotional response among employees, the leader(s) use
their authority to solve the problem,” suggesting a technical response to an adaptive challenge. In
addition, only 71% of the survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly agree” that the leader(s)
“encourage people to discuss the elephant in the room” also suggesting a technical response to an
adaptive challenge. Similarly, four of the seven interviewees described technical responses to
adaptive challenges in terms of unaddressed challenges and underlying belief systems. For
example, P4 stated, “[we are] attacking branches and not roots,” and P3 remarked, “our walls
and posters say one thing, but our actions say another.” Thus, the survey results and interview
respondent remarks suggested that although adaptive challenges are accurately identified, they
are not consistently met with an adaptive response. This is further explained through,
maintaining disciplined attention, particularly when events trigger a strong emotional response.
61

Northouse (2019) defined the adaptive leadership subconstruct of maintain disciplined
attention as the degree to which the leader gets others to face challenging issues and not let them
avoid difficult problems. Only 64% of survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly agree” that
leader(s) “maintain disciplined attention on the issues that those disturbed are trying to avoid.”
Thus, slightly over half of the survey respondents viewed leaders maintain disciplined attention
on difficult issues. Interviewee respondent responses also reflected the mixed survey results. For
example, P6 described the tensions related to changes in instructional approaches: “Everybody’s
aware of it … and understands it … and talk amongst themselves in the parking lot about it, but I
don’t think it’s ever really been addressed.” Participant 3 described a recurring administrative
challenge: “We have been dealing with the same question now … for like 2 and a half years, and
we know what the answer is,” yet the problem remains unresolved.
However, in contrast, in a less emotionally charged situation, maintained disciplined
attention was cited through examples by interviewees. When speaking to the importance of the
district’s vision, P7 noted, “The biggest thing is … a shared vision from the very top down, [our
leadership] does a great job.” Similarly, P2 described the district’s successful shared vision
process:
So, how did we get there … having lots of forums and opportunities for input …
questions … discussion … clarification and when stress comes into it, it’s really just
trying to come to consensus on how we continue to move forward.
Two of the seven interview respondents noted success in maintain disciplined attention, however
four of the seven less so when strong emotions were involved, resulting in a technical response
and unresolved underlying conflict. The remaining three adaptive leadership subconstructs
62

regulate distress, give the work back to the people, and protect voices from below were rated by
the survey respondents with a greater level of adaptiveness, with some exception.
Overall, the survey respondents rated the adaptive leadership subconstructs of regulate
distress (M = 4.0, SD = .79), give the work back to the people (M = 4.2, SD = .92), and protect
voices from below (M = 4.1, SD = .93) with greater levels of adaptiveness with some exception
related to unresolved conflict and at times inclusion. Northouse (2019) defined regulate distress
as the degree to which the organization provides a safe environment in which others can tackle
difficult problems and to which the leader is seen as confident and calm in conflict situations. As
demonstrated by the survey results, 93% of the survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly
agree” that “the leader helps work through difficult situations” as a support to regulate distress.
However, in contrast, “when people begin to be disturbed by unresolved conflicts,” only 64% of
survey respondents “somewhat” to “strongly agree” the leader will “encourage them to address
the issues.” Consistent with the survey results, six of the seven interviews expressed examples of
regulate distress and creating safe environments through themes of “communication” (P1 and
P7), “listening” (P2 and P3), and “feeling safe” (P4 and P5) or psychological safety. For
example, P1 described the importance of communication during the pandemic: “There was just a
lot of communication. We did regular weekly updates out to our community. … Text messaging,
written communication, and then I did Facebook live … just to give updates on where we were.”
In addition, P2 described the notion of humble inquiry as, “It’s constantly listening and asking
questions and providing supports and creating a common language.” Last, the notion of
regulating distress through psychological safety as a precondition for adaptive problem-solving
was articulated by several interviewees. Participant 4 personally described creating
psychological safety by “modeling [the desired behavior] through actions. … Trying to create
63

space where we could have safe interactions” and, when staff felt unsafe and uncomfortable,
“finding solutions so that they felt heard and supported.”
Participant 5 provided a similar perspective: “You have to set those foundations as far as
respect and safety and seeing the human being. … I trust my teachers to be that advocate or
leader.” Interestingly, P3 also noted the necessity of “discomfort” when addressing potentially
uncomfortable adaptive challenges such as student achievement, “My personal feeling is that we
have to be in a place with stress for right now. We shouldn’t be sitting comfortably.” Thus,
interviewees expressed examples of communication, listening, and creating the conditions of
psychological safety to successfully regulate distress, as well as the notion that regulating
distress does not imply eliminate distress, but instead maintain it as a tool to motivate adaptive
problem-solving. The adaptive leadership subconstruct give the work back to the people
produced similar survey and interview data results.
Northouse (2019) described give the work back to the people subconstruct as the degree
to which you empower others to think for themselves to solve their own problems. In the survey,
86% of the respondents “somewhat” to “strongly agree” the leader encourages employees to take
initiative in defining and solving their own problems. Similarly, all seven of the interviewees
provided examples of empowering cross-functional teams and stakeholders to solve their own
challenges. For example, P1 described how cross-functional teams were deployed during the
pandemic to solve problems: “Teams had to go out and build cross-sectional teams that had
parents, principals, and teachers and classified staff … around a very specific problem.” Site-
level leaders described district-level support of a site-based programs. As one site-level leader
described, “They have been extremely supportive with my programming, and with funding and
with personnel … connecting me our outside stakeholders whether it be congresspeople, council
64

members, large corporations.” Finally, site leaders also described how they empowered their
own teams. For example, one site leader described the support of a teacher that brought a
nonprofit into the school, “one of my teachers kind of spearheaded this, but I worked with her
and spurred this happening.” The survey and interview respondents generated similar however
more nuanced results related to the adaptive leadership subconstruct of protect voices from
below.
Northouse (2019) defined protect voices from below as the degree to which you are open
and accepting of contributions from low-status group member. The interview participants
generally described high levels of adaptiveness for this subconstruct, however with some
exception. Although slightly less than the prior two subconstructs, 78% of the respondents,
“somewhat” to “strongly agree” the leader “welcomes the thoughts of group members with low
status.” The interview respondents also provided more varied responses. Five of the seven
interviewees provided examples of inclusion and referenced “communities” (P1), “teachers”
(P2), and “families” (P4) as important voices in the change process. For example, when referring
to the pandemic, P1 stated, “we did virtual community meetings to talk about what were the
highest priorities for our community.” Participant 4 further explained consensus building and
seeking input by explaining, “So, there were a lot of WebEx sessions with families where I was
trying to hear from as many as possible. … What are their concerns? … What are they feeling?”
Alternatively, concerns of “exclusion” (P5) and “silos” (P6) were expressed by several
interviewees. For example, P5 noted when watching school board meetings, “who is listened to
is always the people who speak the loudest and who shows up. … My parents don’t have time to
go to the board meetings.” Furthermore, as noted by P6 when discussing the adaptive challenge
of declining enrollment, “I don’t know if anybody’s really missing from those conversations, but
65

I think we’re missing the collaboration among groups. … It’s very siloed.” Thus, the
interviewees articulated examples of proactively pursuing stakeholder voices with a possible
opportunity to increase inclusion and reduce silos. In summary, the survey and interview
respondents, identified the subconstructs of regulate distress, give the work back to the people,
and protect voices from below, with relatively high levels of adaptiveness, with some exception
to situations with unresolved conflict and the need for increased inclusion.
In conclusion, Heifetz et al. (2009) summarized adaptive leadership as two distinct
processes, the first of diagnosis and the second of taking-action. The findings suggested it is
critical for a leader to respond to adaptive challenges with a consistent adaptive approach,
particularly when emotions are charged, and underlying conflict may need to be addressed. For
example, when situations were less emotionally charged such as a visioning process, the
interviewee data suggested that leader(s) were able to get on the balcony, view the complexity of
a situation, and properly identify an adaptive challenge and respond accordingly. In these
situations, the leaders successfully executed the remaining adaptive leadership process steps of
regulate distress, maintain disciplined attention, give the work back to the people, and protect
voices from below. Hence, executing all six adaptive leadership process subconstructs. However,
as the survey respondents indicated, “when events trigger a strong emotional response among
employees, the leader(s) used their authority to solve the problem,” a technical versus adaptive
response. Thus, the survey and interview data identified the adaptive leadership subconstructs of
diagnosis with a higher level of adaptiveness, while the adaptive leadership subconstructs of
taking-action less so, in situations when emotions were charged, and underlying conflict may
exist. The adaptive leadership process of taking-action draws a strong connection with an
adaptive culture.
66

Theme 2: The Adaptive Culture Challenge: Building Capacity
Theme 2 aligns with the conceptual framework construct of adaptive culture and
addresses RQ1 and RQ2: What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture,
and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district? How do district leaders
demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices and their influence on equity-
based policies and practices in a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
Adaptive leadership does not necessarily lead to an adaptive culture. The research
identifies the nexus of adaptive leadership and an adaptive culture through the dimension of
taking-action (Costanza et al., 2016; Heifetz, 1994). The survey respondents rated the overall
cultural adaptiveness as moderate (M = 4.8, SD 1.72) on a 7.0 scale with the anchors of one “not
at all” and seven “to great extent.” The survey respondents rated two of the six adaptive culture
factors with a greater level of adaptiveness than the remaining four. The cultural factors with a
greater level of adaptiveness were open to change (M = 5.5, SD = 1.53) and anticipation (M =
4.9, SD = 1.39) to change, as compared to the internal cultural factors of sustaining change (M =
4.4; SD = 2.03), developmental capabilities (M = 4.4, SD = 2.03), executing change (M = 4.3, SD
= 1.84), and collaborative action planning (M = 4.1, SD = 2.09). See Table 6 for the six adaptive
culture factors and an overview of the survey results and summary of the interview findings,
followed by a deeper narrative.

67

Table 6
Adaptive Culture Subconstructs and Summary of Findings
Factor Survey results
7.0 scale
Summary of interview findings
M SD
Anticipation

4.9 1.39 All seven interviewees had difficulty providing an
example of “unexpected” change, noting change
as frequent and expected.

Open to
change
5.5 1.53 Overall interviewees are open to change using words
such as “jazzed” and “excited,” while some
question broader organizational acceptance to
change.

Executing
change

4.3 1.84 The implementation of change was frequently
characterized as slower than desired with
organizational alignment, clarity, and consistency
expressed as challenges.

Developmental
capabilities

4.4 2.03 Formal leadership development training and
supports such as coaching are appreciated,
increasing, and a work-in-progress.

Sustaining
change

4.4 1.55 Fully sustained initiatives with reinforcing systems
to monitor results are nascent but emerging;
systemwide change is typically multi-year,
complex, and requires cross-team collaboration.

Collaborative
action
planning
4.1 2.09 Collaboration is an expressed goal and varies based
on role and setting with “trust,” “agency,” and
“autonomy” valued.

Composite
scale
4.8 1.72

The survey included an open-ended question for each of the adaptive culture dimensions
of value for change and action-orientation. For example, the survey respondents were asked to
respond to, “How would you describe the district’s ability to respond to external change?”
68

Consistent with the Likert-like scale item results, the open-ended survey responses described the
district’s anticipation for change with favorable responses that included, “good job looking at
and preparing for what is coming down the road” and “attempting to be proactive.” In addition,
one survey respondent described open to change as “increasingly showing willingness.”
However, at the same time the survey respondents expressed lesser confidence as to action-
orientation factors of executing change with comments such as, “slow,” “slower than I like.”
They described sustaining change as “not creating a sustainable system.” In addition, the survey
respondents described the district’s developmental capabilities as “remains a challenge,” and
“needs to improve” and collaborative action planning with comments such as, “top-down” and
“not fully embracing and engaging all stakeholders.” The study’s interview participants produced
similar results.
Costanza et al. (2016) defined the adaptive culture factor of anticipation as an
organization that proactively works to identify internal and external problems. When interview
participants were asked, “please tell me about a recent unexpected districtwide change,” seven of
the seven interviewees had initial difficulty providing an example of “unexpected” change. As
P2 stated, “Oh, my goodness. It’s hard for me to think of an unexpected change only because
we’re usually the first ones to know.” Thus, district- and site-level leaders appeared well-
positioned to anticipate change. Costanza et al. (2016) described the adaptive culture factor of
open to change as an organization that is receptive to innovation, change, and new ideas, and not
bound to rules or procedures. Accordingly, when interview participants were asked, “how they
felt about a recent change,” most participants expressed positive feelings towards change. Four
of the seven interviewees used terms such as “crave” (P1), “excited” (P3), and “jazzed” (P7)
with respect to new opportunities. Furthermore, two site-level leader interviewees acknowledged
69

a positive top-down culture for change and noted district-level leadership as a “change agent”
and “sees the necessity of change.” Thus, based on the survey and interview results, respondents
identified that the cultural adaptiveness factors anticipation and open to change are generally
embraced at the leadership level of the organization. However, broader organizational
acceptance of change was more varied.
Four of the seven interviewees described a broader range of organizational acceptance.
When interviewees were asked how leaders feel about change,” P6 responded, It’s split. … We
have the old [district] and the new [district], it’s very clear with personnel.” Similarly, P2
remarked,
Half the people were like, ‘Oh, thank goodness, we finally have what we need. Yes, it’s
going be challenging, … but we can do it,’ and the other half was like, why do we have to
do all this? … Here’s another thing.
One participant was even more specific with their response and described the culture this way:
We probably have 20% of our organization that is very, very, very ready for change. …
We probably have about another 25% to 30% that are just like, nope, … this isn’t going
to happen. … We have the balance that is in the middle.
Thus, the respondent essentially described the district’s organizational cultural
adaptiveness closer to a bell curve and recognized a more varied and nuanced level of cultural
adaptiveness. This varied level of adaptiveness raises the question as to why cultural
adaptiveness can be so difficult within school districts. The answer to this question may lie
within the interviewee responses to the four remaining adaptive cultural factors that speak a
district’s ability to execute, sustain, collaborate, and its developmental capability for change,
70

each of which were rated with a lesser level of adaptiveness by the survey respondents. The
interviewee responses were consistent with the survey results.
Costanza et al. (2016) defined the adaptive culture factor of executing change as the
organization’s ability to implement adaptive change. When interviewees were asked for their
experience with executing districtwide change, four of the seven interviewees expressed barriers
including lack of “clarity” (P3), “consistency” (P6), and “fidelity” (P7). As noted previously by
P6, the district’s “split” culture towards change makes executing change “really difficult to
support. … It’s like choosing lanes, and sometimes those lanes will never, ever merge.” P6
further noted, “We need to be okay with it, or we need to have some type of consistent
messaging,” suggesting a need for resolution. Similarly, P3 expressed the lack of clarity as a
barrier to executing change: “The major impediment for them [district leadership] to move
forward is that lack of clarity. … I think that there possibly are some just difficult conversations
where they have to all get on board.” Participant 1 remarked, “and there’s still variations of how
quickly they [staff] want to change.” Finally, P7 noted the importance of consistency: “It’s got to
be a shared vision from the very top down, [the superintendent] does a great job … but needs to
rely on others. … They don’t take a similar approach to things.” Thus, interviewees noted the
lack of clarity, consistency, and fidelity as barriers to successfully executing districtwide change.
Similarly, interviewees articulated mixed results with the level of adaptiveness for sustaining
change.
Costanza et al. (2016) described the adaptive culture factor of sustaining change as the
organization’s ability to sustain change by creating systems that reinforce the change. Consistent
with executing districtwide change, four out of the seven interviewees had difficulty identifying
an example of sustaining districtwide change with P2 remarking, “that’s always been our
71

weakness.” However, three interviewees conveyed successful examples of sustaining change,
with the emergence of systemwide reinforcing practices. The two examples were the successful
design and implementation of a districtwide vision and a sitewide implementation of a
restorative justice approach to discipline. In both cases, the leaders articulated the conditions of a
multi-year commitment, cross-team collaboration, and complexity of the task. As noted by P4
when describing the restorative justice approach, “It’s been a long process” that required “hiring
… transitioning folks out that didn’t connect with the vision” and a “community of care.”
Similarly, several leaders identified the multi-year and now reinforcing systems related to
the districtwide vision. Participant 7 explained, “It’s been implemented and now we’re focusing
on key performance indicators.” Participant 6 further explained how the districtwide vision is
tied to a reinforcing reward and recognition systems: “Pay for performance is centered around
specific key performance indicators. … Then, everything kind of trickles down,” and “we, for
example, give out awards based on the [districtwide vision] attributes.” Participant 6 also
mentioned the governance system: “If you watch any governing board meeting everything is
centered around the attributes of the [district graduate].” Thus, there was evidence for the
adaptive cultural factor sustaining change through reinforcing systems that included a shared
districtwide vision, reward and recognition systems, and governance alignment. The final two
adaptive culture factors are developmental capabilities and collaborative action planning. These
two adaptive culture factors are of particular interest because the factors themselves are
reinforcing systems.
Costanza et al. (2016) described developmental capability as an organization’s ability to
develop the capacity to handle environmental situations. The survey respondents rated
developmental capabilities with a moderate level of adaptiveness (M = 4.4, SD = 2.03) and more
72

variation across the survey respondents as indicated by the standard deviation. The interviewee
responses provided more insight as to the variation, suggesting this cultural factor as a work-in-
progress. As stated by P3, “We are seeing an increasing capacity for change at the highest levels,
and that is ‘bubbling down.’ … We’re ready to rock and roll.” Participant 4 also expressed
confidence and readiness: “I have a sense that we are getting close in terms of the team and the
mindsets … that we’ll be able to be very resilient and strong in the face of whatever changes
might be.”
However, when asked how leaders are prepared for change, if at all, the interviewees
noted mostly incidental, informal, and meeting-oriented preparation practices. For example, P1
explained change preparation as an innate ability: “I think by nature they are very inquisitive.”
Several participants described a ritual of regular meeting as preparedness. As P5 explained, “I
would say we do meet monthly or bi-monthly [for a] general administrators’ meetings.” P6
further elaborated, “We have a lot of different meetings, we have [curriculum and instructional]
meetings. … We have our management meetings. … We have our general admin meetings.”
Although change management training was not specifically mentioned, a formal leadership
development training program through the NISL was described by one administrator: “almost all
high school principals, several assistant principals, and then several of our junior high” had
participated in the program and noted the program as “reaching maturity.” The administrator
further described a desired next step of applied learning: “If we could … ensure that our leaders
… then can take it back through action research to whatever the goals that their schools are
working on in their own context.” One site leader expressed excitement for the NISL model:
“So, in our meetings, instead of theoretically [brainstorming], … they’re actually having us bring
teams … to talk about the current work … specifically for your site.” The site leader continued,
73

“and so, I was excited. … It gave me hope for how I can take and actually implement this stuff.”
In addition, three of the interviewees mentioned the importance of mentors and instructional
coaches with one leader noting, “that dedicated time has been beneficial to me.” Thus, formal
and informal developmental capabilities seem to be appreciated and well received when
implemented. The final adaptive culture factor of collaborative action planning was noted as
equally important.
Costanza et al. (2016) defined collaborative action planning as an organization that
enables collaboration between units to develop solutions proactively and reactively to problems.
The survey respondents rated collaborative action planning the lowest level of adaptiveness of
the six cultural factors (M = 4.1, SD = 2.09) with the highest standard deviation, suggesting a
more varied experience from the survey respondents. The interview respondents provided
insights with their remarks. The district administrators tended to speak favorably towards
collaborative action planning, and utilized terms such as, “cross-training,” “collaboration,” and
“coherence,” however their language alluded to the cultural factor as a work-in-progress. For
example, one administrator stated, “We are now having conversation today around intentional
cross-training and intentional work that needs to be done in every department.” Another
administrator highlighted interdepartmental collaboration, “There is increasing collaboration
between our support systems and district leadership.” The administrator expanded remarks and
added more context: “We keep hitting on the idea of coherence … with the learner being
centered.” Thus, the administrative leaders consistently articulated positive and forward
momentum with respect to increased collaborative action planning. In contrast, site-level leaders
expressed a more nuanced view when asked, “who was involved” and “who might have been
missing” in the systemwide changes. As one site leader stated, “I think we’re missing the
74

collaboration among groups. It’s very siloed.” The site leader further described interdepartmental
challenges, “You have your communications, … superintendency, … school-based information,
… business and finance, … and I don’t know if overall everyone is communicating like they
should.” In contrast, another site leader expressed a positive, albeit possibly more unique,
collaborative experience in preparing for the school year,
One of our first meetings over the summer [my supervisor] was ‘okay, what do you guys
need? what do we need to adjust? what do we need to change?’ and this example of
leadership is what allowed me to take that same step [with my team].
However, the site leader expanded, “but it’s very unique to [my supervisor], where … they
[peers] feel a lot of top-down compliance.” Although interviewees described varied examples of
collaborative action planning, several leaders described being empowered to develop their own
solutions and used phrases such as, “I’m trusted as a leader,” and “gives me that agency,” and
“given a ton of autonomy,” and “that is one very big breath of fresh air.” Therefore, examples of
collaborative action planning and empowered leadership are present. However, the work-in-
progress status alluded to by the interviewees, likely speaks to the survey’s higher standard
deviation rate.
In summary, adaptive leadership does not automatically lead to an adaptive culture.
Costanza et al. (2016) identified six factors of an adaptive culture which include anticipation,
open to change, executing change, developmental capabilities, sustaining change, and
collaborative action planning. The survey and interview data indicated the two external-facing
factors of anticipation and open to change with a greater level of adaptiveness than the remaining
four internal-facing factors in preparation for and response to change. The survey data along with
further illumination by the interview responses, suggested the internal cultural factors of
75

collaborative action planning and developmental capabilities were also more varied based on the
participant’s role and setting, and a work-in-progress status in the leadership development
process. The adaptive cultural factor of collaborative action planning has an important
overlapping quality with several adaptive mindset subconstructs which are described in theme
three.
Theme 3: The Mindset Challenge: Placing Into Practice
Theme 3 aligns with the conceptual framework construct of adaptive mindset and
addresses RQ1 and RQ2: What are the levels of adaptiveness of district-level leadership, culture,
and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district? How do district leaders
demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices and their influence on equity-
based policies and practices in a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
The adaptive mindset subconstruct of equity may be less mature than its counterpart
constructs of asset, awareness, and context-centered. Overall, the survey respondents self-
reported a high level of mindset adaptiveness with “agree” to “strongly agree” (M = 5.3, SD =
.94) on a 6.0 scale with generally close alignment of respondent responses. However, the equity
subconstruct differed markedly from the other three subconstructs. The survey respondents
identified equity with a moderate level of adaptiveness with “somewhat agree” to “agree” (M =
4.6, SD = 1.36) as compared to higher levels of adaptiveness for awareness (M = 5.6, SD = .59),
context-centered (M = 5.4, SD = .59), and for asset (M = 5.3, SD = .51). In addition, the
interview data also suggested that the full adoption of the mindsets into practice and policy as a
work-in-progress. The survey items asked respondents to rate statements on a six-point scale
with anchors strongly disagree to strongly agree. See Table 7 for the four adaptive mindset
76

subconstructs and an overview of the survey results and summary of the interview findings,
followed by a deeper narrative.

Table 7
Adaptive Mindset Subconstructs and Summary of Results and Findings
Subconstruct Survey results
6.0 scale
Summary of interview findings
M SD
Equity versus
equality
4.6 1.36 Responses suggest a varied understanding or an equity
mindset with an input and access versus output and
result focus, and an evolving rate of practice adoption.

Asset versus
deficit
5.7 .51 High academic expectations for all students is a regularly
articulated goal, however the execution is more
nuanced and at times a “gap,” “deficit,” and
“compliance” focus.

Awareness
versus
avoidance
5.6 .59 Contextual awareness is expressed in terms of student
demographics and economic variation, with an
intervention and assessment focus. There may be aware
leaders with a possible avoidant culture.

Context-centered
versus context-
neutral
5.4 .59 Social context in the learning environment is most often
expressed in terms of dress code and bullying policies
with limited but emerging broader context-centered
practices.

Overall
composite
5.3 .94

77

The survey respondents identified the subconstruct of equity as more varied than the
remaining three subconstructs as demonstrated through the relatively lower M and higher SD.
For example, in response to the survey item Q21 “success in school is primarily the student’s
responsibility,” 36% of the respondents “somewhat agree” to “agree,” while 64% of the
respondents “somewhat disagree” to “strongly disagree.” Similarly, in response to the survey
item Q22 “anyone who works hard enough in school can do well,” 43% of the survey
respondents “somewhat agree” to “strongly agree,” while 57% of the respondents “somewhat
disagree” to “strongly disagree.” Hence, the survey responses suggest a varied, and potentially
wide-ranging understanding of the adaptive mindset subconstruct of equity. The interview data
produced similar results.
Boykin and Noguera (2011) defined education equity as more than equal inputs or access
with a focus on outputs and results. The interview findings suggested a varied and evolving
equity versus equality mindset. Interviewee responses tended to focus more on inputs and access
than outcomes and results. As P2 stated when discussing social-emotional learning (SEL)
resources, “So, we are constantly looking at … equitable access to resources … and how is this
meeting the needs and the strengths of our kids.” Similarly, P1 described how resources are
adjusted for student learning variation, “we can differentiate the amount of time that they receive
services, and the materials, and our resources that we provide.” Each statement an “input” focus
on resources versus an “output” focus on results. However, the goal of resource alignment seems
to be well-intended and possibly evolving. Participant 3 described desired student output and
results: “[We are] putting different systems and structures in place to ensure that we’re aligning
the resources back to helping kids get the skills, knowledge and dispositions, and mastering the
78

standards.” Thus, the focus on the students’ “skills,” “knowledge,” “disposition” and mastery,
suggests a developing output and result focused equity mindset.
In addition, P3 described a shift in instructional mindsets, “I think traditionally, it has
been the expectation that we just teach the student where they are. Whereas we’re trying to shift
that conversation to … achieve the age appropriate outcomes.” Correspondingly, P7 described
the results of this instructional approach: “They [teachers] assess them [students] at least once, if
not twice a week, and then group kids based off ability off those assessments, and then target
their instruction to those students. It’s a beautiful thing.” Although the survey and interview data
does not suggest full adoption of the adaptive mindset subconstruct of equity, it seems to be
developing within district leadership and educational instruction. The survey respondents
identified a greater level of adaptiveness and alignment for the remaining three adaptive mindset
subconstructs of asset, awareness, and context-centered. However, the interviewee data
suggested a more nuanced and emergent practice in application.
As described by Milner (2010) an asset versus a deficit mindset is a high or low
expectation of others based on a notion. The interviewees regularly articulated high expectations
for all students, however, their remarks at times suggested the full adoption of the practice as a
work-in-progress. When interviewees were asked, how student academic expectations are
adjusted for student learning variation, if at all,” the responses ranged. For example, P6
explained, “The expectations will always remain the same. We are always going to keep that bar
high.” However, P6 continued, “but we really need to be focused on what students are moving
and how to get all students … to have that trajectory.” Thus, P6 suggested an adaptive asset
mindset with high expectations, however alluded to a possible equity mindset challenge of
supporting all students. Similarly, P7 also recognized the duality in the question: “If there was an
79

area of improvement, … we’re trying to do that a little bit. … [It is recognizing the strength of]
every student, regardless of who they are … how do we identify and capitalize on that?” Hence,
P7 also articulated an asset mindset; however, P7 suggested the full adoption of the mindset as a
work-in-progress.
Four of the seven interviewees also articulated the benefits of an asset mindset, however,
their responses at times indicated “gap” (P4), “needs” (P7), and “compliance” (P6) based
practices. For example, P4 stated, “we are experts at identifying gaps,” yet also recognized the
benefit of being asset-focused: “[If] most of our effort and attention we’re growing students, …
[we] might be more productive.” Similarly, P7 stated, “We don’t do a lot of identifying by
students’ strengths, we identify more needs than we do strengths.” Finally, P6 acknowledged the
importance of special education resources, however also noted, “But we’re not consistent with it.
… We do things, I feel like because of compliance.” Thus, the survey and interview respondents
suggested an understanding of the adaptive mindset subconstruct of asset; however, they also
acknowledged the full adoption of the mindset into practice, as a work-in-progress. The
interview data for the adaptive mindset subconstruct of awareness generated similar findings.
The adaptive mindset subconstruct of aware was identified as present through survey
results, however less so through interview data, suggesting more emergent practices and policies.
DeSantis (2010) and Milner (2010) described the aware versus avoidant mindset as the
consideration of contextual realities and the richness and resourcefulness of communities. When
interviewees were asked how district policies and practices acknowledge student circumstances
outside of the classroom, if at all, respondents frequently mentioned intervention-related and
assessment-focused tools and practices: P1 mentioned SEL and adverse childhood experiences,
and P2 and P4 mentioned multi-tiered systems of support. For example, P1 explained SEL
80

resources and allocation approach, “We have more resources than I’ve ever seen in public school
systems directly related to the social and emotional needs of our kids, and we allocate those
differently based on needs.” P1 further described the process, “So, we have lots of different
screeners, we’ve got ACES … We have nonprofits that we work with that are coming on to our
schools to provide them [students] counseling services.”
Similarly, P2 described the multi-tiered system of supports: “We now use these universal
screening tools to really identify where students are in their academic needs, and if they are
needing targeted intervention.” Thus, student awareness was often described in terms of tools
and resources. There were exceptions. Participant 5 articulated cultural awareness in terms of
attendance policies: “I never handed out perfect attendance awards because I think that, that is
not culturally sensitive, … but I do believe that attendance does matter.” Participant 5 also
identified a change in dress code policy: “to take out things that were [culturally insensitive].”
Awareness was also expressed in terms of student demographics and socioeconomic variations.
Participant 4 explained, “It’s difficult to have district policies or expectations that are coherent,
given the degree of variation that is present within our district.” Participant 4 described the
student variation as follows: “When you have students that fit a pretty stereotypical middle to
high income … in the same district as students that … really matches a pure urban environment.”
Participant 4 also expressed ensuing policy and practice concerns: “I think what you see
is an attempt to find a one size fits all model.” Therefore, based on the survey and interview data,
respondents described aware leaders and the possibility of an avoidant culture. This is important
because as described by Kezar (2001) in the “nested model of intentional change,” the
dominant/subordinate roles between those in power and those served, can influence how
dominant “power cultures” shape organizational policies and practices. Hence, how power and
81

privilege influence policy and practice is an important aspect of a leadership mindset and an
awareness mindset. The adaptive mindset subconstruct of context-centered solicited similar
interviewee responses.
Milner (2010) and Pollock (2008) described context-centered versus context-neutral as
the consideration and importance of social context, its influence on the learning environment,
and the avoidance of oversimplification of groups or cultures. When interviewees were asked
what district policies or practices acknowledge student diversity, if at all, the respondents
provided mostly functional and operational examples, including “dress code” (P2), “grading”
(P4), and “bullying” (P1). P2 described an inclusive stakeholder process that created a new, more
context-centered dress code policy, “that we feel is much more diverse, equitable, and
individualized for kids.” In addition, P7 identified “career readiness” through outside community
“business partnerships” to bring context into the district. Thus, both examples are more basic
context-centered examples of mindset adaptiveness. Conversely, one leader clearly articulated a
context-centered mindset. Participant 5 stated, “As a leader, I cannot teach a student or help a
teacher teach a student unless I know about where they’re coming from, and that means their
families, … geography, … history.” Thus, the interviewee clearly articulated a context-centered
mindset and the importance of social context and its influence on the learning environment. In
summary, the survey respondents self-reported a greater level of adaptiveness for the asset,
aware, and context-centered subconstructs than the equity subconstruct. The interview responses
further diversified this data with a more nuanced articulation of the subconstructs, as well as
emergent examples of policy and practice. Thus, suggesting the need for increased leadership
understanding and alignment of the adaptive mindset subconstructs as a precedent to the actual
enactment of practices and policies.
82

Themes 1 through 3 addressed RQ1 and RQ2: What are the levels of adaptiveness of
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset of a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school
district? How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices
and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a large Arizona K–12
urban/suburban school district? In the next section, Theme 4 delves deeper into RQ2 and the
demonstration of adaptive leadership within context and setting, and finally theme five addresses
RQ3: What are the general recommendations for K–12 leadership development training
programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets?
Theme 4: Site-Level Adaptive Leadership Practices
Theme 4 aligns with the conceptual framework constructs of adaptive leadership and
adaptive culture, and addresses RQ2: How do district leaders demonstrate adaptive leadership,
culture, and mindset practices and their influence on equity-based policies and practices in a
large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district?
Levels of adaptive leadership are not fixed and depending on the context we might see
variable degrees of adaptiveness within roles and settings. As described by Northouse (2019) the
adaptive leadership subconstruct of get on the balcony is the degree to which a leader can step
back and see complexities and dimensions of a situation. However, the interviewee participant
data suggested that the setting and the role can influence the leader’s approach to adaptive
problem-solving. Whereas a district-level administrator identified the adaptive challenge and
then took action, a site-level principal was responsible for the implementation and further
adaptation of the adaptive change with site-level context including teacher acceptance and
student needs. For example, one site leader described their adaptive leadership approach as
follows, “in order to be realistic and creating reasonable expectations for teachers, I often find
83

myself hearing district dialogue around achieving goals … and then thinking about what I
believe that should look like for my site.” Another site leader translated the district- to site-level
leadership roles accordingly, “So, at the district-level, I believe they’re trying to work through
strategic … big helicopter view … if we were to come down to the school level, it’s really me
just working with my community.” Finally, another site leader described seeing complexities and
dimensions during the pandemic this way, “My top priority was students’ well-being, but another
high priority was the well-being of staff … and often navigating the interactions between those
two.” Thus, where district-level leaders must identify and then act on an adaptive challenge, site
leaders continued to adapt and balance expectations, implementation, and stakeholder needs as it
related to the adaptive change. The ability to negotiate, balance, and meet the needs of multiple
stakeholders is an example of how adaptive leadership varies within roles and settings.
In addition, Costanza et al. (2016) described the adaptive culture construct open to
change as open to change and not bound to a particular set of rules or procedures. Nearly all
interviewees articulated a personal openness to change with broader organizational adoption
cited as more varied. At least two site leaders expressed a unique contextual site-based approach
to negotiating change with their respective stakeholders. One site leader articulated openness to
change yet set value-based boundaries. The site leader explained the adoption of a new
assessment tool, “it’s been a process of trying to navigate what the district’s clear expectations
are, while not violating the core values in terms of what I want the reality to be for my teachers.”
Another site leader described a similar approach with a new curriculum adoption: “That’s always
a shift and a change for teachers. … I’ve had to negotiate more decision making of what I’m
asking them to do and what the district is asking them to do.” Both instances are examples of site
leader openness to new ideas, yet not bound by specific rules or procedures. Finally, and
84

interestingly, the same two site leaders also demonstrated a unique approach as to how leaders
are developmentally prepared for change.
Constanza et al. (2016) described the adaptive culture subconstruct of developmental
capabilities as the organizational developmental capacity to handle environmental situations.
Although survey respondents described the district’s developmental capability as “needs to
improve” and “remains a challenge,” two site leaders uniquely utilized the notion of realism and
environmental context in their developmental capabilities building approaches. One site leader
described the site team’s readiness for change: “I have a sense that we are getting close in terms
of the team and the mindset, … but there’s also a necessity of being realistic.” Another site
leader described the importance of context in developing team capacity, “So, in our meetings,
instead of theoretically … saying what kind of idea can you brainstorm, they’re actually having
us bring teams … to talk about the current work.” Both interviewees articulated a real-world
approach to developmental capability building to handle environmental situations.
In summary, the notion of adaptive leadership as not fixed and depending on the setting,
we see variable degrees of adaptiveness through the site leader’s further adaptation of the
adaptive change, negotiating and balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders, and the use of
realism and environmental context in their development capability building approaches. The next
section, theme five, answers RQ3 and the general recommendations for K–12 leadership
development training programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets.
Theme 5: Change Model Capacity Development
Theme 5 aligns with the conceptual framework constructs of adaptive leadership, culture,
and mindset, and addresses RQ3: What are the general recommendations for K–12 leadership
development training programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and mindsets?
85

Preparing K–12 leaders for adaptive change requires increased collaboration and change
theory knowledge enabled through new strategies, tools, time, and “real-world” application. As
evidenced in the survey and interview results, respondents indicated K–12 school district leaders
are facing significant external change with minimal formal change enablement training. When
the survey respondents were asked the extent to which the district faces industry or
environmental change, the respondents rated the level of external change relatively high (M =
5.2, SD = 1.32) on a 7.0 scale. This compares to the survey respondents self-reported overall
moderate level of internal cultural adaptiveness (M = 4.8, SD 1.72) on a 7.0 scale, suggesting that
external change exceeds the district’s capacity for internal change. The need for improved or
enhanced leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness was further explored through RQ3 in
which the interview participants were asked, “What are the general recommendations for K–12
leadership development training programs and enacting adaptive leadership, culture, and
mindsets?” Five of the seven interviewees expressed two broad consensus leadership
development recommendations, that include (a) increased school leader collaboration, and (b)
enhanced change theory knowledge, through new strategies, tools, time, and “real-world”
application.
Costanza et al. (2016) defined the adaptive culture subconstruct of collaborative action
planning as the organizational enablement of collaboration between units to allow it to develop
solutions proactively and reactively to problems. The interviewees described collaborative action
planning as, sense-making, aligning, and listening. Participant 1 recognized the need for
collaborative action planning strategies: “School systems are built on relationships… and people
who have a need to gather … and make sense of conversations.” Participant 2 further described
86

necessary collaborative action planning resources as, “having the tools and strategies to create
teams” and the importance of “collaborative practices, such as feedback.”
The interview participants also recognized the challenges of increased collaboration. For
example, P4 stated, “It also means inviting a diversity of opinions, … [which] makes it more
challenging to lead … because you hired people that are going to question those things
[decisions].” Thus, the need for deliberate strategies and tools for collaboration was
recommended as essential to leadership development training and enacting adaptive leadership,
culture, and mindset practices. Importantly, a return on this investment was also noted. P6
articulated an important outcome to increased collaboration: “That’s probably one of the biggest
pieces … communication.” Participant 5 further described the importance of collaboration, as the
leader favorably reflected on personal and team success during the pandemic, “The 2 years
before were great because I was part of a system. I was part of a collaboration.” In summary, the
interviewees identified thoughtful and inclusive collaboration enabled through new strategies and
tools as vital to the district and to the leaders themselves. The interviewees also recommended an
increased knowledge of change theory with intentional time to collaborate, apply, and practice.
When asked for leadership development training recommendations, P3 framed the
response by describing the pace of change in education: “Recent time has shown us that the
scope and scale of the need for adaptive change and professional development … is outpacing …
leaders. We’re not getting anywhere. We have to be able to deal with that.” Participant 4 further
described the current education culture as, “Generally speaking in education, what I’ve seen to
varying degrees is a compliance culture.” Participant 4 also described the current culture
limitations with respect to adaptive challenges: “And a compliance culture is fine when you have
friendly problems that are pretty straightforward, … but it falls apart with these open-ended
87

types of issues [adaptive challenges].” Therefore, school leaders expressed their experiences with
the rate of external change and articulated their limited ability to respond with current resources.
Participant 1 articulated a specific recommendation, “We need to understand change theory,” and
specifically described the process of adaptive leadership, “and how to assemble people to enact
change.” This acknowledgement is consistent with Heifetz (1994) explanation of adaptive
leadership as more of a process or practice than trait-based or position of authority, as well as the
adaptive culture subconstructs of execute, sustain, and collaborate.
Participant 1 also described the limitations of current leadership development: “I don’t
think we spend nearly enough time in leadership development on change process. … We’re
asked to analyze a case study based on process improvement … versus saying, ‘let’s analyze this
through change theory.’” Thus, P1 clearly articulated the need for a change model approach. Yet,
the approach to professional development is equally important. Participant 7 described the results
of a recent professional development training experience, “I had the books, I had the resources,
but the time to actually dig into implementing and utilizing the things that we had just
learned…just got sucked away.” Alternatively, P7 explained a recent successful collaborative
team experience: “I think that type of real-world, real-time [professional development] is much
more effective.” Last, P7 further described how to enact such development:
But then implementing it into the day. I want to take three hours a day at least once or
twice a month to work on that work … It gives me time to come back and put it into
practice with my staff with my leadership team.
Thus, P7 further refined the recommendation of increased change theory knowledge, with
dedicated time to collaborate, apply the new learning, and practice with “real-world” site-specific
adaptive challenges.
88

Finally, interviewees not only articulated the need for change theory and an adaptive
leadership approach to problem-solving, but they also articulated the need for a more adaptive
mindset. The interviewees specifically expressed the adaptive mindset subconstruct of asset-
based as a helpful approach to problem-solving and a professional development opportunity.
Participant 1 stated,
We spend a lot of time focusing on the things that didn’t go well and we forget to analyze
what did go well. We get ourselves oftentimes into a deficit mindset. … We need to go
back and say, “what worked?”
Thus, the interviewee suggested an appreciative inquiry asset-based mindset approach to
problem-solving. In summary, the interviewee responses and recommendations were consistent
with study’s conceptual framework constructs of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset,
further validating the study’s theoretical and conceptual frameworks. These themes and
recommendations are further discussed in Chapter Five.
Summary of Findings
In summary, the survey and interview findings revealed that (a) it is difficult, yet
necessary. for district leaders to accurately identify and consistently respond to adaptive
challenges with an adaptive response, (b) adaptive leadership does not necessarily lead to an
adaptive culture, (c) adaptive mindset may need to mature before the onset of equity-based
policy and practice, (d) leadership adaptiveness varies by role and setting, and (e) adaptive
change would benefit from organizational change theory and increased collaboration. These five
themes underscore with the interconnectedness of the conceptual frameworks constructs of
adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset, and why all three organizational elements are
necessary to successfully address adaptive challenges such as educational equity. Chapter Five
89

further discusses the findings within the context of the literature and conceptual framework along
with recommendation for practice.

90

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and practices. The organizational
context for this study was a large Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district of which the
study participants were graduates of a nationally recognized NISL statewide executive leadership
development program. To achieve the purpose of this study an online cross-sectional survey was
completed by 14 district- and site-level leaders and interviews were conducted with a nested
sample of seven.
This chapter presents a discussion of findings and recommendations for practice based on
the findings described in Chapter Four. The discussion of findings section summarizes the five
thematic findings within the context of the literature review and conceptual framework presented
in Chapter Two. The following recommendations for practice section is also supported by the
literature and aligned with the conceptual framework. The last sections of this chapter describe
the study’s limitations and delimitations, recommendations for future research, and conclusion.
Discussion of Findings
This section is a discussion of how the findings in this study align with the literature
review and the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework constructs of adaptive
leadership (Heifetz, 1994), adaptive culture (Costanza et al., 2016), and adaptive mindset
(Filback & Green, 2013) are each a behavioral science factor within the Burke-Litwin
organizational change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992), the theoretical framework for this study. A
deeper discussion of themes one through five and supporting literature follows.
91

Theme 1: The Leadership Challenge: Maintaining Adaptiveness
The survey and interview data suggest that all six subconstructs of adaptive leadership
can be challenging to maintain. The survey respondents rated overall leadership adaptiveness as
moderate (M = 3.9, SD = 1.13) on 5.0 scale. Survey respondents rated two of the six
subconstructs, identify an adaptive challenge and maintain disciplined attention, with lesser
levels of adaptiveness than the remaining four subconstructs get on the balcony, regulate distress,
give the work back to the people, and protect voices from below. See Table 5 for a summary of
adaptive leadership survey and interview findings. Heifetz (1994) and Heifetz and Laurie (1997)
stated the work of adaptive leadership is challenging because the locus of control must shift from
the leader to the stakeholders which results in an uncomfortable but necessary tension. The
adaptive leadership subconstructs provides a framework for this shift in role and balance of
tension. As Northouse (2019) noted, there is no prescribed order of the six steps; however, all are
necessary, sometime simultaneous, and interdependent. Thus, underscoring the importance of a
high level of adaptiveness across all six adaptive leadership subconstructs. The literature also
describes leadership and its importance within and outside of the K–12 sector.
The K–12 literature states that broader systemwide coherence is critical to favorable
school outcomes and student achievement (Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Master
et al., 2020). Thus, district leadership skills and broader system coherence are essential to
organizational change. In addition, adaptive leadership research asserts that although technical
challenges can be solved with top-down leadership, adaptive challenges require many
stakeholders (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Consequently, K–12 adaptive challenges
require the adaptive leadership skills of district-level and site-level leaders to actuate complex
adaptive change, such as educational equity. In summary, the literature identifies the importance
92

of the leader and broader system coherence to organizational change. The survey and interview
respondents’ self-reported moderate levels of leadership adaptiveness in the subconstructs of
identify an adaptive challenge and maintain disciplined attention, suggests the need for
additional adaptive problem-solving skills. Thus, the literature and study data indicate the need
for increased K–12 district- and site-level leader awareness and the development of adaptive
leadership skills to successfully address adaptive challenges.
Theme 2: The Culture Challenge: Building Capacity
The literature identified the nexus of the conceptual framework elements of adaptive
leadership and adaptive culture through “taking-action” (Costanza et al., 2016; Heifetz, 1994).
The survey respondents rated the overall cultural adaptiveness of the school district as moderate
(M = 4.8, SD 1.72) on a 7.0 scale and increasingly less than the rate of external change. The
cultural factors with greater levels of adaptiveness were anticipation and open to change as
compared to the internal taking-action cultural factors of executing change, sustaining change,
collaborative action planning, and the developmental capabilities for change. See Table 6 for a
summary of adaptive culture survey and interview findings. Schein (2017), a seminal researcher
on organizations and organizational change, describes culture as a composition of cultural
models, climates, and settings. The cultural model represents an organization’s shared value and
belief systems, cultural climate is the physical artifact, policy, and practice manifestations of the
model; and cultural settings is when two or more people work together to accomplish something.
The cultural setting related subconstructs of collaborative action planning and developmental
capabilities were pivotal to the survey and interview findings. These findings were also
represented in the K–12 literature.
93

Several in-depth studies have been conducted to identify the critical organizational
components of high-performance educational systems nationally and internationally. Across the
studies, the researchers consistently identify the setting aspects of culture in terms of
collaboration, capacity building, and effective management systems (Fullan & Quinn, 2016;
Johnson et al., 2015; NCEE, 2020b; NISL, 2016; Rice et al., 2001). Interestingly, the survey
respondents rated the adaptive culture factor of collaborative action planning the lowest level of
adaptiveness and with the highest standard deviation. Likewise, the survey respondents rated the
adaptive culture factor of developmental capabilities or capacity building with a moderate level
of adaptiveness and a similarly high standard deviation. The interviewees described both
adaptive culture factors as a work-in-progress; thus, a possible explanation for the survey
participant’s varied responses and higher standard deviations. The survey and interview
respondents’ lower rated levels of cultural adaptiveness for these two factors, in conjunction with
the literature that indicates the importance of these factors in high-performance educational
systems, suggests the need for increased attention and leadership development in cultural
adaptiveness, particularly with the action-taking factors of collaborative action planning and
developmental capabilities.
Theme 3: The Mindset Challenge: Placing Into Practice
The adaptive mindset subconstruct of equity may be less mature than its counterpart
subconstructs of asset, awareness, and context-centered, with full adoption into practice as a
work-in-progress. Overall, the survey respondents self-reported a high level of mindset
adaptiveness with “agree” to “strongly agree” (M = 5.3, SD = .94) on a 6.0 scale. See Table 7 for
a summary of adaptive mindset survey and interview findings. In addition to the equity
subconstruct being rated lower than its counterparts, the survey respondents were more varied in
94

their responses with “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” to survey item Q21,” success in
school is primarily the student’s responsibility” and item Q22, “anyone who works hard enough
can do well in school.” These survey responses may indicate an equality over equity mindset, or
at a minimum, lack of clarity and alignment of underlying belief systems. Thus, the equity versus
equality subconstruct is an important educational leadership adaptive mindset development topic.
Furthermore, Boykin and Noguera (2011) defined education equity as more than equal inputs or
access with a focus on outputs and results. Interviewee responses tended to focus more on inputs
and access than outcomes and results, suggesting the need for additional adaptive mindset
development. Last, the recent National Center on Education and the Economy (2020) study of
national and international high-performance educational systems indicates that equity,
excellence, and efficiency are considered the heart of leading practices in globally competitive
educational systems. Thus, underscoring the importance of educational equity. The literature also
identifies the role of a leader in shaping organizational mindsets.
The literature indicates the importance of a leader’s ability to surface, align and challenge
mental models (Finch et al., 2010; Morrison & Milken, 2000; Senge, 1990). Morrison and
Milken (2000) noted that silence as a barrier to organizational change occurs when unspoken yet
dominant ideology prevails within organizations and that implicit bias and belief systems give
rise to structures, policies, and practices. Thus, shared understanding, awareness, and intentional
leadership conversations as to adaptive mindset subconstructs among K–12 district- and site-
level leaders is necessary to organizational change and a likely precondition to actuating equity-
based policy and practices. Finally, educational equity has been researched and conceptualized
by several educational equity thought leaders.
95

The MIT Teaching Systems Lab has taught Becoming a More Equitable Educator to
5,678 educators through June 2020 and had identified expanding to educational leaders as an
area for future research (Buttimer et al., 2022; Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). This study’s
mixed-methods approach revealed interesting findings in which K–12 district- and site leaders’
self-reported high levels of mindset adaptiveness through survey responses, however articulated
more varied and nuanced data examples through their interview responses. The results suggest a
possible variance between espoused values and actual behaviors, which is critical to actuating
real change. Thus, a better understanding of K–12 district- and site-level leader’s levels of
mindset adaptiveness could be instrumental to influencing K–12 adaptive challenges, such as
educational equity.
Theme 4: Site-Level Adaptive Leadership Practices
Levels of adaptive leadership are not fixed and depending on the context we might see
variable degrees of adaptiveness within roles and settings. The literature links effective district-
and site-level leadership as critical to system coherence and a favorable connection to student
achievement (Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fullan & Quinn, 2018). Although, how such system
coherence is sustained is less understood (Evans, 2017; Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Master et al.,
2020). The findings in this study identified specific adaptive leadership practices within
successful site leaders. Whereas a district-level administrator typically identified an adaptive
challenge and then acted, a site-level principal was responsible for the implementation and
further adaptation of the adaptive change with site-level context including teacher acceptance
and student needs. Through the interviewee responses, the site leaders expressed an iterative site-
level approach to adaptiveness as “to be realistic,” “creating reasonable expectations,” and
“navigating the interactions.” Each an attempt to balance complex change, system coherence,
96

and site outcomes. This is important because the literature indicated principal leadership
accounts for nearly 25% of a school’s total impact on student achievement (Leithwood et al.,
2004). And more recently, Grissom et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive K–12 literature
review with statistical analysis on principal effectiveness and student performance. The
researchers’ found principals are at least and likely more impactful on student achievement and
positive school outcomes. Suggesting the Leithwood et al. (2004) review not only accurate, but
likely understated. In addition, as noted in theme two, successful site leaders also further adapted
the adaptive culture factors of developmental capabilities and collaborative action planning to
better meet their environmental situations or cultural settings.
Although survey respondents described the district’s adaptive culture factors of
developmental capability as “needs to improve” and “remains a challenge,” two site leader
interviewees articulated their collaborative approach and notions of realism and environmental
context in their capacity building approach to developmental capabilities. This finding is
consistent with the recent literature review in which Grissom et al. (2021) identified “building a
productive school climate” and “facilitating productive collaboration and professional learning
communities” as two of the four key behaviors of high-performing principals within high-
performing schools. A strong overlap with the adaptive culture factors of developmental
capabilities and collaborative action planning. Finally, the site leaders noted realism and
environmental context as important considerations in their site-team professional development
strategies. This finding is consistent with the recent research on adult learning in learning
environments. Taylor (2005) conducted a research review on transformative learning, the last
done since 1998, and identified that one of the most powerful tools for fostering transformative
learning is ensuring the participants utilize experiences that are “direct, personally engaging, and
97

simulate reflection upon experience.” Thus, the site leaders adaptive use of realism and
environmental context is an interesting adaptive practice finding. In summary, the survey and
interview data along with the literature suggests that a site-level leaders’ adaptive mindset and
use of context-centered practices such as realism and stakeholder needs, appear to benefit the
adaptive culture factor of executing change at the site-level, and a likely precedent to systemwide
adaptive change.
Theme 5: Change Model Capacity Development
The participants recommended the need to prepare K–12 leaders for adaptive change
through increased collaboration and change theory knowledge enabled through new strategies,
tools, time, and “real-world” application. The acknowledgement of increased collaboration is
consistent with Heifetz (1994) explanation of adaptive leadership as more of a process or
practice than a position of authority. In addition, Costanza et al. (2016) described the adaptive
culture taking-action factors of execute, sustain, collaborate, and developmental capabilities as
necessary steps to achieve an adaptive culture. Thus, the participants recommendation for
increased collaboration is aligned with the conceptual framework’s adaptive culture construct
and supported in the literature. The participants’ recommendation for increased understanding of
organizational change theory, is also validated in the literature.
The theory of change is described as internal and external factors (Burke & Litwin,
1992), micro-systems nested within larger macro-systems (Schein, 2017), and the necessity of
tangible cultural artifacts to drive intangible cultural models (Schneider et al., 1996). The Burke-
Litwin organizational change model (Burke & Litwin, 1992) identified change as both process
and content. The Burke-Litwin change model’s inclusion of process and content supports the
interviewees expressed need for strategies, time, and tools to enact change. Change theory also
98

acknowledges the importance of the external environment. Schein (2017) identified that change
is nested within larger environments, and Burke and Litwin (1992) identified that
transformational change is in direct response to the external environment. This is important
because the interviewees recognized that “change … is outpacing … leaders,” and the survey
respondents rated the district’s external factors of change as greater than the organization’s
internal capabilities for change. Thus, further validation of the district leaders’ recommendation
for increased knowledge in change theory. Finally, an organization’s response to external change
places specific emphasis on the Burke-Litwin change model transformational factors of
leadership and culture. These two required change factors draw closer connections between the
conceptual framework’ three constructs. Last, the interviewees recommended time for “sense-
making” and “real-world” application. Transformative learning theory research identified the
necessity for collaboration and context for adults to socially construct deep learning
(Kitchenham, 2008; Taylor, 2007). Thus, the interviewees expressed need for time to collaborate
and “real-world” application is consistent with learning theory literature. In addition, the study
participants recommendation for a change theory model along with supporting strategies and
tools, are examples of tangible cultural artifacts that drive intangible cultural change, also
consistent with the literature. These participant insights and literature helped drive
recommendation for practice in the next section.
Recommendations for Practice
As the study findings and literature have indicated, K–12 systemwide change is complex
(Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008; Daly & Finnigan, 2016; Evans, 2017; Fullan
& Quinn, 2016; Master et al., 2020) with minimal training to support complex problems such as
educational equity (Bradley-Levine, 2016; Celoria et al., 2016; Farley et al., 2019; Gaetane et al.,
99

2009). The five recommendations for practice in this section are offered as a K–12 leadership
development capacity building framework to increase leadership, culture, and mindset
adaptiveness, and organizational readiness to address complex 21st century challenges, such as
education equity. Table 8 summarizes the five K–12 leadership development capacity building
recommendations, each aligned to a conceptual framework construct, along with specific new
knowledge, strategies, and/or tools for consideration, supported by the literature. A deeper
discussion of each recommendation follows.

100

Table 8
Summary of Recommendations by Conceptual Framework Construct
# Conceptual
framework
Recommendation

Knowledge Strategies Tools
1 Adaptive
leadership
Adaptive leadership capacity building
Develop district- and site-level leadership
capacity to consistently identify and
respond to adaptive challenges with
adaptive responses utilizing the
adaptive leadership six-step process.
X X
2 Adaptive
culture
Adaptive culture capacity building
Increase district- and site-level leadership
collaborative action planning with a
focus on psychological safety, action
learning, and appreciative inquiry
practices.
X X X
3 Adaptive
mindset
Adaptive mindset capacity building
Increase district- and site-level leadership
knowledge and awareness for the
adaptive mindset subconstructs
through training and tools.
X X
4 Adaptive
leadership
and
culture

Change theory model
Incorporate an organizational change
theory model into K–12 leadership
development training with “real-
world” application action learning
strategies.
X X X
5 Adaptive
leadership,
culture,
and
mindset
Organizational capacity building
Conduct an annual adaptive leadership,
culture, and mindset self-assessment to
develop an adaptive leadership
capacity building plan to advance
leadership, culture, and mindset
adaptiveness in service of educational
equity.
X X

Recommendation 1: Adaptive Leadership Capacity Building
It is recommended that K–12 district- and site-level leaders build their adaptive
leadership knowledge and skills to consistently identify and respond to adaptive challenges with
101

adaptive responses, particularly when emotions are charged. Findings in this study were
supported by the literature that indicates organizational challenges are becoming more complex
(Bennis, 1999; Heifetz, 1994; Kania et al., 2018) and K–12 education challenges are no
exception (Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fusarelli & Ayscue, 2019) with
educational equity as a persistent problem (Hanushek et al., 2019; Noguera, 2009). In addition,
the research has identified the school district as the primary unit of K–12 change (Chrispeels et
al., 2008; Daly & Finnigan, 2016) with district leaders instrumental to systemwide change
(Chrispeels et al., 2008; Ford et al., 2020; Fullan & Quinn, 2018; Master et al., 2020). Thus, K–
12 school district leaders are pivotal to addressing the complex challenge of education equity.
However, research also indicates that today’s K–12 leaders have minimal preparation and
training for complex issues such as social justice and educational equity (Bradley-Levine, 2016;
Celoria et al., 2016; Farley et al., 2019; Kemp-Graham, 2015). Therefore, specific K–12
leadership development training to address complex challenges such as educational equity is
necessary.
The seminal work of Heifetz (1994) defined adaptive leadership as more of a process or
practice than a position of authority, and an adaptive problem as one in which both the problem
and the solution are novel, ill-defined, and challenge current belief systems. Education equity is
an example of an adaptive challenge, thus requiring an adaptive leadership approach. This
recommendation reference to emotionally charged situations is an important nuance, because
adaptive problems challenge participant belief systems, often triggering strong emotions. The
study survey and interview participants indicated that in situations in which emotions were
charged, leadership responded with their authority to resolve the problem. Thus, indicating a
technical response which resulted in unaddressed underlying challenges and unresolved issues.
102

The research indicated that emotional responses and conflict are a clue or a symptom of an
adaptive challenge (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). In adaptive work the locus of control must shift
from the leader to the participants (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Adaptive leadership
is a six-step process of which the first two steps get on the balcony and identify an adaptive
challenge enable the leader to diagnose the challenge as adaptive or technical. If adaptive, the
remaining four steps are the appropriate adaptive response to the situation, which include
regulate distress, maintain disciplined attention, give the work back to the people, and protect
voices from below. In addition to shifting the locus of control back to the participants, a safe
environment with conscious inclusion must also be maintained for adaptive problem-solving.
The pre-conditions of a safe environment and inclusion are further discussed in
Recommendations 2 and 3, respectively. Heifetz et al. (2009) explains a collective adaptive
leadership response as helping people navigate through disequilibrium by (a) managing yourself
and (b) helping people tolerate the discomfort. This is important because top-down authoritative
leadership no longer suffices in today’s most complex challenges, instead the key to real change
is through empowered teams (Bennis, 1999; Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Laurie, 1997). Thus,
adaptive leadership knowledge and process are necessary to K–12 district- and site-level leaders
as they attempt to navigate 21st century adaptive challenges. The next recommendation is
aligned with the second conceptual framework construct of adaptive culture.
Recommendation 2: Adaptive Culture Capacity Building
It is recommended that K–12 district- and site-level leaders increase their cultural
adaptiveness practice of collaborative action planning with a focus on (a) psychological safety,
(b) action learning, and (c) appreciative inquiry practices. The survey and interview participants
in this study indicated that the rate of external change exceeded the level of internal readiness for
103

change; K–12 leaders were more open to change than prepared to act on it; and the practice of
collaborative action planning varied based on role and setting. Schein (2017) described an
organizational culture as a composition of cultural models, climates, and settings. The latter,
cultural settings is described as two or more people working together to accomplish something.
The act of accomplishing something aligns with the intersection of the conceptual framework
constructs of adaptive leadership and adaptive culture dimension of “taking-action” (Costanza et
al., 2016; Heifetz, 1994). As the research has indicated, solving an adaptive challenge such as
educational equity, or closing the achievement gap, have been largely unsuccessful to date
(Bishop & Noguera, 2019; Chrispeels et al., 2008; Fusarelli & Ayscue, 2019). In part, because
the problem and solution are novel, ill-defined, and challenge current belief systems; thus,
traditional, and technical approaches are ill-equipped to meet the adaptive challenge. A more
novel approach is required. Hence, this recommendation includes innovative collaborative and
research-based generative learning practices that include psychological safety, action learning,
and appreciative inquiry.
The construct of psychological safety was validated by Edmondson’s (1999) seminal
work in which psychological safety was identified as a precondition for team learning.
Edmondson (1999) described team psychological safety as “shared belief by members of a team
that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.” It is logical that personal risk-taking would be
necessary to solve novel and ill-defined adaptive challenges. In addition, adaptive challenges
also challenge participant belief systems (Heifetz, 1994). As evidenced by the study findings, the
interview participants described current district adaptive challenges as “fearful,” “vulnerable,”
and “sensitive.” Likewise, the lowest rated adaptive leadership survey item was a leader’s use of
authority “when events triggered strong emotional responses,” thus triggering a technical
104

response and minimizing the contributions of others. Therefore, psychological safety is
necessary for interpersonal risk-taking. Furthermore, team learning behaviors such as seeking
feedback, discussing errors, pursuing information, and sharing differing perspectives require
interpersonal risk-taking (Cauwelier, 2019; Edmondson, 1999). The favorable and reinforcing
relationship between psychological safety, learning behavior and team performance is further
discussed in the action learning discussion. Because of the importance and precondition of
psychological safety, it is recommended that district- and site-level leaders self-assess their level
of team psychological safety. Edmondson (1999) has developed a simple seven question seven-
point Likert-like scale self-assessment tool with high psychometric properties, to assess team
psychological safety. Organizational development researchers have successfully utilized this test
as a pre- and post-assessment in organizational team learning activities (Cauwelier, 2019) and
high-performance teams (Google, 2015), further validating the importance of psychological
safety and team performance. In fact, Google found psychological safety had four times the
effect on team performance than other more traditional factors including personality type, skills,
or team structure. Finally, research has identified psychological safety as an antecedent to
“breakthrough solutions” and complex problem-solving (Cauwelier, 2019; Grieten et al., 2018).
Thus, drawing strong connections between the psychological safety and adaptive problem-
solving. Interview participants also articulated the need for “real-world” application in the
adaptive culture development of capabilities factor.
Action learning is the next recommended organizational development practice to support
K–12 district- and site-level collaborative action planning. According to the World Institute of
Action Learning (WIAL; 2022), action learning is a problem-solving process where a small team
works on a real business challenge, takes-action, and learns as individuals and as a team in the
105

process. Action learning is a six-step process that identifies (a) an organizational problem, (b) a
cross-functional team, (c) a questioning and reflection process, (d) a systems-thinking approach
to develop strategies and actions, (e) a commitment to individual, team, and organizational
learning, and (f) an independent coach that supports the learning process (Marquardt, 2011, as
cited in Volz-Peacock et al., 2016). Thus, the practice of action learning is well aligned with the
interview participants recommendation for “real-world” application, and the conceptual
framework’s adaptive leadership and adaptive culture shared dimension of taking-action. In
addition, Cauwelier (2019) identified action learning to increase team psychological safety, and
in turn, enhance team performance. In effect, Cauwelier (2019) identified a reinforcing loop in
which action learning increases psychological safety, which increases team performance, which
encourages more action learning, and so on. The sixth step in the action learning process is the
recommendation for an independent coach to support the learning process. This step is in
alignment with the interview participants expressed support for a coach. Volz-Peacock (2016)
identified the growing importance of action learning in the public and private sectors as an
efficacious and cost-effective means of leadership development. In addition, action learning
coupled with coaching has been reported as an effective leadership development tool. Thus,
action learning is a practical and cost-effective strategy for K–12 district- and site-level
individual, team, and organizational capacity building and collaborative action planning. Finally,
the practice of appreciate inquiry supports the action learning step of “questioning and
reflection” and the study participant’s recommendation for “asset-based” problem-solving.
As stated by P1, “We spend a lot of time focusing on the things that didn’t go well and
we forget to analyze what did go well.” Thus, the interview participant noted the need for a new
leadership team approach to problem-solving. The participant also elaborated, “this often gets us
106

into a deficit mindset.” Therefore, the final recommended collaborative action planning practice
is the method of appreciative inquiry. Appreciative inquiry is an asset- and inquiry-based
approach to problem-solving. As organizational development researcher Coghlan (2003)
explains, instead of focusing on the problem, it focuses on what is working and what is possible.
Thus, directly aligned with the study participant’s recommendation. In addition, the literature
identified appreciate inquiry as a successful application in organizational change (Coghlan,
2003). Thus, drawing closer connections with adaptive challenges and this study’s conceptual
framework. The literature identifies several practical approaches to enact appreciative inquiry.
One recognized method is based on the original work of David Cooperrider et al. (2003) and is
referred to as the 4-D model (Coghlan et al., 2003). In the 4-D model, there are four stages of
inquiry which include discovery (prior strengths and successes), dream (possible future), design
(provocative propositions), and destiny (implement and sustain the change). The model’s inquiry
stages of discovery, dream, design, and destiny, align well with the adaptive culture factors of
collaborative action planning, executing change, and sustain change, respectively. The practice
of appreciative inquiry also aligns well with the adaptive mindset subconstruct of asset-based
which is discussed in the next recommendation.
In summary, it is recommended that K–12 district- and site-level leaders increase their
cultural adaptiveness capacity for collaborative action planning with a focus on psychological
safety, action learning, and appreciative inquiry knowledge, strategies and supporting tools
including the psychological safety self-assessment (Edmondson, 1999), action learning coaching
support, and the appreciative inquiry 4-D model. The next recommendation is aligned with the
third conceptual framework construct of adaptive mindset.
107

Recommendation 3: Adaptive Mindset Capacity Building
It is recommended that K–12 district- and site-level leaders increase their mindset
adaptiveness through adaptive mindset knowledge, training, and tools. This is important because
adaptive mindset capacity building work is a prerequisite for equity-based policies and practices.
Although the self-reported survey results indicated a high level of mindset adaptiveness, the
interview responses indicated the need for further development of the mindset subconstructs. The
survey data also suggested a varied response and a higher standard deviation with respect to the
equity subconstruct. This finding is relevant because a team’s shared belief system shapes
organizational culture and ultimately policy and practices. As indicated by organizational
development research, an organizational culture is a composition of cultural models, climates,
and settings with cultural models described as an organization’s shared value and belief systems
(Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2017) and the importance of a leader’s ability to surface, align and
challenge mental models (Finch et al., 2010; Morrison & Milken, 2000; Senge, 1990). This is
important because learning behavior research states for a principle or belief system to be true, it
needs to be shared by its members (Cauwelier, 2019; Edmondson, 1999). Thus, shared values
and belief systems require intentionality by the leader and agreement among its members.
Mindset development is not easy work, but necessary. As noted by organizational change
researchers and practitioners Kania et al. (2018), the implicit condition of mental models is the
most difficult to detect and among the most transformative, if changed. The recognized
“transformational” value of mental models aligns with this study’s Burke-Litwin (1992) change
model’s transformational level of change. Thus, K–12 district- and site-level leader adaptive
mindset knowledge, training, and supporting tools are recommended.
108

There are many mindset and equity training programs with supporting tools available. A
couple to consider include the MIT Teaching Systems Lab’s Becoming a More Equitable
Educator online professional development training and the Arizona School Board Association
Leading for Equity leadership development program. A starting tool aid also includes A
Framework of Educator Mindsets and Consequences (Filback & Green, 2013), utilized in this
study’s conceptual framework and the basis for the MIT professional development. In summary,
the adaptive mindset capacity building recommendation for K–12 leaders is a prerequisite for
equity-based policy and practice. As Kezar (2001) noted in her organizational change research,
the dominant and subordinate roles between those in power and those served, can influence how
dominant “power cultures” shape organizational policies and practices. Thus, K–12 district-level
leadership mindsets are instrumental to organizational change.
Recommendation 4: Change Theory Model
It is recommended to incorporate an organizational change model theory into K–12
leadership development training with “real-world” application and action learning strategies. The
survey data and interview participants suggested that external change was exceeding K–12’s
internal capacity for change. District and site leaders specifically expressed the need to
“understand change theory” and “how to assemble people to enact change.” This was a clear
articulation of new knowledge, how to effectively operationalize it, and the recognition it
requires a team of people to enact it. Interviewees cited the value of current NISL leadership
development training, a nationally recognized cohort-based job-embedded program. However,
the interviewees also stated, the need for “real-world” application and work-day time to
collaborate and problem-solve with team members to experience trial and error. Thus, this
109

recommendation includes two sets of knowledge, strategies and supporting tools that includes an
organizational change theory model and the practice of action learning.
The action learning approach to enhance the adaptive culture factor of collaborative
action planning was previously identified in Recommendation 2. Action learning is a generative
problem-solving process where a small team works on a real business challenge, takes-action,
and learns as individuals and as a team in the process (WIAL, 2022). The action learning six-step
process aligns with the district leaders articulated goals of cross-functional teams that utilize a
systems-thinking and organizational learning development approach to problem-solving. Thus,
the action learning process is well aligned with district goals. There are several change models
supported by organizational change theory research. However, the Burke-Litwin change model
(Burke & Litwin, 1992) merits consideration.
The Burke-Litwin change model uniquely depicts change as both a process and content
through 10 internal bi-directional and causal organizational factors within three levels of
organizational change: transformational, transactional, and individual. See Figure 1 for the
Burke-Litwin change model. The change model’s behavioral science factors of leadership,
culture, and mindset also serve as the constructs of this study’s conceptual framework. These
three factors compliment the remaining seven well-researched in literature K–12 transactional
level factors of pedagogy, resource allocation, instructional systems, and accountability (Fullan
& Quinn, 2016; Johnson et al., 2015; NCEE, 2020b; NISL, 2016; Rice et al., 2001) and the
management science of collaboration, capacity building, and effective management systems
(Fullan & Quinn, 2016; Johnson et al., 2015; NCEE, 2020b; NISL, 2016; Rice et al., 2001). As
suggested by a study participant, a change theory model complements process improvement
strategies already embedded in K–12 leadership development training programs. A change
110

theory model assists leaders to better understand the complex organizational elements necessary
to enact organizational change. The Burke-Litwin change model is useful because it depicts the
(a) content of change through its 10 organizational change factors, (b) the process of
organizational change through their causal relationship to each other, and the (c) complexity of
organizational change through its three levels transformational, transactional, and individual
change. Thus, the content, process, and complexity of organizational change theory are
effectively demonstrated in one model. As the K–12 district-level performance literature has
indicated, although a lot is known about high-performing systems (Fullan & Quinn, 2016), what
is less known is how to achieve them (Evans, 2017). Hence, the combination of a well-
articulated comprehensive change theory model with action learning provides the necessary new
knowledge, strategies, and tools to support a research-based powerful organizational learning
and problem-solving approach to adaptive challenges and organizational change.
Recommendation 5: Organizational Capacity Building
Conduct an annual adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset self-assessment to develop
an organizational capacity building plan to advance leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness
in service of educational equity. See Appendix A for this study’s survey instrument. Overall, the
study survey data suggested moderate levels of leadership and culture adaptiveness, and a high
level of mindset adaptiveness, although the mindset interview data were more nuanced and
diversified, suggesting a more varied levels of adaptiveness. Furthermore, the study participants’
levels of adaptiveness by construct were normalized to provide a side-by-side comparison for
each adaptive construct. Table 9 summarizes the study participants’ survey results and
normalized levels of adaptiveness and Figure 4 depicts the normalized results by each construct.
111

Table 9
Summary of Case Study Normalized Levels of Adaptiveness by Construct
Construct Levels of
adaptiveness
SD Normalized
Scale Actual

Leadership 5.0 3.9 1.13 .78

Culture 7.0 4.8 1.72 .68

Mindset 6.0 5.3 0.94 .88

Figure 4
Case Study Normalized Levels of Adaptiveness by Construct

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Mindset
Leadership
Culture
112

As illustrated in Figure 4, the normalized survey results suggest room for growth, with
cultural adaptiveness as the least adaptive of the three constructs. In addition, the interview data
suggested leadership and culture adaptiveness varied based on role and setting, mindset
adaptiveness more nuanced, and the full adoption of the subconstructs into policies and practices,
as a work-in-progress. Thus, with moderate and varied levels of leadership, culture, and mindset
adaptiveness, there is room for continued organizational growth and development. Two bodies of
research that support organizational growth and development practices are organizational
learning and capacity building.
The notion of organizational learning was popularized by Senge (1990) in The Fifth
Discipline in which he defined organizational learning as a process in which the members of an
organization create their own future through continuous learning together. Jones (2001) shifted
the focus from the development of the individual to the development of the organization with an
organizational culture that allows and encourages the practice of continuous (a) questioning, (b)
reflection, (c) sharing, (d) learning from operations, (e) taking-action, and (f) post critical
reflection on the action, as the organizational learning process. The organizational learning
element of (e) taking-action, draws close connections with the adaptive leadership and adaptive
culture shared dimension of taking-action. Furthermore, Garvin et al. (2008) identified three
building blocks essential to organizational learning and adaptability that include (a) a supportive
learning environment, (b) concrete learning processes and practices, and (c) leadership that
reinforces learning. Thus, the researchers’ direct reference to “adaptability” and the building
block of (c) leadership that reinforces learning, aligns with the adaptive culture factor of
developmental capabilities, the adaptive leadership subconstruct of give the work back to the
people, and the conceptual framework’s overall adaptive lens. Not surprisingly, the building
113

blocks for organizational learning also align with the practices of psychological safety and action
learning noted in Recommendation 2. Finally, if the notion of organizational learning is about
creating an organizational future together through continuous learning (Senge, 1990), then
capacity building is about making sure it endures.
The concept of organizational capacity building has been in existence in national and
international development work since the 1990s, and the nonprofit and education sectors since
the early 2000s (Dinham & Crowther, 2011). The Doherty and Mayer (2003) literature review
identified several broad definitions of capacity building with a consensus definition that focused
on increasing an organizations core skills and capabilities to ensure organizational effectiveness
and sustainability. Stevens (2001) defined capacity building in the not-for-profit sector as the
continuum of organizational success through capacity (capabilities and competencies),
performance (measurable goals), and effectiveness (mission impact). Both definitions suggest the
goal of long-term organizational sustainability. Dinham and Crowther (2011) identified capacity
building in the education sector as doable and understandable, however not an easy task.
Importantly, the literature acknowledged the essential role of district-level (Fullan, 2004) and
school-level (Dinham & Crowther, 2011) leadership as key to successful educational sector
capacity building. Thus, the literature has demonstrated the importance of organizational
learning and capacity building to the K–12 sector and its relevance to the recommended ongoing
development and self-assessment of K–12 adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices.
Last, based on this researcher’s nearly 3 decades of supporting organizational
development and change in the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors, change is possible with
intention; new knowledge, strategies, and tools; and guided support. The literature states that
adaptive challenges can be tackled through adaptive leadership, adaptive culture, and adaptive
114

mindset practices. The literature also states that capacity building and organizational learning are
effective skill building approaches to leadership development. However, both development
approaches recognize that learning is a process in which the participants’ experience, shared
meaning-making, and contextual realities are as important as the new knowledge, strategies, and
tools. Thus, this is not a 1-day training event. Instead, a successful development process requires
a cohort-based, job-embedded, multi-month workshop approach. Ideally supported with ongoing
technical coaching support. Change agency can be learned. It does need to be intentional with the
proper support and conditions for success. Thus, it is time to meet K–12 district- and site-level
leadership teams where they are at, allow them to thoughtfully self-assess and map their desired
future, then enable them with the proper knowledge, strategies, tools, and guided support to
address today’s 21
st
century educational adaptive challenges and achieve meaningful, sustainable
change.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of a study represent the potential design weaknesses that are not in the
researcher’s control (Simon, 2011). There were several limitations in this study including some
of the quantitative survey construct and subconstruct psychometric properties, the study design
method and purposeful selection of study participants, and time limitations. The conceptual
framework elements of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset survey each are supported with
varying degrees of psychometric properties. The adaptive leadership construct is considered a
promising practice, however, is underpinned by less empirical data. The adaptive culture
construct has been primarily used in the for-profit sector; thus, the underlying factors may be less
transferable to the not-for-profit education sector. Last, the adaptive mindset construct, although
supported with a high level psychometrics, the survey instrument has been mostly utilized with
115

educators versus district- and school-level leaders. The success case method along with the
purposeful selection and nested sample of study participants can limit the generalizability of the
findings to other K–12 school districts. Finally, this study was conducted over a limited period to
meet the timelines of the doctoral program.
The delimitations of a study are the choices the researcher makes that limit the scope and
define the boundaries of a study (Simon, 2011). The delimitations of this study included the
purposeful sample of participants and the theoretical lens chosen to study this problem of
practice. The selection of a specific Arizona K–12 urban/suburban school district and leadership
team that had recently participated in a cohort-based leadership development program limits the
scope of this study. Although the NISL based leadership development program has over 345
graduates across 52 school districts, only one district met the criteria of full district-level
leadership participation. The selection of this purposeful sample was to identify the promising
and possibly transferable practices of a K–12 school district. In addition, the Burke and Litwin
(1992) organizational system theory and change model chosen to study this problem of practice
narrows the problem of practice. The researcher of this study chose this framework as it aligns
with her professional experience and pragmatic worldview that organizations are systems in
which the tangible practices, priorities, and policies are connected to the intangible belief
systems, values, and norms. A researcher with a different experience set and worldview could
draw different conclusions.
Recommendations for Future Research
The purpose of this study was to examine the levels of adaptiveness of K–12 school
district-level leadership, culture, and mindset to better understand what that looks like in
application, and how it could influence equity-based policies and practices of a large Arizona
116

urban/suburban school district. This section offers four future research recommendations which
include to (a) extend the study method to other K–12 school districts, (b) continue to test the
validity and reliability of the survey instrumentation, (c) examine the correlative relationship
between K–12 district-level leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness and adaptive
challenges such as educational equity and closure of the achievement gap, and (d) utilize this
study’s survey instrument as a pre- and post-assessment tool to measure the level of effectiveness
of the recommended capacity building practices as they relate to the conceptual framework
constructs.
First, because this review was a success case study mixed-methods design with a
purposeful and nested sample, the participants were unique, and the sample size was limited.
Thus, the results may not be generalizable. However, the study’s results showed promise in that
both high- and low-levels of adaptiveness and examples of application could be clearly identified
through the survey and interview protocols. Thus, a recommendation for future research is to
extend the study method to other K–12 school district-level and site-level leaders to further
examine the conceptual framework constructs in other K–12 settings including urban, suburban,
and rural school districts.
Second, the survey instrument in this study was utilized as a self-assessment tool. The
survey tool directly aligns with this study’s conceptual framework constructs of adaptive
leadership, culture, and mindset. Each construct was adapted from existing instruments ranging
in psychometric properties. As documented in Chapter Three, the adaptive leadership survey
items do not have supporting psychometrics, although widely used across sectors (Northouse,
2019). The adaptive culture items have high exploratory factor loads (Costanza et al., 2016). The
adaptive mindset short-scale items used in this study have high psychometric properties
117

(Littenberg-Tobias et al., 2021). Thus, the future use and analysis of this study’s survey
instrument is recommended to further analyze the validity and reliability of the self-assessment
tool in other settings.
Third, the results of this study could not fully analyze the influence of the conceptual
framework constructs of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset on K–12 equity-based policy
and practice as it relates to educational equity and closure of the achievement gap. Although
study data suggested clear application of the constructs within some settings and roles, and
emerging examples of equity-based policies and practices. Thus, a future recommendation is to
further examine the relationship between the K–12 district-level leadership, culture, and mindset
constructs, and their correlative influence on adaptive challenges such as educational equity and
closure of the achievement gap.
Finally, several capacity building leadership developmental and organizational strategies
and tools were recommended in this chapter that included the practice of psychological safety,
action learning, appreciative inquiry, and organizational change theory. The literature suggests
that each of these research-based practices aligns with the conceptual framework constructs of
adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset. In addition, if district- and school-level leaders had a
desire to increase their levels of leadership, culture, and mindset adaptiveness, then a capacity
building development plan with specific strategies and tools could be developed to advance
organizational and leadership adaptiveness. Thus, a future research recommendation is to utilize
this study’s survey instrument as a pre- and post-assessment tool to measure the level of
effectiveness of the recommended capacity building practices as they relate to the conceptual
framework constructs.
118

Conclusion
The K–12 public education sector is facing unprecedented challenges. As the study
participants identified, external challenges include evolving public school enrollment trends,
student demographics, and future-facing workforce skillsets and readiness. Internal challenges
include addressing post-pandemic student learning loss, teacher vacancies, and a threatened
educator pipeline. Many of these difficulties represent adaptive challenges. Although these
adaptive challenges are unique to the K–12 education sector, adaptive challenges themselves are
not. Organizational and leadership development thought leaders have long touted the rate and
complexity of change beyond the capacity and capabilities of a single leader (Bennis, 1999;
Heifetz, 1994; Kania et al., 2018). Similarly, education literature has noted the significance of
systemwide coherence in school improvement and student outcomes (Evans, 2017; Fullan &
Quinn, 2016; Master et al., 2020). As a result, adaptive challenges require the talent, alignment,
and persistence of leaders prepared with the necessary knowledge, strategies, and tools to
address such challenges. Thus, this study has sought to provide K–12 leadership teams an
organizational-based conceptual framework that focuses on the behavioral science factors of
leadership, culture, and mindset through an adaptive lens to better prepare these teams to
understand, analyze, and enact organizational change in response to 21st century educational
challenges. This is important because unless we prepare K–12 district- and site-level leaders with
the necessary adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset practices, we risk maintaining the status
quo of adaptive challenges such educational inequity and the achievement gap and in turn sub-
optimize the talents and future of our next generation of K–12 students.

119

References
Agócs, C. (1997). Institutional resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017939404578
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in
organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00216.x
Arizona Department of Education. (2021). Arizona Department of Education releases statewide
assessment results. https://www.azed.gov/communications/arizona-department-
education-releases-statewide-assessment-results-school-year
Arizona Department of Education. (2022). 5-year strategic plan.
https://www.azed.gov/sites/default/files/2022/02/ADE_5YearStrategic_Deck.pdf
Arizona School Report Cards. (2021). AZ school report cards.
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/state-reports
Austin, W. M. (2016). Making space: Strategic leadership for a complex world. The Aerospace
Press.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064
Bennis, W. (1999). Inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation of followers. Organizational
Dynamics, 28(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(00)80008-X
120

Benzie, H. J., Pryce, A., & Smith, K. (2017). The wicked problem of embedding academic
literacies: Exploring rhizomatic ways of working through an adaptive leadership
approach. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 227–240.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1199539
Bergin, T. (2018). An introduction to data analysis: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
Sage.
Bishop, J. P., & Noguera, P. A. (2019). The ecology of education equity: Implications for policy.
Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 121–141.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
Boykin, W., & Noguera, P. (2011). Creating the opportunity to learn: Moving from research to
practice to close the achievement gap. ASCD.
Boylan, S. A., & Turner, K. A. (2017). Developing Organizational Adaptability for Complex
Environment. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(2), 183–198.
https://doi.org/10.12806/V16/I2/T2
Bradley-Levine, J. (2016). Demands for school leaders. International Journal of Teacher
Leadership, 7(2), 28–44.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2005). The success case method: A strategic evaluation approach to
increasing the value and effect of training. Advances in Developing Human Resources,
7(1), 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422304272172
Burke, W. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and
change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
121

Buttimer, C. J., Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. (2022). Designing online professional learning
to support educators to teach for equity during COVID and Black Lives Matter. AERA
Open, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211067789
Cauwelier, P. (2019). Building high-performance teams through action learning. Action Learning
Research and Practice, 16(1), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2019.1562693
Celoria, D. (2016). The preparation of inclusive social justice education leaders. Educational
Leadership and Administration, 27, 199–219.
Center for American Progress. (2022). Arizona poverty rate. https://talkpoverty.org/state-year-
report/arizona-2020-report/
Center for the Future of Arizona. (2021). Beat the Odds School Leadership Academy.
https://www.arizonafuture.org/programs/education-programs/beat-the-odds-school-
leadership-academy/
Chrispeels, J. H., Burke, P. H., Johnson, P., & Daly, A. J. (2008). Aligning mental models of
district and school leadership teams for reform coherence. Education and Urban Society,
40(6), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124508319582
Coghlan, A. T., Preskill, H., & Tzavaras Catsambas, T. (2003). An overview of appreciative
inquiry in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2003(100), 5–22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.96
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook: The
first in a series of AI workbooks for leaders of change, 1. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The
effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 31, 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9420-y
122

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage.
Crum, A. J., Leibowitz, K. A., & Verghese, A. (2017). Making mindset matter. BMJ Pub Group.,
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j674
Daly, A., & Finnigan, K. (2016). Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts
under pressure. American Educational Research Association.,
https://doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-46-2
Davidson, R. (2016). Rural superintendents’ experiences with empowerment and alignment to
vision in the application of principle-centered leadership. Journal of the National Rural
Education Association, 40(1), 63–72.
DeSantis, J. (2010). A review of start where you are, but don’t say there: Understanding
diversity, opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classroom. Journal of Pedagogies
and Learning, 7(3), 284–286. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.2012.7.3.284
Dinham, S., & Crowther, F. (2011). Sustainable school capacity building–one step back, two
steps forward? Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 616–623.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111186926
Doherty, S., & Mayer, S. E. (2003). Capacity building programs for nonprofit programs. Journal
of Human Development, 4(1), 85–111.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballantine Books.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
123

EdWeek Research Center. (2021, September 1). Quality counts. https://www.edweek.org/policy-
politics/quality-counts-2021-educational-opportunities-and-performance-in-
arizona/2021/01
Evans, C. (2017). Achieving coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship
between the central office and schools by Susan Moore Johnson, Geoff Marietta, Monica
C. Higgins, Karen, L. Mapp, and Allen Grossman. Harvard Education Press. 2015. 256
pp, $35.00 (paper). Harvard Educational Review, 87(3), 445–447.
Farley, A. N., Childs, J., & Johnson, O. A. (2019). Preparing school leaders for America’s
wicked problems? How the revised PSEL and NELP standards address equity and justice.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(115).
Filback, R., & Green, A. (2013). A framework of educator mindsets and consequences.
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education.
https://rossier.usc.edu/files/2013/08/Educator-Mindsets-and-Consequences-Table-
Filback-Green-2013.pdf
Finch, A., Burrell, D. N., Walker, R., Rahim, E., & Dawson, M. (2010). Changing the cultures of
colleges and universities to make them more adaptive. Review of Higher Education and
Self-Learning, 3(7).
Ford, T. G., Lavigne, A. L., Fiegener, A. M., & Si, S. (2020). Understanding district support for
leader development and success in the accountability era: A review of the literature using
social-cognitive theories of motivation. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 264–307.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899723
Fullan, M. (2004). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
124

Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence: The right drivers in action for schools, districts, and
systems. Corwin.
Fusarelli, L. D., & Ayscue, J. B. (2019). Is ESSA a retreat from equity? Phi Delta Kappan,
101(2), 32–26.
Gaetane, J. M., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21
st

century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership
Education, 4(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/194277510900400102
Garcia, D., Laczko-Kerr, I., Barlett, T., Clement, V., Jiang, J., Jin, I. J., Vilchis, I. L., &
Tsotniashvili, K. (2021). Evaluation report of the Beat the Odds School Leadership
Academy. Center for the Future of Arizona.
Garcia, E. E., Lawton, K., & Diniz de Figueiredo, E. H. (2010). The education of English
language learners in Arizona: A legacy of persisting achievement gaps in a restrictive
language policy climate. The Civil Rights Project.
Garrin, J. (2014). The will to lead: The dynamic integration of intrinsic motivation and social
change leadership. Journal of Social Change, 6(1), 86–108.
https://doi.org/10.5590/JOSC.2014.06.1.07
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
Business Review, 86(3), 109–134.
Gill, R. (2002). Change management—Or change leadership? Journal of Change Management,
3(4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
125

Godsil, R. D., Tropp, L. R., Goff, P. A., & Powell, J. A. (2014). The Science of Equality 1,
Volume 1: Addressing implicit bias, racial anxiety, and stereotype threat in education
and health care. Perception Institute.
Google. (2015). Tool: Foster psychological safety.
https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/foster-
psychological-safety/
Grieten, S., Lambrechts, F., Bouwen, R., Huybrechts, J., Fry, R., & Cooperrider, D. (2018).
Inquiring into appreciative inquiry: A conversation with David Cooperrider and Ronald
Fry. Journal of Management Inquiry, 27(1), 101–114.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616688087
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students and
schools. Wallace Foundation.
Hall Mark, D. L. (2013). Academic achievement gap or gap of opportunities. Urban Education,
48(2), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913476936
Hanson, M. (2022). U.S. public education spending statistics. Education Data Initiative.
https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics
Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., Talpey, L. M., & Woessmann, L. (2019). The achievement gap
fails to close: Half century of testing shows persistent divide between haves and have-
nots. Education Next, 19(3), 8–18.
Head, B. W. (2015). Problem definition and the policy process: Wicked problems. Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.213
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674038479
126

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools
and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). Leadership in a (permanent) crisis. Harvard
Business Review, 87(11), 126.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1),
124–134.
Heineke, A. J., & Cameron, Q. (2011). Closing the classroom door and the achievement gap:
Teach for America alumni teachers’ appropriation of Arizona language policy. Education
and Urban Society, 45(4), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511413123
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Johnson, S. M., Marietta, G., Higgins, M. C., Mapp, K. L., & Grossman, A. (2015). Achieving
coherence in district improvement: Managing the relationship between the central office
and schools. Harvard Education Press.
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Senge, P. (2018). The water of systems change. FSG.
http://efc.issuelab.org/resources/30855/30855.pdf
Kemp-Graham, K. (2015). Missed opportunities: Preparing aspiring school leaders for bold
social justice school leadership needed for 21st century schools. NCPEA International
Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(21), 99–129.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21
st
century:
Recent research and conceptualizations. Jossey-Bass.
127

King, F., & Stevenson, H. (2017). Generating change from below: What role for leadership from
above? Journal of Educational Administration, 44(6), 657–670.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2016-0074
Kitchenham, A. (2008). The evolution of John Mezirow’s transformative learning theory.
Journal of Transformative Education, 6(2), 104–123.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344608322678
Kolber, N. (2020). The history and evolution of public education in the US. Center on Education
Policy.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,
85(1), 96–103.
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for organizational
change. Portal, 4(3), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2004.0052
Leithwood, K. (2017). The Ontario Leadership Framework: Successful school leadership
practices and personal leadership resources. In K. Leithwood, J. Sun, & K. Pollock
(Eds.), How school leaders contribute to student success (pp. 31–43). Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50980-8_3
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright,
Ed.). Harper & Row.
Littenberg-Tobias, J., Borneman, E., & Reich, J. (2021). Measuring equity-promoting behaviors
in digital teaching simulations: A topic modeling approach. AERA Open, 7(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211045685
Making Action Possible. (2021). Arizona Department of Education via MAP.
https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/education/student-achievement
128

Master, B. K., Schwartz, F. U., Schweig, J., Mariano, L. T., & Wang, E. L. (2020). Effects of the
EDP and aligned coaching for school principals in three U.S. States. Rand Corporation.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design. Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R., IV. (2010). Start where you are, but don’ t stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today ’ s classrooms. Harvard Education Press.
Morrison, E. W., & Milken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and
development in a pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/259200 https://doi.org/10.2307/259200
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Achievement gaps.
https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/gaps/
National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Average class size in public schools, by class
type and state: 2017 –18.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/tables/ntps1718_fltable06_t1s.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Table 214.20. Number and percentage
distribution of regular public school districts and students, by enrollment size of district:
Selected years, 1979-80 through 2018-19.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d20/tables/dt20_214.20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021a). Back-to-school statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
National Center on Education and the Economy. (2020a). The widening achievement gap in the
U.S. https://ncee.org/quick-read/the-widening-achievement-gap-in-the-u-s/
129

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2020b). The design of high-performing
education systems: A framework for policy and practice.
https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/educ/International_Ed_Study_Group_2020/Fr
amework-10-19.2.pdf
National Institute for School Leadership. (2016). The NISL wheel: A guide for school leaders.
Criterion Education, LLC. http://www.nisl.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NISL-
Wheel-v110716.pdf
Neil, O. J. (1995). On schools as learning organizations: A conversation with Peter Senge.
Educational Leadership, 52(7), 20.
Noguera, P. A. (2009). The achievement gap: Public education in crisis. New Labor Forum,
18(2), 60–69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40342769
Northouse, P. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage.
Nunnery, J. A., Ross, S. M., Chappell, S., Pribesh, S., & Hoag-Carhart, E. (2011). The impact of
the NISL executive development program on school performance in Massachusetts:
Cohort 2 results. Old Dominion University, Center for Educational Partnerships.
Nunnery, J. A., Yen, C., & Ross, S. M. (2011). Effects of the national institute for school
leade r s hip’ s executive development program on school performance in Pennsylvania:
2006-2010 pilot cohort results. Old Dominion University, Center for Educational
Partnerships.
Plough, B. (2014). School board governance and student achievement: School board members’
perceptions of their behaviors and beliefs, educational leadership and administration.
Teaching and Program Development, 25, 14–53.
130

Pollock, M. (2008). From shallow to deep: Toward a thorough cultural analysis of school
achievement patterns. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(4), 369–380.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2008.00028.x
Public School Review. (n.d.). Top 10 best Arizona public schools (2023).
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/arizona
Public School Review. (2019). Public school vs. private school.
https://www.publicschoolreview.com/blog/public-school-vs-private-school
Racial Equity Tools. (n.d.). Racial equity tools glossary.
https://www.racialequitytools.org/glossary
Randall, L. M., & Coakley, L. A. (2007). Applying adaptive leadership to successful change
initiatives in academia. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28(4), 325–
335. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710752201
Rice, R., Delagardelle, M., Buckton, M., Jons, C., Lueders, W., Vens, M. J., Joyce, B., Wolf, J.,
& Weathersby, J. (2001). The lighthouse inquiry: School board/superintendent team
behaviors in school districts with extreme differences in student achievement. The Iowa
Association of School Boards.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90010-8
131

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Doubleday.
Senge, P., Hamilton, H., & Kania, J. (2015). The dawn of system leadership. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, 13(1), 26–34.
Simon, M. K. (2011). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2011 ed).
Dissertation Success, LLC.
Spears, L. (1996). Reflections on Robert K. Greenleaf and servant‐leadership. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 17, 33–35.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437739610148367
Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis. (n.d.). Racial and ethnic achievement gaps.
https://cepa.stanford.edu/educational-opportunity-monitoring-project/achievement-
gaps/race/
Stevens, S. K. (2001). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity.
Stagewise Enterprises.
Sunderman, H. M., Headrick, J., & McCain, K. (2020, December 18). Addressing complex
issues and crises in higher education with an adaptive leadership framework. Change, 52,
22–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1839322
Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the
empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26(2),
173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Nijhof, A. H. J. (2004). The value of subjectivity: Problems and
prospects for 360-degree appraisal systems. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15(3), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519042000181223
132

Volz-Peacock, M., Carson, B., & Marquardt, M. (2016). Action learning and leadership
development. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 318–333.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645884
Waits, M. J., Campbell, H. E., Gau, R., Jacobs, E., Rex, T., & Hess, R. K. (2006). Why some
schools with Latino children beat the odds and others don’ t. Arizona Board of Regents.
https://www.arizonafuture.org/media/kpbbbsfi/faz502_latined_final.pdf
Wang, E. L., Schwartz, H. L., Mean, M., Stelitano, L., & Master, B. K. (2019). Putting
professional learning to work: What principals do with their executive development
program learning – appendix. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR3082
World Institute of Action Learning. (2022). What is action learning? https://wial.org/action-
learning/

133

Appendix A: Survey Items and Rationale
# Question/item RQ Construct Subconstruct
1. When difficulties emerge in the district, the
superintendent is good at stepping back and
assessing the dynamics of the people involved.
1 Leadership Get on the
balcony.
2. In challenging situations, the superintendent likes to
observe the parties involved and assess what’s
really going on.
1 Leadership Get on the
balcony.
3. When events trigger strong emotional responses
among employees, the superintendent uses his/her
authority as a leader to resolve the problem.
1 Leadership Identify the
adaptive
challenge.
4. The superintendent encourages people to discuss the
“elephant in the room.”
1 Leadership Identify the
adaptive
challenge.
5. When people feel uncertain about organizational
change, they trust that the superintendent will help
work through the difficulties.
1 Leadership Regulate
distress.
6. When people begin to be disturbed by unresolved
conflicts, the superintendent encourages them to
address the issues.
1 Leadership Regulate
distress.
7. In complex situations, the superintendent gets
people to focus on the issues they are trying to
avoid.
1 Leadership Maintain
disciplined
attention.
8. When people try to avoid controversial
organizational issues, the superintendent brings
conflicts into the open.
1 Leadership Maintain
disciplined
attention.
9. When the employees look to the superintendent for
answers, he/she encourages them to think for
themselves.
1 Leadership Give the work
back to the
people.
10. The superintendent encourages his/her employees to
take initiative in defining and solving problems.
1 Leadership Give the work
back to the
people.
11. During times of difficult change, the superintendent
welcomes the thoughts of group members with
low status.
1 Leadership Protect voices
from below.
12. This superintendent is open to people who bring up
unusual ideas that seem to hinder the progress of
the group.
1 Leadership Protect voices
from below.
13. The district proactively works to identify internal
and external problems.
1 Culture Anticipation
14. The district is receptive to innovation, change, and
new ideas.
1 Culture Open to change
15. The district develops the capacity to handle
environmental situations.
1 Culture Developmental
capabilities
134

# Question/item RQ Construct Subconstruct
16. The district enables collaboration between
departments that allow it to develop solutions
proactively and reactively to problems.
1 Culture Collaborative
action planning
17. The district can implement adaptive change? 1 Culture Executing
change
18. The district can sustain the change by creating
systems that reinforce change.
1 Culture Sustaining
change
19. Success in school is primarily the student’s
responsibility.
1 Mindset Equality-equity
20. Anyone who works hard enough can do well in
school.
1 Mindset Equality-equity
21. All people are born with the same opportunities to
be successful.
1 Mindset Equality-equity
22. Teachers should have high expectations for all
students.
1 Mindset Asset-deficit
23. It is a teacher’s job to challenge all students
academically.
1 Mindset Asset-deficit
24. Teachers should identify all students’ strengths even
if they do not fit within traditional school norms.
1 Mindset Asset-deficit
25. Teachers should consider student’s race when
teaching.
1 Mindset Avoidant-aware
26. Students’ race affects their experiences in schools. 1 Mindset Avoidant-aware
27. Teachers should talk with their colleagues about
how race affects students’ experiences in schools.
1 Mindset Avoidant-aware
28. Acknowledging the context in which the school is
located can help students learn.
1 Mindset Context-specific
-neutral
29. Communities play a big role in students’ success. 1 Mindset Context-specific
-neutral
30. Educators should include elements of students’ lives
outside of school in their teaching.
1 Mindset Context-specific
-neutral
31. An adaptive challenge is defined as a problem and
solution that are il-defined, novel and challenge
existing belief systems. What is a recent adaptive
challenge of the district and how did the district
resolve the challenge?
2 Leadership
and culture
Identify the
adaptive
challenge and
taking-action
32. How would you describe the district’s ability to
respond to external change?
2 Culture Value change
33. What is an example of a recently adopted district
equity-based policy?
2 Culture Taking-action
34. What is an example of an equity-based policy or
practice as it relates to the closure of the
achievement gap?
2 Culture Taking-action

135

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
# Question Potential probe RQ Construct and
subconstruct
1. Please tell me a little bit about your
leadership style. How would you
describe yourself as a leader?
How might a direct
report describe you
as a leader?
2 Leadership (1)
on the balcony
2. Please tell me about an adaptive
(complex) challenge that the district
has recently faced. What about the
challenge made it complex?
a. How were you able to identify the
root problem?
b. What was the root problem?
How did this
challenge question
current belief
systems, it at all?

2 Leadership (2)
identify an
adaptive
challenge
3. How did the district tackle this
challenge? Please walk me through
the process.
What was your role? 2 Leadership (1)
on the balcony,
(2) identify an
adaptive
challenge
4. How did other stakeholders participate
in the problem-solving process, if at
all?
Who might have
been missing from
the process?
2 Leadership (5)
give the work
back, (6)
voices from
below
5. What did the district do to support the
stakeholders in this process, if
anything at all?
a. How did stress
enter this process,
if at all?
b. How was
attention
maintained?
2 Leadership (3)
regulate
distress, (4)
maintain
attention
6. Please tell me about a recent
unexpected districtwide change. How
did you feel about it?
a. How did other
district leaders
feel about it?
b. How did school
leaders feel about
it?
2 Culture (2) open
to change
7. Who else was involved in the change
process? Please describe how they
became involved.
a. What was their
role?
b. Who might have
been missing?
2 Culture (6)
collaboration
8. Bring me back to the meeting in which
the approach to the district change
was identified. How was the change
implemented, if at all?
How were other
stakeholders
involved in the
implantation, if at
all?
2 Culture (3)
executing
change
136

# Question Potential probe RQ Construct and
subconstruct
9. How are district leaders in your district
prepared for change, if at all?
Can you give me an
example?
2 Culture (4)
developmental
capabilities, (1)
anticipate
10. Please describe a district change that
has been fully implemented and
sustained.
How is the outcome
monitored?
2 Culture (5)
sustaining
change
11. Students achieve at different rates.
How does student academic variation
influence district resourcing
decisions, if at all?
Can you give me an
example?
2 Mindset (equity)
12. How are student academic expectations
adjusted for student variation through
district policies or practices, if at all?
Can you give me an
example?
2 Mindset (asset)
13. How do district policies and practices
acknowledge student circumstances
outside of the classroom, if at all?
Can you give me an
example?
2 Mindset (aware)
14. What district policies or practices
acknowledge student diversity
(ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic,
gender, ableness, etc.)
a. How is this
translated into
policy, if at all?
b. How has this
translated into
practice, if at all?
2 Mindset
(context-
centered)
15. What are your general
recommendations for K–12
leadership development training
programs and supporting adaptive
leadership, culture, and equity-based
mindsets?
Explain more… 3 Leadership
development
16. What haven’t I asked you with respect
to adaptive leadership, culture, and
mindset that you would be interested
in sharing?
– 2 or 3 Overall

Note. There was no probing question for Interview Question 16.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Equity-focused school boards: supporting K-12 suburban districts

PDF

Barriers to gender equity in K-12 educational leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Inclusionary practices of leaders in a biotechnology company: a gap analysis innovation study

PDF

Understanding queer leadership in corporate America

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Leave no leader behind (LNLB): leadership development for K-12 operations leaders

PDF

A thriving culture of belonging: organizational cultural intelligence and racial minority retention

PDF

Leadership psychological safety: exploring its development and relationship with leader-member exchange theory

PDF

An examination of the impact of diversity initiatives and their supporting roles on organizational culture: an experiential study from the perspective of diversity personnel

PDF

Leadership of ports and terminals in the global south and Oceania and the use of technological innovation during the crisis

PDF

“A thread throughout”: the KMO influences on implementing DEI strategic plans in state and municipal governments

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinas as K−12 school district superintendents: an evaluation study

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Human resources and equity: the influence of HR on addressing the underrepresentation of women in higher education leadership

PDF

Black and [mis]educated: the Black American adult’s perspective of the U.S. K–12 public school system

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

An improvement study of leading a sustainable electric utility future through organizational change effectiveness

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

Asset Metadata

Creator Hartmann, Kimberly C. (author)

Core Title A path to K-12 educational equity: the practice of adaptive leadership, culture, and mindset

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 03/28/2023

Defense Date 02/28/2023

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

Tag adaptive culture,adaptive leadership,adaptive mindset,educational equity,K-12 education,K-12 leadership,mixed-methods,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational change theory

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maccalla, Nicole (committee chair), Canny, Eric (committee member), Filback, Robert (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email kchartma@usc.edu,kimh@kchsolutions.net

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112850136

Unique identifier UC112850136

Identifier etd-HartmannKi-11525.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HartmannKi-11525

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Hartmann, Kimberly C.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230329-usctheses-batch-1012 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu