University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION ACROSS AN

ESTABLISHED, HIGH-PERFORMING K-12 SCHOOL SYSTEM

by

Jennifer L. Sparrow

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2018

Copyright 2018. Jennifer L. Sparrow
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION i

Acknowledgements
The last three years have been a period of intense learning for me, not only in the
organizational leadership arena, but also on a personal level. Writing this dissertation has
allowed me to use my strengths in ways previously untapped. I would like to reflect on the
people who have supported and helped me so much throughout this period.
I would first like to thank my family. My parents, Tom and Pat, fostered my thirst for
learning new things and checked in on me to make sure that I did not let my achiever tendencies
overtake my life. My husband, Nick, and my children, Thomas and Victoria, encouraged me
along the way and gave me the space to be focused on completing this doctorate. Without their
patience and support, this dissertation would not have been completed.
Next, I thank my school and, in particular, the superintendent, Dr. Chip Kimball. Without
his support and encouragement, I would not have started this program nor would I have
completed this dissertation. He is a visionary leader that continually inspires me to be the best
that I can be.
Third, I appreciate the support from my dissertation committee and those who
participated in my study. My committee members, Dr. Lawrence Picus, Dr. Ruth Chung, and
Dr. Douglas Reeves provided me with valuable guidance and gave me with the tools that I
needed to choose the right direction and successfully complete my dissertation. The practitioners
and experts who agreed to be interviewed provided the data for me to analyze in my dissertation,
but more importantly, gave me specific strategies to use to become a more capable school leader.
Finally, I want to thank my cohort. You provided me with support when I felt
discouraged or faced obstacles and made the process enjoyable because I was able to form
personal, not just professional, relationships with you.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables …………..…………………………………………………..…….…….
List of Figures …………...………………………………………………..……………
Abstract………………………………………………………………….……..……….
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY …………….…….……….....
Introduction of the Problem ………………………………………………..…….....
Organizational Context ………………………………………………….……….....
Purpose of the Study …………………………………………………….……………
Proposed Conceptual Framework ……………………………………….……………
Definitions ………………………………………………………………..…………
Change Leadership………………………………….…………..……..…………
Distributed Leadership……………………………………..…………...…………
Innovation………………………………………………….……………………...
Innovation Diffusion…………………………...……….……………………......
Innovative High-Impact Practices………………………..……………………….
Learning Leadership……………………………………..……………………..…..

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ……..…………………………………….
Overview of Leadership ………………………………………………………….....
Leaders versus Followers…………………………………………………………
Management versus Leadership………………………………………………….
Leadership Not Dependent on Position……………………………………….….
Attributes of an Effective Leader……………………………………………...…
Change Leadership ………………………………………………………..………...
Overview of Change Leadership ………………………………………………...
Change Theory……………………………………………………………….…..
Change in Schools ……………………………………………………………….
School Systems …………………………………………………………………..
Leadership Agility ………………………………………….................................
Leadership Actions for Different Types of Change ……………………………...
Difference Between Transition and Change ………………………………….….
Paradoxical Thinking ……………………………………………………….……
Innovation Diffusion Leadership……………………………………………...……..
Overview of Innovation……………………………………………………….….
Innovation Diffusion………………………………………………………….…..
Leading Innovation Diffusion………………………………………………….…
Learning Leadership………………………………………………..……….…….…
Overview of Learning Leadership ……………………………………………….
Leadership for Learning Framework……………………………………………..
Instructional Leadership………………………………………………………….
Transformational Leadership……………………………………………..………
v

vi

vii

1
1
2
4
5
8
8
9
9
10
10
11

12
13
13
13
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
26
26
28
29
30
30
31
36
38
39
40
41
43
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION iii

Distributed Leadership ……………………………………………….……………..
Definition of Distributed Leadership …………………………………………….
Importance of Distributed Leadership ……………………………….…………..
Precepts of Distributed Leadership ……………………...……………………….
How Principals Support Distributed Leadership …………………...……………
Summary of Literature Reviewed……………………………..……………………

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS …………………………………………………………
Introduction and Overview ……………………………………….………………...
Procedure …………………………………………………………………………...
Sampling Rationale and Participants……………………………………………………….
Interview Methodology…….………………………………………………………...
Interview Protocol………………………………………………………………..
Data Collection Approach………………………………………………………..
Data Analysis Strategy……………………………………………………………….
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data ……………………………………………........
Ethics……………………..………………………………………………………

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS …………………………………………………………….
Overview of Analysis……………………………………………………………….
Change Leadership Strategies……….………………………………………………
Apply Change Theory………………………………………………….…………..
Utilize Systems Thinking………………………………………………..……….
Match Leadership Actions to Type of Change………………..………….……….
Help Faculty Through Transition……..………………………………….………
Summary of Change Leadership Strategies Used……………………..…………
Innovation Diffusion Leadership Strategies………………………………….………..
Understand How and Why Innovations Diffuse…………………………..……..
Utilize Enablers to Innovation Diffusion……………………………………..……
Address Barriers to Innovation Diffusion………………………………….…….
Manage Transitions, Expand Thinking, and Monitor Progress……………….…..
Summary of Diffusion Innovation Leadership Strategies Used……………..…...
Learning Leadership Strategies……………………………………………….……..
Understand Antecedents That Lead to Results…………………………………..…..
Instructional Leadership………………………………………………………….
Transformational Leadership……………………………………………………..
Summary of Learning Leadership Strategies Used…………...………….………
Distributed Leadership Strategies…………………………………………….………...
Value Distributed Leadership……………………………………….…………….
Structure Distributed Leadership to Fit the Context……………………….…….
Select Leaders……………………………………………………….……………
Develop Leaders…………………………………………………….……………
Utilize Leaders…………………………………………………………………...
Summary of Distributed Leadership Strategies Used………………..…………..

45
46
47
47
49
50

52
52
52
53
56
56
56
57
58
59

60
60
62
63
72
80
86
89
90
91
96
99
101
104
105
105
106
115
115
116
117
118
120
121
122
123

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION iv

Additional Leadership Strategies………………………………………………………
Demonstrate Characteristics Associated with Effective Leadership……………….
Focus on Management……………………………………..………………….…
Recruit Followers…………………………………………………………………
Focus on Effective Meetings…………………...…………………………………
Themes Derived from Analysis…………………………………………………………
Change Leadership Strategies……………………………………………………….
Learning Leadership Strategies………………………………………………….…..
Innovation Diffusion Leadership Strategies…………………………………….…
Distributed Leadership Strategies……………………………………………….…..
Additional Leadership Strategies……………………………………………...…

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ………………………………
Summary of Findings…………………..………………………………….……..…
Implications……………………………………………………………….………...
Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………….……....
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….

References ……………………………………………………………………..…….…
Appendix A: Practitioner Interview Protocol ……………………………….…………

Appendix B: Expert Interview Protocol……………………………..…………………

124
124
125
126
127
128
128
132
135
138
139

141
142
142
149
150

152

173

176

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION v

List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Lewin’s and Kotter’s Theories of Change……………………
Table 2. Stages of the Innovation-Decision Continuum ……………………….………
Table 3. Overview of Practitioners Interviewed…………………………………………..
Table 4. Overview of Experts Interviewed…………………………………………………..

22

34

62

63

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Framework……………………………………………..
Figure 2. Bell Curve Distribution of Innovation Adopters……………………………..
Figure 3. The Leadership from Learning Framework………………………………….
Figure 4. Final Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………

5

35

42

146

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION vii

Abstract
Although many studies had sought to understand aspects of principal leadership and others had
focused on diffusion or scaling of innovation, limited research had been conducted to examine
the intersection of the two. The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership
strategies have helped principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-
performing school. A qualitative research design was used to interview both experts on
innovation diffusion and practitioners who have successfully diffused an innovation in their
context. Transcripts of interviews were coded for key words and phrases, categories and
themes. Both practitioners and experts viewed principals as having an important role in
diffusing innovative high-impact practices across a school context. Overall, practitioners were
focused more on nurturing the innovation at the classroom level, starting from where their
school was in relation to the change and then working with faculty to propel the change across
the system. In contrast, the experts were generally more focused on the actual position of
principal as the ones responsible for leading change and innovation. In general, they believed
that a principal’s primary role was to provide a vision, change the culture and system, and then
lead the way in changing the status quo. Several strategies were identified that principals should
use to diffuse innovative high-impact practices across a school. These strategies related to
change leadership, instructional leadership, innovation diffusion leadership, fostering distributed
leadership, and acting as manager.

Key words: innovation, innovation diffusion, change leadership, instructional leadership,
innovation diffusion leadership, distributed leadership, management
Running Head: PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 1

CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Introduction to the Problem
Schools should help students reach their potential by actively engaging them in their
learning so they can learn the skills they need to support themselves and become contributing
members of society (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008). Unfortunately, many schools are not
achieving these goals. The current educational system operates conservatively because the
purpose of education has traditionally been to pass on existing knowledge to the next
generation, creating cultural literacy (Wagner, 2012). Today, students are entering workplaces
where they need knowledge and skills that go beyond cultural literacy (Moore, 2015). They
need to be competent in 21st century skills such as collaborating, communicating, critically and
creatively thinking, being agile, and assessing and analyzing information (Levy, 2014; Zhao,
2012; Wagner, 2012). Schools need “to educate students in a manner that maximizes their
changes, over the course of their lives, both to be open to innovation and to understand how to
solve problems in a manner that may lead to innovative solutions” (Zimmerman, 2015, p. 25).
Traditional programs and practices are viewed as not producing the necessary learning
outcomes (Wagner, 2012; Zhao, 2012; Zimmerman, 2015). Disrupting traditional schooling can
lead to institutions that are capable of producing these types of graduates (Christensen, Johnson,
&Horn, 2008). Driven by this need, school systems are tinkering with learning and pedagogy
practices to create innovative learning environments (OECD 2013).
Creating innovative learning environments requires school leaders to become adept at
supporting and sustaining innovations. The success or failure of a reform is highly dependent on
the quality of the leadership (Day, Leighwood, & Sammons 2008) and requires principals who
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 2

are skilled, motivated, and willing to take risks, especially during times of uncertainty (Earley &
Evans, 2013). The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership strategies have
helped principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-performing
school. The study will help principals understand how they can facilitate and sustain innovation
diffusion in their own school context.
Organizational Context

Innovative International School (IIS) is a pseudonym for an independent, not-for-profit
school located in southeast Asia.. IIS provides an American educational experience in an
international context by striving to cultivate exceptional thinkers who are prepared for their
futures. The school has almost 4,000 students and is comprised of three divisions. The
elementary school division includes all students from preschool to grade five, the middle school
division encompasses students in grades six through eight, and the high school division serves
students in grades nine to twelve. IIS has an open-enrollment policy that accepts students with
mild to moderate learning disabilities. The majority of students are US citizens and nationals of
the host country are only admitted with permission from the government. English language
learners are not accepted after grade three. Students live in high socio-economic households and
the average tenure is four years (Innovative International School, 2017).
In the areas of reading, language arts, and math, IIS elementary and middle school
students consistently outperform US norm groups on the Measures of Academic Progress
(MAP) standardized assessments. At the high school level, mean SAT scores are higher than the
US mean and Advanced Placement results place the IIS high school in the top decile of high
schools administering Advanced Placement exams worldwide. Consistently, 99% of IIS
graduates matriculate to a four-year college, including many highly selective schools.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 3

Approximately 80% of graduates matriculate to a US post-secondary school, while the
remaining students attend schools in Canada, Europe, Australia, and several Asian countries
(Innovative International School, 2017).
Five years ago, IIS recognized that 21st century skills like collaboration,
communication, critical thinking, and creative thinking were not core components of its
curriculum, assessment, and instruction practices (Innovative International School, 2014). IIS
recognized that in order to fulfill its vision of cultivating exceptional thinkers prepared for their
futures, it would need to develop and offer innovative programs that would target desired
student learning outcomes that include character, collaboration, communication, content
knowledge, critical thinking, creativity and innovation, and cultural competence. IIS underwent
an extensive research and development process in which each division sent teams of faculty and
administrators to over 80 schools in five countries to learn about innovative practices that were
having a positive impact on student learning. This resulted in a comprehensive strategic plan
that is focused on institutionalizing innovations related to professional learning communities,
standards-based approaches, high impact instructional practices, and pastoral care. The plan also
recognized the need to be innovative with the systems and structures that support learning
(Innovative International School, 2017).
The first three stages of the research and development process used by IIS are nearing
completion, including prototyping and testing innovative practices and structures. IIS now
needs to focus on implementing to scale by diffusing high-impact innovations across all
classrooms. Because the success or failure of a reform is highly dependent on the quality of the
leadership (Day, Leighwood, & Sammons 2008), it requires principals who are skilled,
motivated, and willing to take risks, especially during times of uncertainty (Earley & Evans,
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 4

2013). There is no clarity regarding how the IIS principal role needs to evolve to facilitate and
sustain innovation diffusion. IIS principals need to understand what will be expected of them
and how their roles may or may not change as the strategic plan continues to evolve. If IIS
principals are not clear on what their role should be and the implications this has for what they
believe and do, principals may become a roadblock to success instead of facilitating and
sustaining innovation diffusion.
Purpose of the Study

To ensure that innovative high-impact practices do not just stay in isolated pockets of
implementation, there must be strong leadership to facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion
(Judd, 2017). Principals are challenged with the complex task of fostering and supporting
innovation diffusion. Although many studies have sought to understand aspects of principal
leadership (e.g., Bush & Glover, 2014; Day, Leithwood, & Sammons, 2008; Earley & Evans,
2003: Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Lewis & Murphy, 2008; Waters & Grubb, 2005) and many
studies have focused on diffusion or scaling of innovation (e.g., Dyer, Gregersen, &
Christensen, 2011; Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Glazer & Peurach, 2013; Rogers,
2010; Shiell-Davis, Wright, Seditas, Morton, & Bland, 2015; Toh, Jamaludin, Hung, & Chua,
2014), limited research has been conducted to examine the intersection of the two. The purpose
of this study was to understand what leadership strategies have helped principals successfully
diffuse an innovation across an established, high-performing school. Findings should help
principals understand how they can facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion in their school
context.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 5

The study was guided by the following research question: What leadership strategies
have helped principals successfully lead innovation diffusion across established, high-
performing schools?
Proposed Conceptual Framework

Research from the areas of change leadership, leading innovation diffusion, learning
leadership, and distributed leadership was combined to produce the conceptual framework
found in Figure 1. The study used this framework to see if principals who successfully diffused
an innovation across an established, high-performing school perceived one or more of these
components as more important than others or if they perceived them as equally important.

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Framework
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 6

For the purpose of the study, innovation meant a completely new or novel way of
working, behaving, organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement
(Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). This meant that when an innovation was introduced, it
required change from the status quo. Therefore, change leadership was an important component
of successfully sustaining diffusion of innovative high-impact practices. Concepts from several
studies were combined to develop the list on Figure 1 related to leading change.
Understanding why and how change happens is necessary when leading change (Fullan,
2004a; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014).
To help innovations diffuse beyond pockets of implementation, systems thinking is needed
(Harris & Chrispeels, 2006; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan, 2004c; Shaked & Schechter, 2014). Agility
allows principals to anticipate change and take action in rapidly evolving conditions (Joiner &
Josephs, 2006). Change leaders need to match their leadership actions to the type of change
taking place (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Marzano, Waters &
McNulty, 2005; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Understanding the difference between transition and
change enables principals to help faculty through the process of accepting and adjusting to
change (Bridges & Bridges, 2017). Finally, embracing paradox allows change leaders to use
‘both-and’ thinking to balance interdependent opposites (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Smith &
Lewis, 2011; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway, 1999; Watson, 2013).
Effectively leading change does not guarantee that changes will be innovative. This is
why leading innovation diffusion is the second component necessary to successfully sustain
diffusion of innovative high-impact practices. Innovation diffusion in education is usually about
the widening application of an innovation as opposed to making an innovation bigger or better
(Buzhardt, Greenwood, Abbott, & Tapia, 2007). Understanding how and why innovations
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 7

diffuse is a necessary first step when leading innovation diffusion. The seminal work in this area
is Roger’s (2010) theories on diffusion innovation. Shiell-Davis and associates (2015) identified
through a meta-analysis of innovation diffusion research enablers and barriers that leaders
should embrace or address. Using strategies to manage transitions, expand thinking, and assess
and monitor progress is an additional action will also help leaders diffuse an innovation (Carr &
Lhussier, 2007; Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Clarke & Dede, 2009; Doyle et al., 2013;
Penuel & Fisherman, 2012; Miller & Shinn, 2005; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Waters & Grubb,
2005).
Effectively leading change and innovation diffusion does not guarantee improved
teaching and learning. This is why learning leadership is vital to sustain diffusion of innovative
high-impact practices. Learning leadership requires principals to understand how antecedents
(adult actions) lead to results (student learning) (Reeves, 2006) and utilize both instructional and
transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). Instructional leadership requires
principals to promote evidence-based teaching practices so student learning is maximized (Heck
& Hallinger, 2014; Rigby, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016; Tan, 2012). Researchers have
identified actions of instructional leaders which include: articulating a school mission focused
on student learning; developing a positive climate for learning with high expectations;
monitoring, developing, and supporting instructional programs; providing faculty with feedback
and resources; and monitoring the learning that is taking place (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985;
Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Jenkins & Pfeifer, 2012; Louis et al., 2010; Osborne-Lampkin &
Cohen-Voget, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016). In addition to acting as instructional leaders,
principals need to utilize transformational leadership to focus on cross-school improvement,
addressing systemic tensions, and creating the conditions that support, but are not directly
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 8

related to, teaching and learning (Toh et al., 2014). Transformational leadership focuses on
encouraging followers to go beyond normal levels of performance to make mission-driven
changes (Bass, 1985) and to perform at higher levels than previously (Burns, 1978; Sarros,
Gray, & Densten, 2002). This study focused on several identified actions transformational
leaders should take in schools to influence teaching and learning: shared goals, vision, culture
building, rigorous expectations, rewards, intellectual stimulation, modeling, and individualized
support (Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
The scope of responsibilities and tasks necessary to effectively lead change and
innovation diffusion while focusing on the system and acting as an instructional leader is too
great for any one individual. Because of this, principals should foster distributed leadership that
spreads leadership responsibilities across a team of individuals (Halverson, Kelley, & Shaw,
2014; Harris, 2003; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2004; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Principals should not just give influence
to those with expertise or years of experience. Instead, they need to foster leadership by
identifying and developing potential leaders (Waters & Grubb, 2005), creating a common body
of knowledge and skills needed to develop those who are embracing leadership opportunities
(Elmore, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 2012) while striving to create a culture that defines and
creates more leaders (Schein, 2010).
Definitions
Change Leadership
Change leadership involves the driving forces and processes that result in large-scale
transformation. It differs from change management, which is using a set of basic tools and
structures to control a change effort by minimizing distractions and the negative impact of the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 9

change (Cran, 2015; International, 2014). Wagner et al. (2006) simply defined change
leadership as the leadership capacities needed to transform a school. Change leadership is the
ability to influence and motivate others (Higgs & Rowland, 2000) and “implies seeing the
future and being able to lead people to co-create it” (Anderson & Anderson, 2004, p 4). For the
purpose of this study, change leadership was defined as the ability to lead faculty through a
process of transformative change to co-create a future that will enhance student learning.
Distributed Leadership
In schools, the interactions of teacher leaders and principals often define leadership
functions (Spillane, 2005). This broad-based involvement in the leadership function of a school
is typically referred to as distributed or teacher leadership (Harris, 2008; Leithwood &
Seashore-Louis, 2011; Spillane, 2005; Spillane 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Although
there are competing definitions of teacher leadership, (e.g., Harris, 2003; Katzenmeyer &
Moller 2009; Lambert, 1988; Wasley, 1991), one similarity is that they all focus on leadership
from within the level of the classroom (Harris 2003). Although dimensions of teacher leadership
differ according to the author(s) (Harris, 2003; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2009; Lambert, 1988),
the common focus is the empowerment and agency of teachers to help lead change. For the
purpose of this study, distributed leadership is defined as the broad-based involvement of
teacher leaders in the leadership functions of a school.
Innovation
Innovation has different meanings depending on the source being referenced. Clegg,
Kohlberg, and Pitsis (2008) and Rogers (2010) described innovation as something that is new or
different. Others described innovation as significantly different ways of addressing problems
(Chen, 2010; Washor, 2010). White (2013) discriminated between revolutionary innovations
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 10

that are disruptive and new and evolutionary innovations that build on existing ideas. While
there is some debate over whether innovation is a concrete action or abstract idea (Lai, 2015;
Owens, 2012), many scholars believed that innovations include both the idea and
implementation (Judd, 2017; MacKenzie, 1996; Fitzgerald, Wankerl, & Schramm, 2011). For
the purpose of this study, innovation meant a completely new or novel way of working,
behaving, organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement (Clegg,
Kohlberger, & Pitsis, 2008; Judd, 2017; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015).
Innovation Diffusion
Spread, scaling-up, dissemination and diffusion are all terms that are used to describe the
process of moving an innovation from a limited site of implementation (e.g., a classroom) to
implementation across a system (e.g., a school) (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). Although some
researchers viewed diffusion as the passive spreading of an innovation (Greenhalgh,
Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Glasgow et al, 2012), others used it to refer to the
process of an innovation being spread, adopted, or communicated (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015;
Rogers, 2010). For the purpose of this dissertation, the term diffusion was utilized used to
describe the process of moving an innovation from a limited site of implementation (e.g., a
classroom) to implementation across a system (e.g., a school)
Innovative High-Impact Practices
Wagner (2008) stated that innovative curriculum and instruction educate students to be
active citizens and lifelong learners who can demonstrate 21st century thinking skills.
Innovative teaching and learning include practices addressing critical thinking, problem solving,
collaboration, adaptation, initiative, communication, analysis, and imagination (Wagner, 2008).
For the purpose of this study, innovative high-impact practices were defined as those directly
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 11

connected to one or more of the following 21st century skills: communication, collaboration,
critical thinking, or creativity. Additionally, the practice needed to be based on a body of
evidence that demonstrated a positive impact on student learning. Example innovative practices
included professional learning communities, blended learning, project-based learning, design
thinking, STEM, and learning progressions.
Learning Leadership
To positively impact student learning, principals need to act as learning leaders who
create and sustain a system-wide focus on learning (Fullan, 2014a; Hallinger & Heck, 2010;
Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marks & Printy, 2003). Many scholars took this one step further by
saying that principals should be professional learners that develop alongside a school’s faculty
and students (Fullan, 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö, 2016).
Learning leadership draws upon two conceptualizations of school improvement leadership: the
teaching and learning focus of instructional leadership and the general capacity-building
mindset of transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). Learning leadership also
requires leaders to understand how antecedents (adult actions) lead to results (student learning)
(Reeves, 2006). For the purpose of this study, learning leadership was defined as the ability to
ensure a school stays focused on learning by understanding the relationship between adult
actions and student learning as well as utilizing instructional leadership and transformational
leadership strategies.
This chapter provided the context for this study, described a proposed conceptual
framework, and defined key terms. The following chapter will provide a comprehensive
literature review into change leadership, innovation diffusion leadership, learning leadership, and
distributed leadership.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 12

CHAPTER TWO:

LITERATURE REVIEW

School should help students reach their potential by actively engaging them in their
learning so they can learn the skills they need to support themselves and become contributing
members of society (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008). Today, students need to be
competent in 21st century skills such as collaborating, communicating, critically and creatively
thinking, being agile, and assessing and analyzing information (Levy, 2014; Zhao, 2012;
Wagner, 2012). Unfortunately, many schools are not achieving these goals (Wagner, 2012).
Disrupting traditional schooling can lead to institutions that are capable of producing the types
of graduates that are needed (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008). Driven by this need, school
systems are tinkering with learning and pedagogy practices to create innovative learning
environments (OECD 2013).
To ensure that innovation does not just stay in isolated practices, there must be strong
leadership to facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion (Judd, 2017). Principals are challenged
with the complex task of fostering and supporting innovation diffusion. This study was
conducted to understand what leadership strategies have helped principals successfully diffuse
an innovation across an established, high-performing school. This chapter provides a review of
literature related to leadership and innovation diffusion. Specifically, this chapter will focus on
reviewing literature related to the concepts found in the conceptual framework described in
Chapter One: change leadership, learning leadership, distributed leadership, and innovation
diffusion.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 13

Overview of Leadership
Merriam-Webster defined “leadership” as “the office or position of a leader; capacity to
lead; or the act or an instance of leading” (Merriam-Webster). Buell (2012) noted that this
definition limits one’s understanding of leadership to the mechanics of leadership or observable
behaviors. Instead, leadership requires actions that are subconscious or unconscious, emotive,
political, and require nonverbal communication (Ingram & Cangemi, 2012; Jensen, 2011).
Leadership is continually dynamic and very difficult to focus on one moment (Maccoby as cited
in Bolman and Deal, 1994). Because of this, leadership should be viewed as a complex,
subjective process embedded in experience that is dependent on first-person perspectives
(Block, 2014; Ingram & Cangemi, 2012; Souba, 2011).
Leaders Versus Followers
Common to the varying definitions of leadership is the recognition that there are two
interdependent players where a leader exerts influence over followers in a mutually beneficial,
synergetic relationship (Bush & Glover, 2003; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Rutkauskas &
Stasytyte, 2013). This means that a leader can exist only if followers are present (Gage &
Smith, 2016). Social exchange theory of leadership posited that leaders serve followers in
exchange for the followers' approval or compliance. To maintain power, a leader must continue
to satisfy follower expectations (Harris 2003). Kouzes and Posner take this further by arguing
that leaders can actually increase their power by developing individuals or groups that follow
them (2012).
Management Versus Leadership
Drucker and Bennis stated that “management is doing things right; leadership is doing
the right things” (as cited in Covey, 1989). Although true, this provides an oversimplified view
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 14

of both terms. Although leadership and management are both complex, complementary
concepts with some similarities (Eicher, 2005), they have many noticeable differences (Kotter,
1990; Kotterman, 2006; Zaleznik, 1992). Sometimes leaders manage and sometimes managers
lead (Bass, 1990).
Management goes beyond being able to successfully carry out actions to providing
stability, command, and effectiveness with existing systems. Managers act as caretakers (Gage
& Smith, 2016) whose efforts go towards making marginal improvements, dealing with an
endless list of issues that appear urgent, and addressing unexpected problems. This can result in
counterproductive policies, procedures, and regulations that stifle an organization (Bolman &
Deal, 1994). They focus on maintaining what already exists, using established ways of doing
things, adhering to constraints of what people find desirable (Zaleznick, 2003). Management is
what is needed when “first-order change,” or fine-tuning of a system, is taking place (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Management focuses on operations, emphasizes performance, and
monitors present needs (Eicher, 2005).
Management is a necessary aspect of a leader’s job. However, management skills and
time spent on managerial tasks are no longer adequate to address escalating challenges and
demands - there need to be leaders (McGowan & Miller, 2001). In times of crisis, followers
look to leaders, not managers, for hope, motivation, and inspiration (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
Leadership goes beyond knowing what is most important to also encompass the ability to
respond to crisis or rapid change. It is custodial in nature (Gage & Smith, 2016) and is needed to
cultivate purpose, passion, and inspiration (Bolman & Deal, 1994). Leaders focus on
empowering others by creating a learning organization, celebrating successes, and helping
others learn from their successes and failures (Maccoby, 1989). Leaders create vision, take
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 15

risks, change how people think about what is desirable, and build new relationships and
structures that change the existing culture (Zaleznik, 2003). Leadership includes being able to
implement “second-order change,” which requires significant deviation from present practices
(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Leadership has a future focus and includes the ability to
be effective when there is ambiguity (Eicher, 2005).
The main similarity between leadership and management is that both are essential for an
organization’s success. Both are needed to maintain order, with leaders focusing on strategy and
managers focusing on operations. Both are needed to enable decisions, with leaders focusing on
development of internal and external relationships and managers focusing on the development
of the organization itself. Both are needed to influence outcomes, with leaders focusing on
inspiring employees and managers reinforcing performance (Eicher, 2005).
There are several key differences between leadership and management. As explained
earlier, leadership is needed for different situations than management. Additionally, leaders are
less likely than managers to have answers because the problems they deal with are more
complex (Bolman & Deal, 1994). Finally, leaders utilize different skills than managers. This
includes: providing guidance in curriculum, instruction, and assessment; inspiring others to
implement ambitious innovations; discussing with staff best practice research and evidence
regarding the innovations; moving forward with innovations without knowing the specific
outcomes; evaluating the impact of innovations; having flexibility regarding innovation; and
operating from a strong set of core beliefs (Marzano, Walters, & McNulty, 2005).
Leadership Not Dependent on Position
While power is an important aspect of leadership (Heifetz, 1998), equating leadership
with a formal position can negate or change the complex relationships required to accomplish
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 16

goals (Bolman & Deal, 1994). Leadership is more about influence than it is about authority
(Bush & Glover, 2014), so anyone can be a leader if they are able to build trust and gain
followers (Kouzes & Posner, 2016). This means that leadership can be exercised by anyone, not
just those in positions of power (Heifetz, 1998). This also means that a group can exercise
leadership, not just individuals. This differs from management, which is directly linked to an
individual with positional authority (Bush & Glover, 2014).
Relying on positional power for leadership can be limiting. Heifetz (1994; 1998)
explained that the more authority one has, the more difficult it may be to exercise leadership
during times of uncertainty because people expect leadership to provide order and direction, not
admittance that they do not have all of the answers. Leaders in a position of lesser authority
have more liberty to ask challenging and difficult questions that are uncomfortable for people to
face. When acting as a leader from a position of authority, it is important to nurture and protect
emerging leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Bolman & Deal, 1994).
Attributes of an Effective Leader
Just as there is no singular definition for the term leadership, there is no agreed upon list
of what makes an “effective” leader. Collins (2001) made a distinction between effective
leaders, or those who help followers commit to a vision and develop the next generation of
leaders, and executive leaders, or those who build enduring greatness by focusing on the
product.
After a decade of research with almost 1,400 leaders, Kouzes and Posner (2012) found
that effective leaders follow five principles universally. First, they challenge the process by
pushing innovation and changing the status quo. Second, they inspire a shared vision and
construct events and systems to get there. Third, they enable others to act by not hoarding
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 17

power. Fourth, they set an example and stand up for their beliefs. Finally, they encourage the
heart, especially when followers are frustrated and getting exhausted (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
In Learning Leadership, Kouzes and Posner (2016) outlined five additional skills that effective
leaders regularly exhibit: (1) having belief in and understanding of oneself; (2) aspiring to
excellence; (3) challenging oneself by seeking new and uncomfortable situations; (4) engaging
support through cultivation of relationships and seeking of feedback; and (5) practicing
deliberately.
To help followers commit to a vision and develop new leaders, Leithwood and Sun
(2012) outlined five practices that effective leaders use to engage and motivate members of an
organization: (1) setting direction and holding high-performance expectations; (2) developing
people by providing individualized support, intellectual stimulation, and modeling desired
behavior; (3) redesigning the organization to strengthen school culture and enable others to act;
(4) improving instructional programming by focusing on instructional development; and (5)
focusing on related practices that include contingent rewards and managing by exception
(Leithwood & Sun, 2012).
Fullan (2004a) provided a different perspective, stating all effective leaders share five
mutually dependent elements: (1) a strong sense of moral purpose; (2) an understanding of the
change process; (3) emotional intelligence; (4) a capacity to facilitate knowledge sharing; and
(5) an ability to help a group achieve coherence and connectedness. He added that effective
leaders have a sense of purpose to make a difference, use strategies that will help people tackle
tough problems, hold themselves accountable through measurable indicators, and assess success
by the degree to which others become intrinsically committed (Fullan, 2004a).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 18

Bolman and Deal (1994) stated that because leadership is contextual, it is a political
activity that requires leaders to view conflict as a positive means to a cohesive and integrated
end. This results in an effective leader needing be able to gain a coherent definition of a
problem using multiple, often competing, points of view (Heifetz, 1994), acting as a “political
coalition builder, a political negotiator, a political builder, and a political architect dealing with
forces and constituencies of most great power” (Cronin as cited in Bolman & Deal, 1994, p 83).
Effective leaders are able to cultivate a supportive culture by identifying cultural themes, values,
and aspirations that followers can rally around. They recognize the importance of symbols as
well as their responsibility in expressing a vision and values that give purpose, guidance, and
significance to an organization (Bolman & Deal, 1994).
Change Leadership
With new technologies, competition, and opportunities emerging regularly, change is
not only inevitable, it is accelerating (Fullan, 2004a; Joiner & Josephs, 2006). Change can be
both positive and negative, requiring leaders to walk a fine line between exhilaration and fear
(Fullan, 2004a). To navigate such an environment, leaders need to spark a change instead of
embracing the status quo (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014) by quickly making effective decisions in
conditions that are complex and rapidly evolving (Fullan, 2004a; Joiner & Josephs, 2006). For
most followers, status quo is acceptable. People embrace the system they are in, no matter how
dysfunctional it may be (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Understanding how followers
perceive change can increase the chance of the change being successfully implemented (Heifetz
& Linsky, 2002; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Change in
schools is further complicated by variables including common standards, teaching methodology,
parent involvement, technology, funding, and facilities. Each of these is influenced by outside
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 19

forces including legislative mandates, education research, and departments of education
(McGowan & Miller, 2001).
Overview of Change Leadership
Significant change demands the creation of a new system, which in turn requires strong
leadership (Kotter, 2012). Change management as a set of basic tools or structures used to
control a change effort by minimizing distractions and the negative impact of the change. In
contrast, change leadership involves the driving forces and processes that result in large-scale
transformation (Cran, 2015; International, 2014). Wagner et al. (2006) simply define change
leadership as the leadership capacities needed to transform a school. Change leadership is the
ability to influence and motivate others (Higgs & Rowland, 2000) and “implies seeing the
future and being able to lead people to co-create it” (Anderson & Anderson, 2010, p 4). Change
leadership requires leaders to look past the technical aspects of new practices to appreciate the
adaptive work people must do to implement it (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).
Additionally, change leadership educates followers about the cycle of change and recognizes
where the organization is in order to take steps to create the desired transformation (Anderson &
Anderson, 2010; Cran, 2015).
Although there is a plethora of books and articles that outline key attributes of change
leaders, Michael Fullan is a scholar who has focused extensively on effectively leading change
in schools. Fullan (2008) identified six actions school leaders need to take when leading
change: love employees, connect peers with purpose, focus on building capacity over making
judgments, keep learning as the core work, strive for transparency, and help the system learn. In
2011, Fullan further expanded this list with the addition of seven core practices of effective
change leadership: have practice drive theory, be resolute, motivate the masses, collaborate to
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 20

compete, learn confidently, know the impact, and sustain simplexity (Fullan, 2011). While these
lists are not comprehensive, they do provide a starting point for identifying what is necessary to
be an effective change leader.
Change Theory
Lewin’s (1951) three-step change model posited that change goes through a three-step
process: unfreeze, transition, and refreeze. Unfreeze happens when confronting the status quo
by (a) increasing driving forces that direct behavior away from the existing situation, (b)
decreasing restraining forces that negatively impact movement away from the status quo, or (c)
finding a combination of the above. The second step is transition, where the system is being
moved to a new status quo. This can be done through (a) persuading employees to agree that the
current status quo is not beneficial and should be instead viewed from a fresh perspective, (b)
collaboratively questing for new, relevant information, and (c) connecting the group to experts
that support the change. The final step is refreezing, which takes place after a change has been
implemented. It is what allows a change to be sustained and occurs when new values associated
with the change have been integrated into community values and traditions. This can be done by
reinforcing new patterns, institutionalizing them through formal and informal mechanisms
(Lewin, 1951).
In 1995, Kotter outlined an eight-step process for change: (1) establish a sense of
urgency; (2) form a powerful coalition; (3) create a vision; (4) communicate the vision; (5)
empower others to act on the vision; (6) plan for and create short-term wins; (7) consolidate
improvements and produce still more change; and (8) institutionalize new approaches. In
Kotter’s more recent work (2014), he evolved many of his original steps to focus on the use of
networks (as opposed to traditional hierarchies) that allow a leader to launch a process that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 21

creates a larger quantity of active change drivers. He considered these steps to be accelerators
that, once started, never stop. The accelerators include (1) creating a sense of urgency around a
big opportunity; (2) building and evolving a guiding coalition; (3) forming a change vision and
strategic initiatives; (4) enlisting a volunteer army; (5) enabling action by removing barriers; (6)
generating (and celebrating) short-term wins; (7) sustaining acceleration; and (8) and instituting
change.
Kotter’s stages align to Lewin’s framework, as seen Table 1. Understanding why and
how change happens is an important step when leading change (Fullan, 2004a; Heifetz &
Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014).
Table 1. Comparison of Lewin’s and Kotter’s Theories of Change
Lewin (1951) Kotter (2014)
(1) Unfreeze (1) Create sense of urgency
(2) Build guiding coalition
(3) Form a change vision & strategic initiatives
(4) Enlist a volunteer army

Transition (5) Enable action by removing barriers
(6) Generate (and celebrate) short-term wins

Refreeze (7) Sustain acceleration
(8) Institute change

Change in Schools
School improvement is a specific type of change upon which school leaders focus.
Elmore (2006) stated that school improvement is a developmental process that does not
progress in a linear fashion but instead follows a nonlinear trajectory of punctuated equilibrium.
Improvement occurs when there is rapid, often disjointed, movement through a developmental
stage of progress. This is then followed by a time of equilibrium, during which changes that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 22

were implemented during the previous stage have a chance to stabilize. This equilibrium is then
followed by another period of progress. Typically, these states of equilibrium occur after a new
practice has been adopted but it not yet institutionalized, or after a deeply-seated practice has
been in place for a while and a problem surfaces that is not easily addressed (Elmore, 2006).
Elmore (2006) identified three domains of school improvement that are interconnected:
technical, social-emotional, and organizational. For example, a technical improvement is a
change to an instructional practice in order to improve student learning. This can lead to
changes in students' and teachers' sense of efficacy, which is a social-emotional improvement.
To ensure these technical changes are sustained, changes to structures and processes will occur,
which are examples of organizational improvements. In other words, a school is simultaneously
improving its core functions of teaching and learning, changing the way stakeholders think
about their role in the process of learning, and increasing internal accountability by improving
coherency of the organization (Elmore, 2006).
School improvement leadership requires the creation of lasting, meaningful changes that
positively impact student learning instead of quick-fix solutions that lead to temporary gains in
achievement scores (Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003). School improvement leadership also requires
balancing competing change initiatives against the developmental needs and desires of the
faculty (Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö 2016). Because school improvement requires changes to
technical, social-emotional, and organizational domains, leaders need to demonstrate
competency in each area; they cannot choose to be strong in one area and weak in another. In
schools this means that leaders need to continuously monitor instructional practices. They need
to create organizational structures and processes that allow this monitoring to take place.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 23

Finally, they need to model inquiry and receiving feedback to help support people through the
process of improving instructional practice (Elmore, 2006).
There are several specific actions a school leader can take to effectively lead change that
leads to school improvement. These include understanding and applying change theory (Lewin,
1951; Kotter, 1995; Kotter, 2014), focusing on the school system (Hargreaves, 2010; Harris &
Chrispeels, 2006; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan, 2004c; Glazer & Peurach, 2012; Shaked & Schechter,
2014; Toh et al., 2014), demonstrating leadership agility (Joiner & Josephs, 2006), matching
leadership actions to the type of change occurring (Heifetz, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky,
2009; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005), recognizing that transition and change are not
synonymous and addressing each with different strategies (Bridges & Bridges, 2017), and
embracing paradox (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway,
1999; Watson, 2013).
School Systems
Hargreaves (2010) argued that the foundation of sustainable school reforms is the
development of a self-improving school system. He defines a self-improving school system as
one that relies on strong inter-school relationships that are developed through three connected
strategies: professional development, partnership competence, and collaborative capital
(Hargreaves, 2010). Self-improving school systems can be viewed as self-governing entities that
organize themselves and build on social networks to help them renew (Glazer & Peurach,
2012). These systems are able to sustain their own identity, culture, or ethos despite changes
that might occur to their constituencies (Toh et al., 2014). Because self-improving school
systems may perpetuate practices that are not helpful, it is important for systems to establish
processes that will amplify good practice (Greany, 2014). Leaders of self-improving schools
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 24

need to demonstrate systemic awareness so conditions within and across schools can be created
to enable both innovation and improvement (Toh et al., 2014).
Systems leadership. Systems leaders are needed if systemic change is to occur (Fullan,
2004b). Systems leadership requires a school leader to embrace wider system roles, focusing on
the success of other schools and not just their own (Hopkins & Higham, 2007; Toh et al., 2014).
Systems leaders consider the whole system because they recognize that context matters and that,
in order to bring about systemic change, they have a role in helping the context evolve (Fullan,
2004c). These leaders focus on improving their own school while linking with other parts of the
system to set direction, manage teaching and learning, and develop people and organizations
(Toh et al., 2014).
Systems thinking. Instituting cohesive horizontal processes within school levels and
vertical processes between levels of schools is a challenging yet crucial precondition for school
improvement (Fullan, 2003; Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö, 2016) and requires leaders to use
systems thinking as an approach to addressing the entire work setting (Shaked & Schechter,
2016). Systems thinking is grounded in literature on systems theory, which postulated that the
defining characteristic of a system cannot be comprehended by examining isolated components
but instead can be understood by analyzing the relationship between components (Kofman &
Senge, 1993). Senge (1997) later described systems thinking as a framework for seeing patterns
of change and interrelationships between things. Other researchers posited that systems thinking
is not a specific discipline but is instead an interdisciplinary orientation toward the world that
provides a model for thinking and learning about all types of systems (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2015; Shaked & Schechter, 2016). Common to all of these definitions is the concept that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 25

systems thinking requires one to look past separate components to see the whole while
simultaneously viewing each individual component in relation to the whole.
Shaked and Schechter (2014) outlined four characteristics of principals who act as
systems thinkers. The first characteristic is the capacity to focus on the whole, or to see all
aspects of school life as one large system. The second characteristic is to influence indirectly,
which is the ability to address tasks and challenges covertly. This requires the principal to be
aware of the many reciprocal relationships between different elements in the system. The third
characteristic is to hold a multidimensional view, which is the ability to see multiple dimensions
of an issue at the same time and includes seeing a range of reasons for why a problem exists as
well as the possible consequences that might occur when a specific action is taken. The last
characteristic is the ability to evaluate significance, which is the ability to distinguish between
what is important and what is less important (Shaked & Schechter, 2014).
Pang and Pisapia (2012) found that school leaders’ use of a holistic leadership approach
based on systems thinking is a strong predictor of effectiveness. In addition, school leaders who
regularly utilize systems thinking take more frequent action to accomplish a school’s vision,
develop a self-transforming learning organization, and increase trust and emotional commitment
among faculty (Shaked & Schechter, 2016). Leaders who utilize systems thinking were found to
more effectively lead and improve a school in extremely challenging circumstances and mentor
leaders in other schools that are facing difficulties (Toh et al., 2014). Fullan (2014c) widened
the impact of systems thinking by stating that principals must understand the whole system -
including the community, other schools, and the district - not just their own reality. By being
concerned about the success of other schools in addition to one’s own school, systems thinking
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 26

allows principals to maximize their impact by fostering a sustainable agenda that will result in
large-scale, long-lasting changes (Fullan, 2004c).
Leadership Agility
Joiner and Josephs (2006) stated that in order to successfully lead a changing
environment, leaders need the agility to anticipate change and take action in rapidly evolving
conditions. To do this, leaders need to be fully present and able to step back from the situation
to see it from new perspectives. Effective change leaders need to have agility in four areas. First
is context-setting agility that allows a leader to place a challenge or opportunity within a larger
framework and helps a leader foreshadow the consequences of their actions. Context-setting
agility depends on a leader’s situational awareness and sense of purpose. The second area is
stakeholder agility or appreciating the goals of other people and aligning individual objectives
to organizational ones. This agility depends on a leader’s stakeholder understanding (how easily
a leader grasps other perspectives, particularly when they conflict with one’s own) and power
style (how a leader handles disagreements). The third area is creative agility, or the ability to
analyze problems and devise innovative solutions. This agility relies on connective awareness
(comparing divergent ideas and discovering relationships between them) and reflective
judgment (assessing possible solutions for which ones are better). The final agility is self-
leadership, or the ability to develop through self-awareness and developmental motivation (what
drives one to lead). By developing these agilities, leaders can become more adept at anticipating
and responding to changes (Joiner & Josephs, 2006).
Leadership Actions for Different Types of Change
Individuals perceive a change as first-order when it is an incremental, within an existing
paradigm, consistent with prevailing values and norms, and implemented with existing
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 27

knowledge and skills (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). This is similar to the concept of
technical challenges where current knowledge is adequate for finding a solution (Heifetz, 2002;
Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). A change is second-order when it is perceived as a break
with the past, outside of existing paradigms, conflicting with prevailing values and norms,
complex, and requires new knowledge and skills (Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). Second-
order change is similar to an adaptive challenge because is more complex, requires a solution
that does not currently exist within an organization, and results in disequilibrium and avoidance
(Heifetz, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).
The type of change has less to do with the change itself and more to do with how
followers perceive the change. These differing perceptions can lead to one person viewing
something as a solution while another person views the same thing as a problem (Waters &
Grubb, 2005). Being able to determine how followers perceive a change can help leaders choose
leadership practices and strategies appropriate for the initiative taking place (Waters & Grubb,
2005). Marzano, Waters, & McNulty (2005) identified seven leadership responsibilities that are
needed to lead changes with second-order implications: change agent; flexibility; ideals and
beliefs; intellectual stimulation; knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; monitor
and evaluate; and optimizer. Interestingly, four leadership responsibilities - communication,
culture, input, and order - are negatively impacted by second-order changes (Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty, 2005). Regardless of a leader’s efforts to attend to these four responsibilities,
followers will perceive that the leader is not fulfilling them (Waters & Grubb, 2005).
Assuming that change has the same implications for all followers or using a leadership
practice that is appropriate for a first-order change when followers are perceiving it as a second-
order change can increase the chance of producing marginal or negative results (Waters &
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 28

Grubb, 2005). Leaders need to customize their leadership practices based on the type of change
they are leading by fulfilling the right leadership responsibilities, therefore increasing the
chance of sustainable initiatives leading to a positive impact (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky,
2009; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Waters & Grubb, 2005).
Difference Between Transition and Change
Understanding the difference between transition and change can help leaders
successfully implement change. According to Bridges and Bridges (2017), change is a
modification in circumstances. Transition is the process followers go through to accept and
adjust to the change. Bridges and Bridges identify three stages to transition. The first stage,
ending, requires followers to end what they were or to let go of what they had. To help
followers through the stage of ending, leaders need to understand the impact of the change, look
ahead to define the unintended consequences of the change, identify losses, recognize reality,
anticipate strong reactions, be open, keep information flowing, and respect the past. The second
stage is the neutral zone, which is when the old has ended but the new is not yet fully
functional. To help followers move through the neutral zone, leaders should keep demands
reasonable, be prepared to revise or replace old structures and procedures, focus on short-term
wins, and communicate repeatedly. The last stage, beginning, occurs when followers exit the
neutral zone energized and prepared to make the change work. Leaders can help followers in the
beginning stage by reminding them of the purpose of the change, painting a picture of what the
change will look and feel like, planning for the transition, and making sure everyone has a part
in the transition (Bridges & Bridges, 2017).

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 29

Paradoxical Thinking
Leaders need to be able to embrace paradox when leading change. A paradox occurs
when ideas that seem logical in isolation are juxtaposed, appearing mutually exclusive (Lüscher,
Lewis, & Ingram, 2006). When confronted by a paradox, many leaders are tempted to decide
between the conflicting demands by picking one, resulting in an ‘either-or’ situation
(Westenholz, 1993). While picking one side of a paradox may lead to short-term gains, over
time such decisions might be detrimental (Smith, Binns, & Tushman, 2010). Instead, there is
merit in paradox thinking, which is pursuing two contradictory goals at the same time
(Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014); this requires seeing a paradox as ‘both-and’ and resisting the
demand for consensus (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway,
1999; Watson, 2013). Paradox thinking allows a leader to gain the benefits of both choices by
integrating how they address opportunities and challenges as well as previewing potential
positive and negative outcomes (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014).
In organizations, paradoxes occur in four core areas: organizing, performing, belonging,
and learning (Lüscher, Lewis, & Ingram 2006; Smith & Lewis 2011). Organizing paradoxes
require different organizational approaches to reach a desired goal; examples include the need
for stability versus the need for change as well as collaboration versus competition. Performing
paradoxes result in competing strategies and goals. The need for individual professional
autonomy versus adherence to a guaranteed, viable curriculum is an example performing
paradox. Belonging paradoxes develop when organizational identities conflict with individual
identities. For example, an organization might view itself as embracing risk-taking but an
individual within the organization might view failure as something to be avoided. Finally,
learning paradoxes involve tensions between old and new knowledge. An example learning
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 30

paradox is the experience of those who have been with school for a long time versus those who
are new but have outside knowledge of how something works (Watson, 2013).
Smith and Lewis (2011) outline several responses leaders can use to manage paradox.
These include accepting and living with a paradox, having different parts of the school deal with
different parts of a paradox (spatial separation), dealing with different parts of a paradox at
different times (temporal separation), and trying to accommodate and resolve a paradox
(synthesis). Mastering paradox thinking can help leaders effectively balance interdependent
opposites (Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014).
Innovation Diffusion Leadership
Overview of Innovation
Innovation has different meanings depending on the source being referenced. Clegg,
Kohlberg, and Pitsis (2008) and Rogers (2010) described innovation as something that is new or
different. Others described innovation as significantly different ways of addressing problems
(Chen, 2010; Washor, 2010). White (2013) discriminated between revolutionary innovations
that are disruptive and new and evolutionary innovations that build on existing ideas. While
there is some debate over whether innovation is a concrete action or abstract idea (Lai, 2015;
Owens, 2012), many scholars believed that innovations include both the idea and
implementation (Judd, 2017; MacKenzie, 1996; Fitzgerald, Wankerl, & Schramm, 2011). For
the purpose of this study, innovation meant a completely new or novel way of working,
behaving, organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement (Clegg,
Kohlberger, & Pitsis, 2008; Judd, 2017; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015).
Dyer, Gregersen, and Christensen (2011) presented a framework that defined an
innovative organization with three elements that support and shape each other: people,
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 31

processes, and philosophies. For organizations to be innovative, leaders need to model skills
associated with innovation discovery processes, including the ability to think associatively, ask
questions, observe, network, and experiment. Leaders also should assemble teams that have
complementary skills. Innovative organizations are systematic about developing and following
discovery processes, are supportive of questioning and experimentation, and invest time and
money in disruptive innovation. Processes are also developed to recruit, support, and reward
people who innovate. Finally, innovative organizations have a philosophy that everyone is
responsible for innovation. They understand the importance of taking smart risks and create a
safe space for people to explore ideas (Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011).
Innovation Diffusion
Innovation of high-impact practices often results in short-lived ripples that fail to diffuse
beyond a pocket of implementation (Glazer & Peurach, 2012). The initial cost of innovation
may affect its rate of adoption. Additionally, individuals often cannot deal with an innovation
unless it is connected to something they already know. In some cases, the innovations that
diffuse across a system are not always the ones that should diffuse (Rogers, 2010). Diffusion of
the right innovations is important so that isolated pockets of high-impact practices can spread
beyond individual classrooms or schools, spreading improvement across a system (Toh et al.,
2014). Although there is evidence of innovations being diffused across systems, there is no
agreement on which approach to use or what constitutes success (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015).
Diffusion of innovation can occur on a variety of different levels (Judd, 2017). In
education, diffusion is usually about widening application of an innovation as opposed to
making an innovation bigger or better (Buzhardt et al., 2007). Diffusion can occur along
established pathways or along less formalized pathways within and across systems (Shiell-
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 32

Davis et al., 2015). Broad, complex and specific, simple innovations can both be diffused across
a system. There are several factors that influence whether an innovation will diffuse. The most
important factor is whether there is evidence that demonstrates it will have a positive impact on
a problem (Elliott & Mihalic, 2004; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). Innovations that meet identified
needs, made something more efficient, better addressed an underserved population, or
maximized resources will more likely diffuse (Ashby, Trying, & Longley, 2007; Christensen,
Baumann, Ruggles, & Sadtler, 2006; Penuel & Fishman, 2012).
Rogers’ theories of innovation diffusion. Everett Rogers is one of the most commonly
referenced sources on the topic of innovation diffusion (Shiell-Davis et. al., 2015). According to
Rogers (2010), the diffusion of innovation was more of a social process than a technical matter.
He defined diffusion as the process through which an innovation is communicated over time
through a system. To diffuse, an innovation needs people in a system to be willing to adopt and
advocate for it. Rogers’ postulated that an innovation’s rate of adoption is determined by the
relative advantage of the innovation, the innovation’s compatibility with the existing system, the
complexity of the innovation, how easily the innovation can be trialed, and the degree to which
the innovation can be observed (Rogers, 2010).
Innovation-decision continuum. As part of his theory, Rogers’ outlined an innovation-
decision continuum, which is what each individual or group goes through when determining
whether to adopt an innovation. This innovation-decision continuum follows diffusion along
five stages (Rogers, 2010), as described in Table 2.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 33

Table 2. Stages of the Innovation-Decision Continuum (Rogers, 2010)
Stage of Diffusion Description
Knowledge Begins when an individual or group learns that an innovation
exists and begins to understand how it works and what it does
Persuasion Happens with the individual or group, having gained knowledge,
inclines toward or away from the innovation
Decision Happens when the individual or group moves beyond inclination
to engage in activities that result in acceptance or rejection of the
innovation
Implementation Happens when the individual or group has accepted the
innovation and actually uses it
Confirmation Happens when the individual or group searches for evidence to
support the decision to implement the innovation
Leaders need to act as change agents who can spread messages about an innovation
through interpersonal networks, resulting in followers deciding to move along the innovation-
decision continuum in the direction established by the system (Rogers, 2010).
Adoption Continuum. Rogers (2010) postulated that those who adopt innovations fall
into five categories that rest along a continuum. These categories fall into a bell curve, as
illustrated in Figure 2. “Innovators” act as pioneers who are willing to take risks to make new
contacts and learn new things. “Early adopters” spread the word and serve as a model for others.
The “early majority” deliberates and eventually adopts the innovation; they rarely lead but often
endorse the innovation’s merit. The “late majority” tends to be skeptical of the innovation and
adopt only when they have seen how the early majority fares with the innovation. “Laggards”,
who tend to be more traditional and isolated from others, are the last to adopt (Rogers, 2010).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 34

Figure 2. Bell Curve Distribution of Innovation Adopters (Rogers, 2010)
Understanding that each category is likely to be represented in any population helps
leaders understand the perspective of individual followers. Having this awareness allows leaders
to differentiate communication and support strategies for each group (Rogers, 2010).
Enablers of innovation diffusion. There are many enablers of innovation diffusion.
These include technology innovations and the open education movement (Kumar, 2012),
development of faculty that are skilled in and committed to innovation (Dekker & Feijs, 2005;
Washor, 2010), and building a culture that supports innovation (Bevan & Fairman, 2014;
Trilling & Fadel, 2009; Webster et al., 2013). Shiell-Davis and colleagues (2015) identified
through a meta-analysis several factors that can enable innovation diffusion. These include:
1. Determining the compatibility between the innovation and the existing system
prior to beginning diffusion (Card, Soloman, & Cunningham, 2011; Elliott &
Mihalic, 2004);
2. Ensuring adequate time and developing realistic time frames (Edvardsson et al.,
2011);
3. Being transparent about what the innovation will look like and how success will
be assessed (Minnis, Bryce, Phin, & Wilson, 2010; Littlejohn, Campbell, Tizard,
& Smith, 2003);
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 35

4. Establishing networks and knowledge exchange platforms for peer-to-peer
sharing and regular feedback (Shea, Callis, Cassidy-Stewart, Cranston, &
Tomoyasu, 2006; Talukder & Quazi, 2011)
5. Obtaining feedback from clients (e.g., parents and students) from the earliest
stages to respond to problem and make the innovation relevant (Cederbaum,
Ahyoung, Hsun-Ta, Tucker, & Wenzel, 2014);
6. Contextualizing the innovation to fix the context (Browne, Medd, & Anderson,
2013; Knickel, Brunori, Rand, & Proost, 2009);
7. Providing technical assistance to those who are new to the innovation (Buzhardt
et al., 2007; Kegeles et al., 2012); and
8. Establishing distributed leadership that is multi-directional and inclusive of
champions of the innovation (Grinstein-Weiss, Edwards, Charles, & Wagner,
2011; Meijer, 2014; Morrow, 2011).
Barriers to innovation diffusion. There are many obstacles for schools to diffuse
innovations. These include the current political climate that focuses on accountability through
standardized testing (Smith, 2009), high education institutions that focus on traditional
approaches (Dlugash, 2014), a lack of research and development programs in schools and a de-
emphasis on creativity (Smith, 2009). Shiell-Davis and colleagues (2015) identified several
additional factors that act as barriers innovation diffusion. These include:
1. Unresolved tensions around core elements of an innovation (Bradley, Webster,
Schlesinger, Baker, & Inouye, 2006; Morrow, Maben, & Griffiths, 2012);
2. Inconsistent perceptions (e.g., differing ideas about how risky an innovation is)
(Salveron, Arney, & Arney, 2006);
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 36

3. Human and financial resource difficulties (Buzhardt et al., 2007);
4. Flagging momentum (Shiell-Davis, 2015);
5. Silo thinking and behavior that discourage collaboration (Morrow et al., 2012);
6. Too simple or too complex of an innovation for the setting (Miller & Shinn,
2005; Morrow et al., 2012); and
7. Reluctance to change components of the system to accommodate the change
(Watson, 2014; Shapiro, Prinz, & Sanders, 2012)
Leading Innovation Diffusion
Leadership plays a vital role in diffusing innovation across classrooms and schools
(Cravens & Hallinger 2012) because innovations will diffuse under the right set of conditions
(Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). This process is made more efficient when leaders use the SCALE
model that outlines five leadership actions necessary for innovation diffusion (Toh et al., 2014).
SCALE begins with systems thinking, which in this model is defined as creating opportunities
to cascade successes across a system. Converge is the second action; this requires the leader to
meld vision and contextualized innovations into overarching mandates. “A” represents align,
which requires leaders to resolve tensions and deal with paradoxes within and across the system.
“L” stands for leverage, which is harnessing of the collective wisdom and resources need to
diffuse innovation from the various parts of the system. The last action in SCALE is emerge.
This occurs when a leader promotes synergistic interactions to foster adaptive capacities across
parts of a system (Toh et al., 2014). To apply the SCALE components, leaders need to move
beyond the concept of positional leadership (Wielkiewics & Stelzner, 2005) to distributed
leadership. When leaders take these actions, they create structures that facilitate teacher
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 37

experimentation and capacity building as well as build networks that promote the exchanging of
ideas and resources (Toh et al., 2014).
Christensen, Johnson, and Horn (2008) found that principals often see the need for
innovation but recognized there would be a clash with existing institutional practices. To help
diffuse innovation, principals can utilize a variety of tools. To determine which tools to use,
principals need to understand how much faculty agree on what they want and how much they
agree on cause and effect. If faculty agrees on how to do things but not the goal, principals
should use visionary leadership strategies. If faculty agrees on the goal, but not how to achieve
them, principals should utilize standard training techniques. If faculty shares common goals and
methods, principals should use cultural techniques, like norms, to keep progress on track. When
faculty disagrees about both goals and methods, principals can use power techniques, such as
force and coercion, to move progress forward (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008).
Additionally, there are specific strategies that principals should utilize to manage
transition, expand thinking, and assess and monitor progress (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). To
manage the transition to the new way of operating, principals need to balance fidelity to the
original innovation with the need to adapt to the context (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015) and maintain
the core components of the innovation (Clarke & Dede, 2009). They should expand thinking by
depending on a bottom-up approach that promotes ownership of the innovation (Doyle et al.,
2013) and view the innovation as being along a continuum of past and future practices (Carr &
Lhussier, 2007). Principals should mark progress by assessing and monitoring diffusion of the
innovation from the beginning (Penuel and Fisherman, 2012) through diverse measures (Miller
& Shinn, 2005).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 38

Finally, principals should recognize that diffusion of innovation requires second-order or
adaptive change. This means that the changes will be disruptive and that faculty will be
negatively impacted by the risk of loss in the unknown. Principals need to be prepared to deal
with these reactions (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). The leadership strategies outlined in
the previous section about matching leadership actions to the type of change can be applied
when leading the diffusion of innovation. Water and Grubb (2005) noted that the decline in
those responsibilities that are negatively impacted during second-order change will occur
regardless of how much energy a principal puts toward them. Therefore, these responsibilities -
culture, communication, order, and input - should be supported through distributed leadership.
This will allow the principal to give priority to the responsibilities that are positively associated
with leading second-order change - change agent; flexibility; ideals and beliefs; intellectual
stimulation; knowledge of curriculum, instruction and assessment; monitor and evaluate; and
optimizer (Waters & Grubb, 2005).
Learning Leadership
Although the impact of school leadership on student learning is second only to
classroom teaching (Bush & Glover, 2014), the effects are largely indirect and are achieved by
shaping the conditions that contribute to effective teaching and learning, including monitoring
the instructional environment and coordinating the work of individual teachers (Heck &
Hallinger, 2014). When it comes to school improvement, the success or failure of a reform is
highly dependent on the quality of the principal’s leadership (Day, Leighwood, & Sammons
2008). Just as principals can have a positive impact, they can also have a marginal or negative
impact on student learning (Waters & Grubb, 2005). In order to guide faculty and build
coherence within a school as well as across a system, successful school reform requires a
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 39

principal who is skilled, motivated, and willing to take risks, especially during times of
uncertainty (Earley & Evans, 2013).
Principals must overcome the challenge of balancing two main roles: acting as a
manager of the day-to-day tasks that need to be done and acting as a facilitator of school
improvement (Earley & Evans, 2013; Lewis & Murphy, 2008; Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö,
2016). In order to create this balance, principals need to avoid spending all of their time putting
out fires, answering parents, and solving problems (Maccoby as cited in Bolman & Deal, 1994).
While these and other duties addressing issues related to maintenance, finance, and public
relations are important, they are not essential when it comes to improving student achievement
(Waters & Grubb, 2005). Current principal standards provide limited guidance for what
responsibilities and practices are essential for school improvement (Gronn, 2002; Waters &
Grubb, 2005). Principals need clarity about the right focus (Elmore, 2000). This can help them
prioritize daily demands by proactively addressing responsibilities and practices that will
positively impact student learning instead of reactively responding to demands that appear
important regardless of the connection with learning (Waters & Grubb, 20055).
Overview of Learning Leadership
To positively impact student learning, principals need to act as learning leaders (Fullan,
2014a; Reeves, 2006) by focusing on what is learned and how it is learned (Toll, 2010).
Learning leadership focuses on the critical role that leaders play in creating and sustaining a
system-wide focus on learning (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marks &
Printy, 2003). Many scholars took this one step further by saying that principals should be
professional learners that develop alongside a school’s faculty and students (Fullan, 2001;
Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö, 2016). Learning leadership requires
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 40

leaders to understand how antecedents (adult actions) lead to student learning results (Reeves,
2006). Leadership for learning also draws upon two conceptualizations of school improvement
leadership: the teaching and learning focus of instructional leadership and the general capacity-
building mindset of transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). By acting as leaders
of learning, principals are able to transform a school from pockets of high achievement to
system-wide excellence, from a state of being frantic to one of focus, from private practice to
collaborative learning communities, and from a bell curve to a mountain curve where all
students are learning at high levels (Reeves, 2006).
Leadership for Learning Framework
Based on a detailed analysis of student achievement, teaching practices, and leadership
practices in both domestic and international school settings, Reeves (2006) identified a matrix
that demonstrates the intersection between achievement of results and understanding of the
antecedents that lead to those results (see Figure 3). The vertical axis represents student learning
results while the horizontal axis represents a leader’s understanding of “antecedents of
excellence” (Reeves, 2006, p 6) that include adult factors that can influence results. Learning
leaders develop holistic accountability systems that identify causes and effect so both adult
actions and student learning are monitored. By continuously asking “where are we good, and
why did we get that way?” (Reeves, 2006, p 135), learning leaders are able to ensure that
changes are having the intended impact on student learning.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 41

Figure 3. The Leadership from Learning Framework (Reeves, 2006)
Instructional Leadership
The need for principals to act as instructional leaders has become more common
globally (Hallinger, 2011; Rigby, 2014). Instructional leadership requires principals to go
beyond traditional responsibilities like student safety, establishing schedules, and enforcing
policies to promote evidence-based teaching practices so student learning is maximized (Heck
& Hallinger, 2014; Rigby, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016; Tan, 2012). This is important
because if principals do not act as instructional leaders, teacher autonomy may lead to situations
where professional discretion outweighs the delivery of a formal curriculum, creating a
disjointed experience for students as they move up through system (Rigby, 2014).
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) developed a conceptual framework of instructional
leadership that consists of three dimensions: (1) articulating a school mission focused on student
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 42

learning; (2) monitoring and developing instructional programs; and (3) developing a positive
climate for learning that has high expectations, develops capacity, and continually improves.
Hallinger expanded on this list in his work with Heck (2014) by stating that a principal acts as
an instructional leader when student achievement is their main objective and he or she resolves
instructional problems, observes instruction, provides faculty with feedback, and provides
sufficient resources. Principals act as instructional leaders when they focus on the instructional
environment by monitoring time spent on instruction, how frequently students are actively
learning, and the quantity and quality of extra help provided. Finally, principals act as
instructional leaders when they recruit quality teachers, organize coaching and professional
development, and model values that emphasize quality teaching and learning (Heck &
Hallinger, 2014). Other authors have added to the list of characteristics by stating that principals
act as instructional leaders when they serve as curriculum leaders, develop professional learning
communities, use externally and internally generated data to inform decisions, intellectually
stimulate faculty by exposing them to evidence-based practices, and supervise the teacher use of
instructional practices (Jenkins & Pfeifer, 2012; Louis et al., 2010; Osborne-Lampkin & Cohen-
Vogel, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016).
Instructional leadership requires principals to focus on both the “trees,” or specific
situations or classrooms within a school, as well the “forest,” which is made up of the
interrelated and mutually affected situations that make up the school as a whole (Shaked &
Schechter, 2016). Because of this, systems thinking enables instructional leaders by
emphasizing the interrelationships between components instead of viewing the components in
isolation (Kofman & Senge, 1993; Senge, 1997). Shaked and Schechter (2016) found that
principals perceived systems thinking as enhancing three areas of instructional leadership. The
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 43

first area is improving school curriculum. Systems thinking helps principals grasp the big
picture of curriculum components (curriculum, instruction, and assessment) as well as the
interrelationships between the curriculum and other issues. It also helps principals make
connections between different disciplines and different age levels. The second area is
developing school-based professional learning communities. Systems thinking establishes the
conceptual foundation and impetus for developing a learning community; additionally, it
increases a principal's willingness to consider a variety of opinion and perspectives. The last
area is interpreting performance data. Systems thinking helps because when a principal believes
that a single occurrence must have multiple causes, he or she requires multiple explanations.
This leads to wiser use of data, resulting in better data analysis and evidence-based decision-
making (Shaked & Schechter, 2016).
Transformational Leadership
Instructional leadership emphasizes improving the quality of instruction and student
learning within an individual school context (Hopkins 2003) while transformational leadership
focuses on cross-school improvement, addressing systemic tensions, and creating the conditions
that support, but are not directly related to, teaching and learning (Toh et al., 2014).
Transformational leadership focuses on encouraging followers to go beyond normal levels of
performance to make mission-driven changes (Bass, 1985) and to perform at higher levels than
previously (Burns, 1978; Sarros, Gray, & Densten, 2002). Transformational leaders seek to
redefine the purpose of school and inspire faculty to engage and commit to the moral purpose of
education (Burns, 1978; Marzano et al., 2005; Printy, et. al, 2009; Robinson, Lloyd & Rowe,
2008).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 44

Burns (1978) contrasted transformational leaders with transactional leaders, or those
who rely on relationships to advance goals that help both the leader and follower. He concluded
that transformational leadership was the better approach. Bass (1985) revised this concept by
stating that effective leaders use both transformational and transactional leadership. He
developed a model of transformational factors, including idealized influence, inspiration
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985), that help
individuals become leaders who people want to follow (Diaz-Saenz, 2011). Using this model,
leaders communicate long-term goals and build enthusiasm for the vision. They provide
intellectual stimulation by encouraging innovation and different approaches to solving
problems. They pay attention to the needs of their followers and provide appropriate support
(Bass, 1985). Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) identified specific actions
transformational leaders take in schools to influence teaching and learning: establishing shared
goals and vision, building a culture, establishing rigorous expectations and rewards, providing
intellectual stimulation, modeling expectations, and individualizing support.
Transformational leaders in schools have an indirect positive impact on the instructional
environment by establishing the conditions necessary for success and influencing followers
(Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008). Several studies have demonstrated that
transformational leadership also supports innovation diffusion (Bass, 1985; Chang, Hsiao, &
Tu, 2011; Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). Because transformational leaders focus on satisfying the
needs of their followers, they have more satisfied followers than other types of leaders (Bass &
Avolio, 1994). Additionally, transformational leaders are able to successfully implement
significant change because they promote distributed leadership (Diaz-Saenz, 2011).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 45

Both instructional leadership and transformational leadership approaches have in
common leaders who create a shared sense of purpose, develop a culture of high expectations
focused on improving teaching and learning, shape structures to reflect goals set for faculty and
students, and provide a myriad of experiences that intellectually stimulate and develop faculty.
Transformational leaders not only influence teaching and learning, but they also understand how
complex change is (Eyal & Kark, 2004). The approaches differ in the magnitude of change
(instructional leadership tends to focus on first-order changes while transformational leadership
tends to focus on second-order changes), the extent to which a principal utilizes a top-down
strategy (typical of instructional leadership) versus an empowerment strategy (typical of
transformational leadership), and the degree to which leadership is located in an individual
(more typical of instructional leadership) or is shared (more typical of transformational
leadership) (Hallinger, 2003).
Distributed Leadership

According to Kouzes and Posner (2012), a leader’s primary contribution to an
organization should be the acknowledgement of the good ideas, support for those ideas, and
willingness to challenge the status quo to adopt those ideas. Leaders are not often the creative
genius but instead borrow these ideas from others, packaging and communicating them in ways
that the group can understand (Conger as quoted in Bolman & Deal, 1994). Therefore,
principals must foster distributed leadership in order to identify and act upon ideas that come
from others. Additionally, the scope of responsibilities and tasks necessary to effectively
operate a school and improve conditions for teaching and learning is too great for any one
individual. A more effective and realistic approach is to develop a distributed leadership
structure that spreads leadership responsibilities across a team of individuals (Halverson,
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 46

Kelley, & Shaw, 2014; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2004; Waters & Grubb, 2005). To foster distributed leadership,
principals need to create conditions where leadership capacity is encouraged, nurtured, and
sustained in purposeful ways (Bush, 2013).
Definition of Distributed Leadership
Leadership can only be understood in relation to the shared meanings or culture found in
an organization (Morgan, 1986). This implies that "leadership is socially constructed and
culturally sensitive" (Harris, 2003, p. 314) and requires a collaborative effort where members of
the organization learn together and construct meaning collectively. This aligns with Elmore’s
(2006) view that distributed leadership explains how expertise and influence is spread
throughout a system, resulting in networks that can help a school function more effectively.
Because of this collaborative approach, distributed leadership does not have a clear divide
between leaders and followers nor is there the potential for just one person to be the leader
(Harris 2003). Distributed leadership is not restricted to one structure or hierarchy. Instead, it is
comprised of a network of employees who share the vision of the school and are actively
involved in the decision making (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005).
In schools, the interactions of teacher leaders and principals often define leadership
functions (Spillane, 2005). This broad-based involvement in the leadership function of a school
is typically referred to as teacher leadership (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011;
Spillane, 2005; Spillane 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Although there are competing
definitions of teacher leadership, (e.g., Harris, 2003; Katzenmeyer & Moller 2009; Lambert
1988; Wasley 1991), one similarity is that they all focus on leadership from within the level of
the classroom (Harris 2003). Lambert (1988) identifies two critical dimensions: breadth, or the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 47

involvement of many people, and skillfulness, or an understanding of leadership dispositions,
knowledge, and skills. Katzenmeyer and Moller (2009) specify three dimensions: (1) leadership
of students or other teachers, (2) leadership of operational tasks, and (3) leadership through
decision making or partnerships. Harris (2003) suggests four dimensions: (1) translating
principles of improvement into classroom practice, (2) focusing on participative leadership to
ensure all teachers have a sense of ownership towards the change, (3) mediating change, and (4)
forging close relationships with teachers to enhance mutual learning. Although these
dimensions differ according to the author(s), the common focus is the empowerment and agency
of teachers to help lead change.
Importance of Distributed Leadership
Bush (2013) considered distributed leadership the preferred leadership model in the 21st
century. This is partly due to the fact that it helps ease the strain on principals and other senior
administrators who are overloaded (Bush, 2013; Hartley, 2010). It is also due to the power in
combining all the expertise available in a school (Bush, 2013). Elmore (2006) expanded on this
by stating that as teachers take school improvement seriously, they develop a greater level of
expertise than their supervisors. Networks of influence develop around these teachers and
leadership becomes less defined by position and more defined by expertise. This results in
principals managing less directly and more indirectly through the networks that have developed
(Elmore, 2006). Frost (2008) identified distributed leadership as a key factor in supporting
innovation in schools.
Precepts of Distributed Leadership
There is no singular outline of what constitutes distributed leadership. Elmore (2006)
outlines several principles to provide guidance on how leadership can be made more productive.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 48

These include honoring the principle of reciprocity, treating leadership as a human investment
enterprise, investing in social capital around practices of improvement, building a strategic
foundation, and locating the learning as close as possible to the work (Elmore 2006). Heck and
Hallinger (2014) identified three additional aspects. The first is a shared focus on instruction
that will improve student learning. In addition to having student achievement as the top priority,
this includes identifying and resolving instructional problems, ensuring effective two-way
communication exists, and regularly providing feedback to teachers regarding observed
instruction. The second aspect is collaborative decision-making focused on academic
improvement that includes principals and teachers working together to develop school
improvement plans and sharing leadership roles. The third aspect is shared evaluation of the
school's academic development by establishing an effective, ongoing system for evaluation
progress towards school improvement goals (Heck & Hallinger, 2014).
Halverson, Kelly, and Shaw (2014) identified five additional domains. The first is a
focus on learning that includes assessing the degree to which leaders are seen as instructional
leaders as well as how leaders build teacher understanding about patterns and problems
associated with instruction and student learning. The second domain focuses on the monitoring
of teaching and learning and includes the degree to which leaders observe teaching practices
and collect data on processes and learning results as well as how leaders help teachers do the
same. The third domain focuses on building a professional community, including factors like
professional development, curriculum design, and school improvement. The fourth domain
focuses on acquiring and allocating resources, including both the accessing of new resources
and the allotment of existing resources to meet new needs. The final domain focuses on
maintaining a safe and effective learning environment, which includes tasks such as
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 49

communication of expectations, creating clean and safe environments for learning, and helping
students who struggle to feel safe (Halverson, Kelly, & Shaw, 2014).
How Principals Support Distributed Leadership
Distributed leadership does not reduce the role of the principal. Rather, the principal is
the individual who is accountable for the overall school improvement that occurs as a result of
the shared vision, collaboration and decision making developed through distributed leadership
(Harris, 2008). Principals focused on improvement do not just give more influence to those with
expertise. Instead, they foster leadership by zealously creating a common body of knowledge
and skills needed to develop those who are embracing leadership opportunities (Elmore, 2006;
Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Principals need to identify and develop potential leaders (Waters &
Grubb, 2005) while making sure that the resultant opportunities are truly leadership ones and
not just a way of encouraging teachers to do more work that is managerial in nature (Fitzgerald
& Gunter, 2006; Kouzes & Posner, 2012). To do this, principals should strive to create a culture
where the culture defines and creates more leaders (Schein, 2010).
Morillo-Shone (2014) identified five mindsets that principals should cultivate to
effectively nurture this type of culture. The first is a principle-centered mindset that allows
principles like fairness, equity, integrity, and trust, to become habits. The second is an adding-
value, or building capacity, mindset that deliberately sets up others for success by coaching,
giving feedback, and engaging in reflective inquiry and courageous conversations. Third is a
personal and professional growth mindset where the principal models that learning is a lifelong
process through constant self-development. Fourth is a culture-building, or pay it forward,
mindset specifically focused on fostering the type of culture the principal is trying to build (e.g.,
a culture of continuous learning, a culture of high expectations, a culture of inquiry, a culture of
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 50

personal responsibility) by modeling behaviors and actions that will inspire the same dedication
in potential leaders around them. The final is a transformative, or sustainable change, mindset
where leaders focus on developing “individual consideration, intellectual stimulation,
inspirational motivation and idealized influence" (Morillo-Shone, 2014, p 35).
Summary of Literature Reviewed
To ensure that innovation does not just stay in isolated practices, there must be strong
leadership to facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion (Judd, 2017). Principals are challenged
with the complex task of fostering and supporting innovation diffusion. Although many studies
have sought to understand aspects of principal leadership (e.g., Bush & Glover, 2014; Day,
Leithwood, & Sammons, 2008; Earley & Evans, 2003: Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Lewis &
Murphy, 2008; Waters & Grubb, 2005) and many studies have focused on diffusion or scaling
of innovation (e.g., Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2011; Christensen, Johnson, & Horn,
2008; Glazer & Peurach, 2013; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Toh et al., 2014), few
have been conducted to examine the intersection of the two. This study was conducted to
understand this intersection by answering the question: What leadership strategies have helped
principals successfully lead innovation diffusion across established, high-performing schools?
The theories and studies in this chapter supported the notion that to effectively diffuse
innovation across a school, there are several forms of leadership that a school leader needs to
apply. Because innovation means a move away from the status quo to a completely new or
novel way of working, behaving, organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about
improvement (Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015), school leaders need to utilize change
leadership principles. Principles include understanding and applying change theory, utilizing
systems thinking, demonstrating leadership agility, matching leadership actions to type of
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 51

change, helping faculty through transition, and embracing paradox. Because effectively leading
changes does not guarantee the changes will be innovative, school leaders need to apply
principles associated with leading innovation diffusion. This includes understanding how and
why innovations diffuse, embracing factors that enable and addressing barriers that hinder
innovation diffusion, and using strategies to manage transitions, expand thinking, and assess
and monitor progress. Because effectively leading change and innovation diffusion does not
guarantee improved teaching and learning, school leaders need to act as learning leaders. To act
as a learning leader, principals need to focus on both the antecedents of excellence as well as
achievement of results, utilize instructional leadership strategies, and employ transformational
leadership strategies. Finally, because the scope of responsibilities and tasks necessary to
successfully accomplish the above is too great for any one individual, school leaders need to
foster distributed leadership. Distributed leadership is fostered when principals identify and
develop potential leaders, create a common body of knowledge and skills in those embracing
leadership opportunities, and develop a culture that defines and creates more leaders.
This chapter reviewed literature connected to the proposed conceptual
framework. Areas addressed included change leadership, innovation diffusion leadership,
learning leadership, and distributed leadership. The next chapter will overview the methodology
used to conduct this study.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 52

CHAPTER THREE:
METHODS
Introduction and Overview

The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership strategies have helped
principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-performing school. The
study was intended to help principals understand how they can facilitate and sustain innovation
diffusion in their own school context.
The study was guided by the following research question: What leadership strategies
have helped principals successfully lead innovation diffusion across established, high-
performing schools? In order to answer this question, the concepts of change leadership,
innovation diffusion leadership, learning leadership, and distributed leadership were utilized to
guide qualitative interviews of principals and experts who successfully diffused or help diffuse
an innovation across an established, high-performing school. This chapter addresses the
research design of the study by presenting the rationale for the research design as well as the
methodology for sampling, data collection, and data analysis..
Procedure

Qualitative researchers strive to understand how people interpret experiences and make
meaning of the world. The most common type of qualitative research is interpretive, which uses
a constructivist approach to develop understanding of a phenomenon. Qualitative researchers
act as the primary instrument for both data collection and analysis. They use a study design that
is flexible, emergent, and focuses on a small, purposeful sample. Using inductive processes to
build a theory based on data gathered, qualitative findings are comprehensive and richly
descriptive, but are seldom generalizable to a different context (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 53

Qualitative methods range from less to more structured approaches and include interviews,
observations, and document analysis (Maxwell, 2013).
Qualitative interviewing using a less structured approach allowed the researcher to ask
questions that may not be uniform and ask participants to give deep responses. This allowed the
researcher to gain insights that cannot be gained through surveys or observations alone (Weiss,
1994). Answers to the interview provided information about items that were not observable,
including feelings, thoughts, and meaning that has been attached to experiences (Patton, 2002).
Access/Entry. Following successful completion of the preliminary defense and
Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, it was determined that this study qualified as exempt
review. As such, consent forms were not required and were therefore not obtained. The
researcher was mindful to adhere to ethical practices so participants were protected from harm
and were ensured of their right to privacy (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At the beginning of each
interview, the researcher reiterated the purpose of the study, gave assurances to privacy, and
asked for permission to record the interview. All participants agreed to being recorded.
Sampling Rationale and Participants
Because the focus of this study was intended to help principals understand how they can
facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion in an established, high-performing school, a random
sample was not used. Instead, the researcher used purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdale,
2016), targeting participants because they have worked in or with established, high-performing
schools. Although the researcher recognized that this approach limited the generalizability of
the findings, she felt this approach had the advantage of focusing on strategies that fit the
context being studied instead of “abstract, context-free categories” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 79).
Because the researcher was travelling to conduct most of the interviews, time and location were
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 54

important. Therefore, a convenience sample (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016) was used.
To identify experts, the researcher contacted individuals who are experts in change
leadership and have helped schools or school districts diffuse an innovative high-impact
practice across a system. Six experts agreed to be interviewed. To identify principals, the
researcher asked the experts to identify individuals she should approach. Principals needed to
meet the following criteria: (1) the school in which they were working was already established
and had a record of being high-performing (as opposed to a startup school or a school in crisis);
(2) the innovation was introduced to the school during the tenure of the principal; (3) the
innovation required second-order or adaptive change; and (4) the innovation had been diffused
across the majority of the school (as opposed to being present in pockets of the school. Three
individuals currently in the role of principal agreed to be interviewed. To adhere to the criteria
outlined previously, the researcher interviewed three additional individuals who were not in
formal principal roles but were either in roles that were equivalent (e.g., head of a small school
that did not have principals) or had recently been a principal. For the purpose of this study, this
group of respondents (sitting principals plus those who were recently principals) was called
practitioners.
In total, twelve interviews were conduct: six expert and six practitioners. All participants
were located outside of Innovative International School; ten were in the United States and two
were international. Table 3 overviews the practitioners and Table 4 overviews the experts.
Names of practitioners have been replaced by “P#” and names of experts have been replaced by
“E#” to protect the identities of individuals.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 55

Table 3. Overview of Practitioners Interviewed
Participant Participant
Description
School Description Innovation Description
or Area of Expertise
P1 Male, principal k-6 public school,
US
Project-based learning
P2 Female, principal 9-12 high school,
public, US
STEM
P3 Female, head of
school, former
principal
k-12 private school,
US
Developmental
Groupings; Design
Thinking
P4 Male, head of school,
former principal
k-12 private school,
international
Professional Learning
Communities;
Readers/Writers
Workshop
P5 Male, head of school,
former principal
9-12 high school,
public, US
Professional Learning
Communities
P6 Female, principal Primary school,
public, international
Learning Progressions

Table 4. Overview of Experts Interviewed
Expert Expert Description
E1 Female, lead consultant with an education design company
E2 Male, educational researcher, author, CEO of a company that helps improve
results through new ways of learning, assessment, feedback, and reflection
E3 Male, author, retired CEO and current senior advisor of a national
organization dedicated to Project Based Learning
E4 Male, author, CEO of a professional learning community for education
leaders committed to 21
st
century education
E5 Male, author, CEO of education consulting firm that advocates for
innovations in learning
E6 Female, president and CEO of consulting firm dedicated to advancing
effective uses of technology in education
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 56

Interview Methodology
Interview Protocol
A standardized, open-ended interview with carefully worded questions (Patton, 2002)
was used in a semi-structured interview protocol (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using this method
allowed the researcher to minimize variations between interviews, ensured the interview was
highly focused so interviewee time was used efficiently, and helped with analysis by ensuring
responses were easy to find and compare. These advantages outweighed the disadvantages of
this approach, which included the researcher not being able to pursue topics that were not
anticipated with the questions that were developed (Patton, 2002).
The researcher developed questions that drew on concepts associated with the
conceptual framework presented in Chapter One: leading change, leading innovation diffusion,
acting as a learning leader, and fostering distributed leadership. During the interviews, the
researcher asked additional elaboration and probing questions when answers did not provide
detail to ensure the level of desired response was elicited (Patton, 2002). The complete
interview protocols can be found in Appendix A (practitioners) and Appendix B (experts).
Data Collection Approach
The researcher made several choices on how to capture interview data. Knowing that
responses could be influenced by the chosen location (Weiss, 1994) participants were allowed
to choose the location. The researcher conducted eight of the interviews in person; the
remaining four interviews were conducted via Skype. The invitation to the interview suggested
the time necessary would be approximately 60 minutes, which is in alignment with Weiss’
guideline of having 30 minutes as a minimum (1994). Nine of the interviews took less than an
hour, with the shortest being 35 minutes, and three took over an hour, with the longest being 70
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 57

minutes. Participants were able to select a time convenient for them to ensure they did not
experience a negative impact. In addition to asking permission to record the interview using
VoiceRecord on an iPhone, the researcher took notes by hand using an interview note-taking
template. Audio files were uploaded into SpeechMatics for transcription. The researcher hired a
transcriber to manually make corrections to the transcription to ensure accuracy.
Data Analysis Strategy

Two types of analysis were considered for this study: categorizing strategies and
connecting strategies (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher focused on coding which is the primary
categorizing strategy (Maxwell, 2013). Coding is the process of analyzing and making meaning
from qualitative data (Merriam and Tisdale, 2016).
The researcher started with a deductive approach to coding by using a priori codes based
on relevant theories (Harding, 2013). The goal was to look for data that answered the research
questions with the literature and theories in mind. In the first round, the researcher coded for the
broad theories. During the second pass, the researcher coded identified passages for the
components of each identified theory. Once that coding process was complete, the data was
analyzed for patterns in order to answer the research questions. Specific data identified was
reported in Chapter Four.
The researcher then transitioned to an inductive process by identifying themes that
emerged using grounded theory. This process utilized open, axial, and selective codes to
analyze the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To begin, the researcher used open coding by
reading through new copies of the transcripts and identifying categories. This transitioned into
axial coding, which is the process of grouping and relating the categories together. Finally, the
researcher used selective coding to focus the identified themes.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 58

The limitation of focusing on categorizing through coding is that the original “set of
contextual relationships” found in the full interview transcript is replaced with “notes with a
different, categorical structure” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 112). The researcher recognized that this
may have resulted in “analytic blinders” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 112). This could have been offset
by utilizing a connecting strategy like a narrative analysis that would have sought to understand
the data in context by identifying relationships among the different parts within a transcript
(Maxwell, 2013). The researcher did not add this approach because she believed that it was
more important for her to make connections with the literature reviewed and emergent themes
than to understand the relationship between elements of an individual transcript.
Credibility and Trustworthiness of Data
Trustworthiness was determined through ensuring validity and reliability. Content
validity focused on if the instrument measured what it is meant to measure (Creswell, 2014).
During the development of the instrument, each question was linked to a research question.
Then, in an effort to further increase the validity, the interview guide was reviewed and
critiqued by the researcher’s dissertation committee members to ensure the questions align to
the concepts outlined in the conceptual framework. Additionally, a pilot interview was
performed to ensure the questions generated responses connected to the concepts being
investigated.
In a qualitative study, a researcher’s background, experiences, values, and personal
demographics influence how data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted (Creswell, 2014). Ways
to increase credibility and trustworthiness include being explicit about researcher bias, including
information that does not fit the researcher’s existing conceptual framework (Maxwell, 2013),
and examining multiple sources of data prior to finalizing a conclusion (Creswell, 2014). The
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 59

researcher of this study was employed at Innovative International School. She was in a senior
administrator role and had been with the school for 19 years. In this role, she was responsible
for supervising the three school principals (elementary, middle, high) as well as the K-12
functions associated with learning (e.g., curriculum, professional learning). She was an
American Caucasian female in her late 40’s. She recognized that her bias is toward the
importance of learning and distributed leadership, believing that principals are most effective
when they act in these capacities. To offset this bias, the researcher asked open-ended questions
to allow the interviewee to “take whatever direction and use whatever worlds they want to
express what they have to say” (Patton, 2992, p. 354). Additionally, the researcher utilized a
semi-structured interview protocol (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) to ensure that the same question
set was asked everyone.
Ethics
According to Glesne (2011), ethical considerations are integrated into every interaction
with research participants and resultant data. The researcher took two steps to ensure ethicality.
First, the researcher ensured that participants knew that participation was voluntary, that it
would not negatively affect their well-being, and that they could ask to stop participation at any
time (Glesne, 2011). Second, participants were guaranteed the right to privacy with assurances
that their confidences would be protected and their anonymity would be preserved (Glesne,
2011). To achieve this, the researcher will use pseudonyms for all participants.
This chapter described the methodology in how data was collected and analyzed through
qualitative interviews. The next chapter will share findings that emerged from the qualitative
analysis.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 60

CHAPTER FOUR:

FINDINGS

To ensure that innovative high-impact practices do not stay in isolated classrooms,
principals are challenged with the complex task of fostering innovation diffusion. While there are
many studies that have sought to understand aspects of principal leadership and many that have
focused on diffusion or scaling of innovation, limited research has been conducted to examine
the intersection of the two. The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership
strategies have helped principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-
performing school. The study investigated the perceptions of both practitioners from k-12
schools that were known for the diffusing of an innovation across its system as well as experts in
change leadership who have helped schools or school districts diffuse an innovation across a
system. The first three chapters of this study provided an introduction to the problem of practice,
a comprehensive literature review into change leadership, innovation diffusion leadership,
learning leadership, and distributed leadership, and a description of the methodology used to
collect and analyze data through qualitative interviews. This chapter will share findings that
emerged from the qualitative interviews.
Overview of Analysis
The research question asked was What leadership strategies have helped principals lead
innovation diffusion across established, high-performing schools? This question was posed to
uncover what specific strategies successful principals have used to diffuse innovation across
their schools.
School improvement requires the creation of lasting, meaningful changes that positively
impact student learning instead of quick-fix solutions that lead to temporary gains in
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 61

achievement scores (Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003). The success or failure of a reform is highly
dependent on the quality of the principal’s leadership (Day, Leighwood, & Sammons 2008).
Just as principals can have a positive impact, they can also have a marginal or negative impact
on student learning (Waters & Grubb, 2005). Successful school reform requires a principal who
is skilled (Earley & Evans, 2013).
Three of the experts interviewed made comments that directly align with this view. E1
believed that the principal is a “linchpin,” meaning that if the principal is not on board,
innovation diffusion is not going to succeed. E4 believed that the principal plays a key role and
that innovations are not going to happen without the principal embracing the change. E5 stated
that he could not think of any example in any of the hundreds of great schools that he has been at
where the principal did not play a very active role in spurring or supporting the spread of the
innovation.
While they believed the principal was vital to innovation diffusion, three of the experts
noted that this was only true if the principal acted as an instructional leader. E2 stated that there
are several of people who occupy the principal's chair who are not instructional leaders. In these
cases, the principal needs to acknowledge that they are not this type of leader and empower those
who are instructional leaders. E3 recognized that in certain school settings, the principal’s main
role is that of politician, so they need to empower those who act as instructional leaders. E5
agreed with this viewing, stating that while principals can be in the role of driving an innovation,
they can also foster innovation diffusion by inviting others who are instructional leaders to lead.
Interestingly, none of the practitioners expressed the view that the success or failure of
innovation diffusion was highly dependent on their general role as principal. Instead they all
focused on specific strategies they have used to diffuse innovations across their schools.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 62

When asked about specific strategies principals use to successfully lead innovation
diffusion, respondents addressed during their interviews all four categories found in the
proposed conceptual framework introduced in Chapter One and detailed in Chapter Two:
change leadership, innovation diffusion leadership, learning leadership, and distributed
leadership. In addition, four additional leadership strategies emerged from the interviews. Three
of these strategies were related to the leadership literature reviewed but had not been included
by the researcher in the proposed conceptual framework: demonstrating characteristics
associated with effective leadership, establish structures for management tasks, and recruiting
followers. One strategy was not identified during the literature reviewed: focusing on meeting
structures.
Change Leadership Strategies
With new technologies, competition, and opportunities emerging regularly, change is
not only inevitable, it is accelerating (Fullan, 2004a; Joiner & Josephs, 2006). Significant
change demands strong leadership (Kotter, 2012). Change leadership is the ability to influence
and motivate others (Higgs & Rowland, 2000) and “implies seeing the future and being able to
lead people to co-create it” (Anderson & Anderson, 2010, p 4). Change leadership requires
leaders to look past technical aspects of a new practice to the adaptive work that needs to take
place (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009).
School improvement is a specific type of change upon which school leaders focus.
School improvement leadership requires balancing competing change initiatives against the
developmental needs and desires of faculty (Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö 2016), resulting in
lasting, meaningful changes that positively impact student learning (Stoll, Fink & Earl 2003).
According to the literature reviewed previously, to effectively lead change leaders need
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 63

to: apply change theory; utilize systems thinking; demonstrate the ability to be agile, anticipate
change and take action in rapidly evolving conditions; match their leadership actions to the type
of change taking place; understand the difference between transition and change so they can
help faculty through the process of accepting and adjusting to change (known as transitioning);
and embrace paradox that uses ‘both-and’ thinking to balance interdependent opposites
(Bridges & Bridges, 2017; Fullan, 2004a; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan, 2004c; Harris & Chrispeels,
2006; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Joiner & Josephs, 2006;
Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2014;
Smith & Lewis, 2011; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway, 1999; Waters & Grubb,
2005; Watson, 2013). Four of these aspects of change leadership were specifically during the
interviews: applying change theory, utilizing systems thinking, matching leadership actions to
the type of change, and helping followers transition through change. The two aspects that were
not supported through the interviews included the ability to be agile and embracing paradox.
Apply Change Theory
Understanding why and how change happens is an important first step when leading
change (Fullan, 2004a; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Schroeder-
Saulnier, 2014). Lewin (1951) and Kotter (1995; 2014) described change as going through
stages that require the status quo to be confronted, moving to a new status quo, and then
sustaining the new status quo. Multiple respondents addressed three stages found in Kotter’s
most recent framework of change (2014): creating a sense of urgency, forming a change vision
and strategic initiatives, and generating (and celebrating) short-term wins. Singular respondents
addressed two additional stages: building guiding coalition and enabling action by removing
barriers. The remaining three stages were not referenced in the interviews.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 64

Create a sense of urgency. Change begins when the status quo is confronted. One way
to do this is to increase driving forces that will direct behavior in a new direction (Lewin, 1951).
Leaders can create a sense of urgency by describing an opportunity that will appeal to
stakeholders’ heads and hearts (Kotter International, 2017). One strategy practitioners identified
was focusing on a moral imperative. P1 shared that the reason he went into education was to
“create social change and advocate for those who are underserved” and feels that a primary role
he plays is instilling this moral purpose in his staff. He stated that his staff has “stayed hungry”
because they want to ensure every student is “ready for the world.” P2 wanted to positively
impact the workforce pipeline as well as find solutions to “grand challenges” that will benefit
the common good. P6 focused on improved outcomes for young people regardless of the school
in which she worked. She specifically focused on conditions that will “enable people to
flourish.” P3 stated that it is a moral imperative for teachers to put their students first and
ensure every student is learning.
A strategy experts shared was using data to identify areas of urgency. E1 stated that
schools should create urgency based on data regarding what the community needs. In her
experience, most of the time a need emerged from perceptual data that was backed by
achievement data. This need may not be because a school was failing but instead be because a
group of stakeholders felt outcomes were not meeting a goal. To her, the key to any innovation
is to realize where there is perceived failure. E1 explained that it does not matter how many
benchmarks a school is hitting, every school has a place where they are not doing well. For
high-performing schools, the challenge is that if the focus is on improving by a small margin,
that small margin is often the hardest shift to make.
E2 mentioned that “pain points’ usually come from two places: insufficient achievement
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 65

with a subset of students or insufficient engagement with faculty or other stakeholders. For
example, a school can have strong student learning results but have disengaged parents who are
afraid their children are not competitive with students in other schools. Conversely, you could
have satisfied parents because the experience at school is similar to the ones they had but
students are not achieving high levels of learning.
A third strategy shared was to focus on the desired outcomes for the system. E4
discussed how schools can identify what student outcomes they want for the system in the form
of a “portrait of a graduate.” The process of developing this portrait should include all
stakeholders – faculty, students, and parents. Ensuring that students achieve these outcomes
then becomes a driving force for selecting innovations that will make a difference, providing the
why for changes to take place.
A fourth strategy, also shared by E4, was using student stories to compel change. He
told the story of a principal who had an exchange student who came by to thank him for letting
her be at the school for the year. The principal took the opportunity to ask her questions about
her experience in his school versus her experience in her home country. She responded that in
her home country, school made her think, solve problems, and applying her knowledge. In
contrast, in the principal’s school she was asked to pick out of multiple-choice answers and was
not required to think or solve problems. She found his school very uninteresting and
unchallenging. The principal had taped this conversation and shared it with the faculty. Hearing
this perspective from a student created a sense of urgency for the faculty.
Build a guiding coalition. A coalition of effective people that comes from within the
ranks of an organization is necessary to guide change efforts, coordinate resources, and
communicate activities. These should be engaged individuals from across the organization that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 66

can help institute the attitudes and practices that are necessary to start, drive, and sustain a
change (Kotter International, 2017).
E4 was the only respondent to mention the importance of building a guiding coalition.
He discussed this in relation a “concentric circle model of leadership” that he constructed. The
point of the concentric circles is that a leader would initially build understanding and gain
experience in a change initiative. She or he would then circle back to similar content and
experience with a more expanded group (a guiding coalition). Within that second iteration there
would be some people who already have a deeper level of expertise to be able to “piggyback”
with those who are gaining the new expertise. The next circle would then repeat content and
experience with a larger group – perhaps teacher leaders – again providing people in the room
with a deeper level of expertise. Circles of experience would continue until everyone involved
would have been engaged. Throughout this process, the original expanded group would act as a
guiding coalition by helping to start, drive, and sustain the change taking place.
Form a change vision and strategic initiatives. The more an organization can develop
a change vision for their work and focus specific actions to make that vision a reality, the better
the change effort will go (Kotter, 2014). Vision is a picture of a future state with commentary,
either implicit or explicit, on why an organization should strive to create that state. Visions can
help clarify the general direction for change, motivate people to take action in the right
direction, and coordinate the actions of different people (Kotter, 1995; 2012). When a vision is
clear, an organization can better focus on specific initiatives to make that vision a reality.
Strategic initiatives, which are targeted, coordinated activities that will help to make a vision a
reality, need to be planned, prioritized, and resourced (Kotter International, 2017). Principals
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 67

need to communicate long-term goals and build enthusiasm for a shared vision (Bass, 1985;
Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Form a change vision. P2 stated that having a clear vision at school is vital so she can
“walk the talk.” She recognized that the vision acts as a filter, allowing her to say no to initiatives
that might distract her school from achieving the vision. P3 recognized that vision is something
that college preparatory schools often struggle with by “being all things to all people.” This can
become frustrating to faculty, so the principal needs to drive a process that narrows the scope of
the vision, allowing the organization to be really clear about where they are going and why they
are going there. P4 stated that it is his primary role to help people understand the vision for the
school and why the innovation is important. P5 recognized the need to create a vision that
explains why change is happening. P6 felt that her key role was to ask the questions that set the
shared vision and then to act as the guardian of the vision by ensuring there is congruence and
alignment. She stated that having this shared vision, congruence, and alignment allowed her
school to deal with challenges and allowed them to gain momentum towards their goals. She
cautioned that leaders need to be courageous about the vision and goals, but they also need to be
realistic, developing a vision and goals they think they can achieve.
Many of the experts also referenced the importance of vision. According to E4, schools
need to agree to a vision that describes what they are trying to achieve; this should be in the form
of a portrait of a graduate. Having a clear portrait of a graduate is important because many
schools often rush to the “how” (actions) without ever identifying what the “what” is (outcomes
for students). Having a clear “what” will allow schools to better select innovations to diffuse and
will help those innovations to have “staying power” because they connect to what is core to the
school. E5 believed that creating shared vision was an important strategy for principals to take.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 68

E6 stated that a principal needs to set the vision in order to establish the direction the school will
go. This then allows staff to understand that while time will be given to explore what the vision
means and to make sense of it in the classroom context, it is not a choice of whether to move
towards the vision. E6 recognized that creating a shared vision takes time and that not everyone
will initially be on board with the direction established by the vision. She recommended having
staff collectively talk about the vision and reflect on how their personal pedagogical viewpoints
related to the vision. She also recommended engaging faculty in research or a book study related
to the vision to help them see why the vision is important and powerful. After providing
opportunities to help teachers understand the vision, principals need to make it clear that while
time will be given to “get on board” there is no choice about whether to buy-in to the vision.
Plan strategic initiatives. P1 believed that a vision would not happen without a plan that
includes structures, particularly ones that are collaborative in nature. P4 stated that principals
must change processes in order to change behaviors and obtain different results. By being
deliberate about the outcome (vision), principals can identify what processes need to change and
establish strategic initiatives that will inspire people, enable people, and empower people. P5
stated that building “coherence and clarity” around a vision is one of the most important
strategies he employs as a principal. He went on to say that he does not expect all of his staff to
agree with him, but he does expect them to take the actions that are identified as necessary to
achieving the vision. P5 also discussed how his plan is very simple and transparent, with the
same initiatives for the past eight years. This has been very intentional because the initiatives
that have been identified (e.g., collaborative formative assessments, student engaged learning)
are ones that have remained pivotal over time, with the actions to achieve each initiative having
evolved.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 69

Experts also referred to the importance of identifying strategic initiatives. E2 cautioned
that principals should remember the “rule of six” which states that one cannot monitor more
than six items at one time. Therefore, a school should have no more than six strategic initiatives.
E3 stated that the initiatives identified are dependent on the nature of the staff within the school.
For example, in schools that already exist, the initiatives would address a variety of goals that
help move a school towards its vision by addressing gaps or problems. In contrast, in a start-up
school initiatives could more directly address a vision because staff and the community are
often choosing to come to the school because of its vision. E5 also recognized that the selection
of strategic initiatives is dependent on the set of challenges being faced by the school and are
influenced by whether the school was a start-up or already existing. E5 stated that strategic
initiatives should only be planned in three year chunks because after three years, the vision
should be reviewed and revised to remain relevant. He also believed that many strategic
initiatives can be accomplished within this three year time frame.
Four experts discussed the importance of action planning. E1 used the analogy of phones
to distinguish between strategic initiatives and action plans. In her view, purchasing a new
phone is like a strategic initiative because there is new hardware and a need to develop
understanding of how the device works. Action planning is like the system updates that come
regularly. These system updates are iterations of essentially the original program with
resolutions to problems or enhancements to features. These happen frequently and often do not
require significant learning on the part of the user. E1 also talked about the importance of
having actions be “bite sized” and cautioned against changing a whole school all at once. E2
stated the importance of trying out various actions related to strategic initiatives before
finalizing which ones would be instituted. He explained that principals will gain credibility
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 70

when they set up conditions that allow for alternate actions to be tested to reveal advantages and
disadvantages of each approach. He believed this helped to create a culture of risk-taking
because the leader is public about mistakes that are made and actions that are abandoned. E5
emphasized the importance of working in phases. For example, staff could choose between a
“slow lane” or “fast lane” and would be asked to complete actions based on the lane in which
they were. E6 discussed the importance of a tactical plan that puts “all the ducks in the order
about the direction you have to go and the things you have to do.”
Enable action by removing barriers. By removing barriers, principals can provide
freedom for staff to work across boundaries. Barriers include both inefficient processes and
hierarchies (Kotter International, 2017). Principals need to be willing to remove any barriers that
slow or stop strategically important activity (Kotter, 2014).
P5 shared that he never uses the word barrier, but instead speaks about “speed bumps”
because nothing should actually be a barrier if it is “the right work for kids.” Focusing on speed
bumps allowed P5 to slow down and strategize so his school could find a way to address the
issue instead of allowing it to stop progress. P6 shared this view. She viewed barriers as
opportunities to come together to solve a problem.
Other practitioners shared specific barriers they have had to address. P1 stated that he
needed to learn to “not afraid of change, not be afraid of disrupting the norm” but instead to be
straight with people in terms of what is or is not working. He discussed the need to “just put
everything on the table” and gave an example of how he did this by re-examining how early
release days were spent, moving staff from spending time on planning to time spending time on
collaboratively examining and acting on data. P4 expressed a similar view, stating that successful
principals cannot be timid but instead need to be willing to “put things on the line and make the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 71

hard decisions and lead with some courage.” P2 cited “tradition creep” as a barrier she often has
to address. This occurs when expectations from the district or parents push for a return to the
status quo. To address this, she says true to her vision and says no to requests that are not in
support of the direction her school is headed. P2 also spoke about challenges from others in her
district as a barrier she needs to address. These tend to be colleagues who are in traditional
schools and are making assumptions about what is and is not working in her school. She does not
expend energy trying to argue with these people; instead her strategy is to listen with a smile and
then move on with her own work.
Three of the experts described barriers they have seen addressed. E4 and E6 both
described the lack of prioritization, which leads to initiative fatigue, as a barrier. To address this,
E4 stated that principals need to prioritize which changes are more important than others and
what innovations need to be stopped. Once the priorities are clear, principals need to develop
action plans that appropriately pace the changes to take place. E6 agreed with E4 and added that
she also sees a problem with initiatives that are not aligned. She argued that if principals can help
faculty see the connection between initiatives, and how they all fit together, faculty will not feel
as high of a level of initiative fatigue.
E5 discussed how funding is often allocated as a barrier to change. He stated that
innovations often require new structures that in turn require new ways to fund schools because
some students will need a greater level of support. E5 spoke about weighted and portable
funding. Weighted funding meant that schools should receive funding relevant to the challenge
that they face, so a high poverty school would receive more funding than a low poverty school.
Portable means that money should follow students to the best opportunity for those students.
Sometimes that might be in a school but at other times that might be an online course or an
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 72

opportunity in the community. E5 also spoke about facilities as a barrier. He stated that although
there are great schools in horrid conditions, the right facilities can enhance learning instead of
distract from it. Principals can experiment with taking out a couple of walls or putting in a
classroom that can act as a lab site for other teachers in the school.
Generate (and celebrate) short-term wins. Wins allow a principal to track progress and
energize their faculty, helping to drive change. Principals need to find ways to collect and
communicate these wins. Having data on wins validates a change effort in quantifiable and
qualifiable terms (Kotter International, 2017). This has psychological impact by giving
credibility to the change underway (Kotter, 2014).
E1 shared the importance of building assessment maps that allow a school to identify
benchmarks that can be met and celebrated. E6 went into more detail about the need to backward
plan from long-term goals to identify intermediate and direct outcomes. She gave a very specific
example of how a school district with thirty buildings is focused on critical thinking as their
long-term goal. Through backwards planning, the district identified intermediate outcomes that
included the depth of understanding by teachers of what the instructional strategies are for
critical thinking as well as direct outcomes that included professional development opportunities
for faculty to learn about directly teaching critical thinking. The district was able to recognize
and celebrate the direct and intermediate goals as indicators of progress towards the long-term
goal.
Utilize Systems Thinking
To help innovations diffuse beyond pockets of implementation, systems thinking is
needed (Harris & Chrispeels, 2006; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan, 2004c; Shaked & Schechter, 2014).
Systems thinking requires one to look past separate components to see the whole while
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 73

simultaneously viewing each individual component in relation to the whole (Cabrera & Cabrera,
2015; Kofman & Senge, 1993; Shaked & Schechter, 2016; Senge, 1997). Systems leaders
consider the whole system because they recognize that context matters and that, in order to
bring about systemic change, they have a role in helping the context evolve (Fullan, 2004c).
Multiple respondents referred to systems thinking during their interviews. P2 stated that
using a systems approach instead of focusing on individual pieces is what made the difference
in her school. E2 asserted that systems thinking is most effective when it is focused on “closing
the gaping wound” by showing how a strategy used in one part of the system can benefit
another part of the system. E3 noted that systems thinking is often about being prepared to
change structures to support whatever change is taking place. He noted that these structural
changes are often not identified until after the innovation has begun to diffuse. For example, he
shared that it is not uncommon for schools to have to evolve their grading systems as a project-
based learning approach becomes commonly used in multiple classrooms.
Conduct school visits. Systems leadership requires a school leader to embrace wider
system roles, focusing on the success of other schools and not just their own (Hopkins &
Higham, 2007; Toh et al., 2014). Conducting school visits is one way to focus on the success of
other schools. Two of the practitioners highlighted school visits as an important strategy in
helping them understand an innovation. P1 noted that visiting other schools pushed his thinking
and allowed him to push their thinking. P2 described how traveling in teams to view exemplars
and non-exemplars of the innovations she was diffusing was invaluable to her because she could
“see boots on the ground.” This allowed her to translate theory she had read about into practice
she observed. Talking with people who were “boots on the ground doing the work” helped her
find ways to make the innovation work in her context. It also helped her form on-going
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 74

networks that allow her to connect her staff to others who are ahead in terms of implementation.
Several of the experts cited school visits as being a useful strategy in introducing
innovations. E1 mentioned that school visits allow principals to not “create the wheel.” She
explained that some of the most powerful visits she has observed settings that were very different
(e.g., having high school faculty visit elementary schools). E3 and E6 both asserted that visiting
schools allow a principal to get a sense of what an innovation is in practice and how it might
impact teaching practice and student learning. The other benefit of school visits E6 disclosed was
“infecting” the teachers that go on the visit with what they see, helping to build a “cheering
section” for the change to take place. E5 declared that school visits were a powerful way to gain
a “different sense of possibility,” resulting in shifts in “mental models” as adults and students are
observed working together around a similar set of goals in different ways.
E4 had a different take on why school visits are powerful – they can support change
already taking place within a school. He shared the story of a principal who was wanting to
institute “academies” into her context. Her school already had one academy that focused on
STEM. This academy had been facing criticism from the other faculty for several years. To help
prepare for additional academies, she took representative faculty to another school that already
had this type of approach in place. Following the visit, she asked those who had gone to the other
school to report out on what they found, which they enthusiastically did. At the end of the
presentation, one of the other faculty members mentioned that this sounded very similar to the
academy they already had in place. The principal agreed with the faculty member and was able
to use that moment to confront internal bias and celebrate the work of those who were already
doing the work within her own school. It also set up that academy to be a “lab site” as the other
academies were developed.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 75

Engage outside expertise. Fullan (2014c) widened the impact of systems thinking by
stating that principals must understand the whole system - including the community and
businesses - not just their own reality. Engaging outside expertise is one way principals can
develop a view of the whole system. Three of the practitioners discussed the use of outside
experts to inform how they are thinking about their schools. P2 uses professionals from fields
like science, technology, and engineering as an advisory board that convenes twice a year to help
her team understand what the workforce needs to be able to know and do at the entry level in
related professions. These professionals also help her team know what types of equipment they
should be integrating into their work to ensure student use of that equipment is relevant to the
jobs they will be taking. P3 discussed using external experts at local universities to push her
team’s thinking and to answer questions that emerge from her team. P6 utilized external experts
to keep her school from becoming “a little inward looking.” She utilizes these experts to test
“hunches” and to provide evidence that can start meaningful conversations.
Three experts also referenced the use of outside expertise, though two were cautionary in
their comments. E5 asserted that “bringing the outside in,” or inviting business people to the
school, is a useful strategy. He illustrated this by sharing how community colleges often do this
well by having business advisory groups that are systematic about understanding what is
happening in the world. Building relationships with business people also allows schools to set
up situations where students can complete internships in safe environments that present them
with tough feedback. E2 was more cautionary about the use of outside expertise, citing that it
can result in the “vendor effect.” This happens when professional development is sponsored and
controlled by vendors and the focus is on programs, not practices. If a principal is not careful, E2
stated that this “vendor effect” can easily lead to initiative fatigue which is counterproductive. E2
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 76

believed that while there is a place to engage outside experts, it is “colleague to colleague
credibility” that makes a change work. E6 cautioned that whatever external expertise is used, it
needs to be grounded in research about teaching and learning.
Contextualize change. Systems leaders recognize that context matters and that, in order
to bring about systemic change, they have a role in helping the context evolve (Fullan, 2004c).
Two of the practitioners recognized the importance of contextualizing change. P4 articulated the
importance of this concept when he stated, “context matters a lot.” He described when he tried to
diffuse an innovation that a group of teachers had actively implemented and were advocating for
spreading across the system. He made the innovation mandatory for all classrooms. In most of
the additional classrooms it was not successful because teachers did not have the flexibility to
implement the innovative in a way that was customized for their particular context. Through this
experience, he learned that it is more important to communicate guiding principles and then
empower teachers to implement an innovation as they can within the parameters of those
principles. P5 stated that it is an important step to contextualize research for the setting of one’s
school.
Two of the experts also recognized the important of contextualizing change. E1 shared
the importance of ensuring the strategies a principal used matches the context of the community
in which the school resides. For example, strategies that successfully worked in inner-city
Philadelphia might not be the same strategies that work in a suburb of New York City. E1 also
shared that an innovation that is brought into a system is not like “fondant that lies perfectly
against a cake.” Instead, a principal needs to know how to customize an innovation to fit his or
her context. E5 recognized that context often allows certain schools to try innovations that might
not be possible in other schools. To illustrate, he used an example of technology innovation that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 77

happened because they had access to resources provided by companies that were located in their
district.
Involve community. Fullan (2014c) widened the impact of systems thinking by stating
that principals must understand the whole system - including the community - not just their own
reality. P3 reflected on what happened when she did not involve the community early enough in
the innovation diffusion process. Teachers were on board with the change but parents did not
understand why the students were doing design thinking instead of focusing on spelling or
handwriting. P3 used her teacher leaders to help her educate parents on why the change was
happening and what the change meant for students. New space had been built to support the
change, so she held these parent sessions in that environment. She also brought in outside experts
to help with the conversations. To help parents gain an understanding of design thinking, P3 had
them engage in solving real world problems, like an issue the school with facing with carpooling.
By having parents experience first-hand what students would be doing, P3 was able to practically
demonstrate what the changes would entail. P4 also discussed the importance of involving the
community. He stated that the greater the departure is from the practice that parents know, the
greater the requirement is for community involvement. One strategy he discussed was creating
an advisory committee of people who are credible in the community and who have well-
established networks.
Several of the experts discussed the importance of involving the community. E6 stressed
the importance of involving the community early. She stated that this was not just finding
opportunities for the community to voice their concerns, issues, or vision for the change. Instead,
E6 stated that a better strategy is to build community capacity to understand the whole change
before community members are asked to respond. The goal is to have people be able to explore
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 78

and see other perspectives before sharing their own. E1 shared a different strategy, stating that
building trust requires a principal to find different ways to connect with sections of a community,
addressing barriers that might present parents from attending. For example, for parents with
children, they would hold events on Saturdays and find volunteers to babysit young students
while parents were attending the event. She stated that when parents see principals reaching out
and trying to find ways to connect with them, they become more trusting that good choices are
being made for their children. E1 also suggested bringing students along so they understand the
why for the change being implemented. She felt students were the “best frontline” because if
students understand and accept what is changing, their parents are more likely to do so. E3
agreed with the strategy of using students to bring a community along. By using student
testimony or showing student work, community members will be more likely to believe the
impact of the change taking place. E5 discussed a different strategy for engaging the community
– connecting changes to the school’s graduate profile. Demonstrating how changes will improve
what students should know and be able to do as a result of being in a school (the graduate
profile) keeps the focus on learning and why the change should be taking place. E5 also stated
that principals should also engage the community in conversations about what specifically will
be different the following year, highlighting how this will be better for students. By focusing on
engaging the community one step at a time, a principal is able to balance innovation and
improvement happening simultaneously.
Although E2 recognized the importance of bringing along the community, he cautioned
that principals need to recognize that students, and by extension their parents, are not customers.
The distinction he made is that “customers get instant gratification.” He explained that currently,
customers are used to going on the internet, deciding whether they like something or not, and
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 79

getting their needs met. Principals need to help the community recognize that school is not like
that. In order to learn, students need to feel changed and be frustrated, disappointed, and
sometimes angry that they cannot find the right answer easily. To learn, students need delayed
gratification and it is a school’s job to nurture students not customers. This means that principals
need to be willing to stand up to student or parent demands when it is not in the best interest of
student learning.
Manage politics. Bolman and Deal (1994) stated that because leadership is contextual,
it is a political activity and a leader needs to act as a “political coalition builder, a political
negotiator, a political builder, and a political architect” (Cronin as cited in Bolman & Deal,
1994, p 83). P1 believed that managing politics was an important strategy. This included
managing “both inward and outward facing views of [his] school.” To P1, inward facing politics
included balancing praise and celebration with not allowing the system to stagnate. Outward
facing politics included ensuring the district office trusted what the school was doing, allowing
the school to have “space to be free.” One specific technique he used to establish trust was to
conduct monthly “learning logs” with his district office supervisor that highlighted what is
happening within the school and allowed his supervisor to “pushback” on P1’s thinking.
Outward facing politics also included sharing the story and data points that foster community
support. P4 discussed navigating both internal and external politics. He stated that it was
important for him to understand the political landscape “above him and below him.” He added
that this included understanding the history of the school and what has been done before to put
the innovation into the correct context.
E1 also discussed the importance of navigating politics, stating that there are few things
where there is only one right way to do something. She posited that the best way to navigate
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 80

politics is to ask questions and seek feedback. E4 recognized the need for principals to
understand and remove political impediments to an innovation, including a lack of empathy
some staff or parents might have. In addition to stating something similar to E4, E3 also
commented that principals need to determine whether an innovation should be abandoned
because the political landscape is a “brick wall.”
Match Leadership Actions to Type of Change
Change leaders need to match their leadership actions to the type of change taking place
(Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Marzano, Waters & McNulty,
2005; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Because an innovation (as defined by this study) is a completely
new or novel way of working, behaving, organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring
about improvement (Clegg, Kohlberger, & Pitsis, 2008; Judd, 2017; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis
et al., 2015), it will likely be perceived as a second-order change that is outside of existing
paradigms, conflicts with prevailing values and norms, and requires new knowledge and skills
(Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005). Marzano, Waters, and McNulty (2005) identified seven
leadership responsibilities that are needed to lead changes with second-order implications:
change agent; flexibility; ideals and beliefs; intellectual stimulation; knowledge of curriculum,
instruction and assessment; monitor and evaluate; and optimizer. They also recognized that four
responsibilities are negatively impacted during second-order change: communication, culture,
input, and order.
In their interviews, respondents discussed strategies related to monitoring and
evaluating; ideals and beliefs; intellectual stimulation; knowledge of curriculum, instruction,
and assessment; and culture. The other responsibilities (change agent, flexibility, and optimizer)
were not directly addressed. Respondents also discussed the need to offset the negative impact
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 81

on communication and culture. They did not reference offsetting the negative impact on input
and order.
Monitor and evaluate change efforts. Monitoring and evaluating requires principals to
look at both formative and summative assessment results as well as conduct classroom walk-
throughs in relation to an innovation (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Four of the
practitioners specified monitoring change efforts during their interviews. P1 used monitoring of
change efforts to continue to spur further improvement. P4 focused on both formal and informal
feedback loops to monitor faculty and student perceptions of changes due to innovations. P5
used monitoring of change efforts to evaluate where teams are in relation to the change to
provide them with feedback and differentiate support. P6 used monitoring to evaluate where
change efforts are and are not going well and what adjustments need to be made.
Two of the experts discussed the importance of monitoring change efforts. E2 shared that
no more than six actions can be adequately monitored at once and stated that what gets
monitored gets done. He asserted that innovations cannot be monitored if principals are not “out
of their offices and looking at things.” By gathering data through monitoring efforts, principals
are better able to address problems with implementation that might arise. E5 recognized that
many other industries are better at monitoring “real time experiments.” In contrast, schools in
general struggle with collecting and combining formative assessment and formative feedback
more broadly to inform the same sort of iterative development. He was hopeful that technology
advances will be able to solve this problem.
Counteract a negative impact on communication. Communication is negatively
impacted by second-order changes. To counteract this, principals can discuss disagreements in
faculty meeting; probe for questions and concerns to seek resolution; develop and communicate
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 82

a transition plan; create a unified front with a consistent and uniform message; and emphasize
that things will become more stable when an innovation becomes institutionalized (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Three of the practitioners stressed the importance of
communication, though in different ways. P3 discussed the need to learn to not share all of her
ideas at once. She recognized that sharing too many ideas became overwhelming for her staff
and that it was better to be judicious in what she revealed. P4 stressed the importance of
communicating seven times in seven different ways to get a message across. P6 noted the
importance of communicating through actions not just words and recognized that “every single
little piece of sentence that comes out of [her] mouth” is impactful.
Only one expert commented on communication. E1 went further than P4 by stating that
principals communicate to six different groups and that while they may have said something
twelve times, each group has only heard it twice. She emphasized that principals need to
continually draw pictures of the change taking place, relating that change to where the school is
now and emphasizing what piece is being tackled next.
Communicate ideals and beliefs. Principals need to be able to communicate ideas and
beliefs (vision) related to an innovation. They also need to ensure that practices related to an
innovation are aligned with organizational ideals and beliefs. Finally, they need to ask questions
about an innovation when actions do not reflect agreed-upon goals for understandings (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005). As explained in the above section titled “form a change vision and
strategic initiatives,” three practitioners used vision as a strategy to bring about change. This
included using vision to say no to competing innovations (P2), using vision to narrow the focus
for the school (P3), and using the vision to explain why the change is happening (P5).
Connect innovation to knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 83

main task of instructional leaders is to promote evidence-based teaching practices so student
learning is maximized (Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Rigby, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016; Tan,
2012). To ensure an innovation is having the intended impact, principals need to resolve
instructional problems, observe instruction, provide faculty with feedback, and provide sufficient
resources (Heck & Hallinger, 2014).
Four of the practitioners felt understanding curriculum, instruction, and assessment
helped them diffuse innovation. P1 discussed the importance of teachers establishing clear
learning targets, written as student “I can” statement for both academic standards and “habits of
mind” like collaboration. Having clarity of the learning targets helped him and his teams ensure
that whatever changes were taking place positively impacted the expected learning outcomes
instead of distracting from them. P2 based her decisions on a deep understanding of research into
how students learn, particularly in the areas of literacy and math. She used this understanding to
guide implementation of innovations in her school. P3 focused on interdisciplinary learning and
differentiated instruction to ensure that students needs are being met. She used these concepts to
inform decisions about structures that are in place and how they need to be changed. P5 shared
the importance of understanding the impact any innovation will have on curriculum, instruction,
and assessment so he can help guide teachers through the implementation process, monitoring
when implementation is having the desired effect and providing support when it is not.
Five of the experts also discussed the importance of monitoring curriculum, instruction,
and assessment. E1 stated that a principal needs to either be “a really good pedagogue him or
herself” or needs to have someone on staff who is strong in this area. This is important so there is
guidance for teams working on designing curriculum and assessments. E2 note that principals
can only adequately monitor an innovation if they go beyond learning about theory to
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 84

understanding the implications an innovation has on curricular, instructional, and assessment
practices. E4 shared this view and explained that it was important so that principals could correct
misunderstandings or incorrect implementation to ensure the innovation is implemented in ways
that will positively impact student learning. E3 believed that it is crucial for principals (or those
they appoint to oversee curriculum, instruction, and assessment) to monitor the impact an
innovation is having on the expected curriculum. This included needing to ensure the appropriate
resources were provided, particularly if the innovation required new materials, rubrics, or
technology. E6 cautioned that innovations can often disrupt the instructional process, so it is
important for principals to “back map” from what they are trying to accomplish and develop
mechanisms to monitor impact. For example, if the end goal is a focus on collaboration, critical
thinking, and communication, it is important for the principal to identify or develop measures in
these areas instead of relying on traditional standardized tests to measure success. E6 also noted
that people value what is measured, so developing metrics that align to the long-term goal will
help faculty know that the school is serious about the change.
Counter a negative impact on culture. Culture is negatively impacted by second-order
changes (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). To counteract a negative impact on culture,
principals can remind colleagues of the vision for the innovation and why it is important, find
points of common ground, provide differentiated support for faculty based on their response to
the innovation, and create time for faculty to discuss the change and its implications (Marzano,
Waters, & McNulty, 2005).
Two practitioners focused on culture while three of the experts did. P4 stated that he
needed to create a culture that supports the use of an innovation. He explained that this type of
culture is one that is absent of fear while welcoming conflict. P6 strengthened school culture by
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 85

spending time messaging “affirmations, positives, proud moments,” and providing “time to laugh
and sing together.” She recognized that regardless of how she was feeling, she needed to bring
her energy to work “every single minute of the day” so she could be authentically “joyous” about
the learning taking place. P6 also believed she needed to model risk taking and let teachers know
that even when something is “mucked up” it is a learning opportunity not a failure. E1 shared a
similar view, stating that principals need to establish a climate where failure is acceptable for
both children and adults. She recognized that this is hard for principals because they are the ones
that “take the flack” when changes do not work or if it is perceived that children are being treated
as “guinea pigs.” To set a culture that embraces risk-taking, E1 believed that principals needed to
have a vision and then be able to regularly pivot towards the vision as innovations unfold, fitting
the change to the school.
E6 supported this view when she stated that the role of principals is to establish a culture
of trust and respect by taking time at the beginning of a change effort to do research together
and talk about the direction in which they are going. E2 discussed the importance of
establishing a culture of “empiricism” which caused the school to seek the truth by sharing data
honestly with everyone, even when the data showed that the principal or leader were wrong. E3
shared the importance of establishing a culture of risk-taking and respect that is reflected in
“deeds, not just words” and rephrased problems as challenges. E5 emphasized the need to
build a culture of adult learning by having every meeting start by learning together, no matter
what other agenda items were present.
Provide intellectual stimulation. Principals need to be able to intellectually stimulate
their staff by sharing research about an innovation, asking questions that cause teachers to be
reflective practitioners, and lead discussions around current practices related to an innovation
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 86

(Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). Only one respondent mentioned this strategy. P3 shared
that the sharing of research related to innovations during faculty meetings was a pivotal strategy
to making change take place. She has also shared research with parent groups to help bring them
along.
Help Faculty Through Transition
Change leaders need to understand the difference between transition and change so they
can help faculty through the process of accepting and adjusting to change (Bridges & Bridges,
2017). Transition is the process followers go through to accept and adjust to a change. It
consists of three stages: ending (which requires followers to let go of what they had), neutral
zone (which is when the old is gone but the new is not yet fully operational), and beginning
(which is when followers embrace a change and are prepared to make it work).
Three of the practitioners reflected on the need to help faculty through transition. P2
talked about the importance of focusing on relationships and differentiating for faculty
according to how they were feeling about the change. While recognizing the importance of
acknowledging faculty feelings, P2 also stressed the need to remain focused on and staying true
to the innovation being scaled. P4 believed that the greatest obstacle to any innovation was the
emotional resistance faculty has towards the change. He recognized that high-performing
schools hire highly accomplished people who are often insecure. This results in faculty who
become defensive when a principal starts asking questions about current practice. One strategy
P4 used to counter this defensiveness was finding “peers to speak into” the change. Depending
on the nature of the school, this may be somebody from within the school or somebody from
another school or district that is like them. P4 also observed that in some cases, faculty do not
want to hear from colleagues but want to hear from an outside expert. According to P4, it comes
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 87

down to the credibility of the “witness” and their ability to inspire and lead faculty towards the
change. Another strategy P4 used was to have difficult conversations with individuals, teams,
and the entire faculty to make it clear that some things will need to be let go of in order to
embrace the innovation being diffused. P5 focused on the need to help faculty “surrender” and
be willing to try new things. The strategy he used was professional development that allowed
faculty to transform their understanding about best practice.
Three of the experts reflected on strategies to help faculty through transition. To help
faculty let go of old practices and embrace new ones, E1 discussed the importance of inclusivity
through the form of multiple opportunities for feedback. She stressed the importance of being
transparent, especially about the fact that all of the questions have not already been answered
and that the final vision is still being clarified. For example, a principal might say something
like “I don’t know what the complete vision is yet of where we’re going, but we are going to
create that together using these four pillars.” E5 also discussed the importance of transparency.
He shared the strategy of having principals make visible to faculty notes and observations about
what is going well and what needs to be improved. The principal can then invite faculty to add
to the observations and notes, resulting in a public conversation that helped faculty build their
understanding of why some practices needed to stop and new ones needed to start.
E2 shared three different strategies: focus on what is not changing, use data to ease fears,
and model the change. He explained that by focusing on what is not changing, faculty will be
able to put what is actually changing into perspective. For example, stating that x is not
changing with the curriculum or y is not changing with assessment practices can help faculty
understand that the innovation will not require them to abandon all of their current practices. E2
shared that fears of the change can be eased using data from early adopters, especially if there is
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 88

fear that the change will “dumb down” the program. For example, he shared a story of when a
school was wanting to diffuse new grading practices. The faculty feared that allowing
something like re-assessments would “dumb down” the program. The principal was able to
show data from classrooms of early adopters of the re-assessment practice that the quality of
work and rigor actually became higher instead of lower. Finally, E2 shared the importance of
the principal modeling the change so faculty can see it is possible. Being visible and personal
about the change taking place, identifying what the problem is, setting really specific goals,
getting specific feedback and using that feedback to improve are all ways a principal can do
this.
One strategy that was discussed by both practitioners and experts was putting adults
first. P1 argued that while the focus needs to be on student learning, principals cannot think of
students first; instead they need to think of their adults first. He explained that if a principal does
not nurture the adults, they will not make the changes in the classroom. P2 also shared this
view, stating that the strategy that has been most effective for her is to let every member of her
faculty know how much she cares about them. She stated that her faculty knows that she is
differentiating her interactions based on what each faculty member needs. E4 agreed with these
practitioners, stating the need to focus on the teachers first. One strategy he shared was to have
the faculty experience the change before they were asked to implement the change for students.
An example he gave was having teachers establish and maintain standards-based portfolios for
two years before a standards-based portfolio approach was introduced to students. By doing
this, faculty live the experience and can help shape implementation of the innovation.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 89

Summary of Change Leadership Strategies Used
According to the literature reviewed, to effectively lead change leaders need to: apply
change theory; utilize systems thinking; demonstrate the ability to be agile, anticipate change
and take action in rapidly evolving conditions; match their leadership actions to the type of
change taking place; understand the difference between transition and change so they can help
faculty through the process of accepting and adjusting to change (known as transitioning); and
embrace paradox that uses ‘both-and’ thinking to balance interdependent opposites (Bridges &
Bridges, 2017; Fullan, 2004a; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan, 2004c; Harris & Chrispeels, 2006; Heifetz
& Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009; Joiner & Josephs, 2006; Marzano, Waters
& McNulty, 2005; Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011;
Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway, 1999; Waters & Grubb, 2005; Watson, 2013). Two
of these aspects of change leadership were not referenced during the interviews: the ability to
be agile and embracing paradox. Four of these aspects were supported by both practitioners and
experts: applying change theory, utilizing systems thinking, matching leadership actions to the
type of change, and helping followers transition through change. Of these, practitioners referred
most frequently to matching leadership actions to type of change taking place (17 comments)
followed by applying change theory (15 comments). Experts had a different order with applying
change theory the most frequent (19 comments) followed by matching leadership actions to type
of change taking place (13). Utilizing system thinking was referenced third most frequently for
both groups, with experts making many more comments (18) than practitioners (12). Helping
faculty through transition was referenced the least with four comments from each group.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 90

Innovation Diffusion Leadership Strategies
Innovation has different meanings depending on the source being referenced (Chen,
2010; Clegg, Kohlberg, & Pitsis, 2008; Fitzgerald, Wankerl, & Schramm, 2011; Judd, 2017;
Lai, 2015; MacKenzie, 1996; Owens, 2012; Rogers, 2010; Washor, 2010; White, 2013) For the
purpose of this study innovation meant a completely new or novel way of working, behaving,
organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement (Clegg, Kohlberger,
& Pitsis, 2008; Judd, 2017; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). Similarly, there are
differing terms for the process of moving an innovation from limited site of implementation to
implementation across a system (Greenhalgh, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Glasgow
et al., 2012; Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015. For the purpose of this study, the term
diffusion was utilized to refer to the process of an innovation being spread, adopted, or
communicated (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Rogers, 2010). Innovation diffusion in education is
usually about the widening application of an innovation as opposed to making an innovation
bigger or better (Buzhardt, Greenwood, Abbott, & Tapia, 2007). Leadership plays a vital role in
diffusing innovation across classrooms and schools (Cravens & Hallinger 2012).
According to the literature reviewed previously, to effectively diffuse innovation leaders
need to: understand how and why innovations diffuse, embrace factors that enable innovation
diffusion, address barriers to innovation diffusion, and use strategies to manage transitions,
expand thinking, and assessment and monitor progress (Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015;
Toh et al., 2014). All four aspects of innovation diffusion leadership were specifically addressed
by comments during the interviews.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 91

Understand How and Why Innovations Diffuse
Innovation of high-impact practices often results in short-lived ripples that fail to diffuse
beyond a pocket of implementation (Glazer & Peurach, 2012). Principals need to understand
how and why innovations diffuse. To diffuse, an innovation needs people in a system to be
willing to adopt and advocate for it. Rogers’ (2010) postulated that an innovation’s rate of
adoption is determined by the relative advantage of the innovation, the innovation’s
compatibility with the existing system, the complexity of the innovation, how easily the
innovation can be trialed, and the degree to which the innovation can be observed.
Understand innovation. As mentioned above, there are many different definitions of
innovation found in the literature. This was true with the respondents as well. P1 stated that
while he recognized that his school was an “outlier trying to do innovative work while in a
traditional system” he did not actually see the work his school was doing as innovation but
instead saw it as continuous improvement. He also stated that sometimes faculty felt something
is an innovation (e.g., Google drive) when really was just a substitution for a previous method
(e.g., filing cabinets). P4 recognized the need to determine whether something was really
innovative, which he defined as a completely new way of working, or whether it was just an
improvement on a current practice. E2 defined innovation as “the application of a creative idea
or process to existing challenges.” He expanded on this definition by stating that innovation is
based upon something that is already there and can take place not just in the industrial context
but also in artistic contexts. E5 had a different view, defining innovation as “a new way of doing
something, a new way of delivering value.” He explained that innovation is different than
improvement, which is doing what is already being done better. E5 believed that schools need to
do both, recognizing that schools can dramatically improve learning just by getting better at
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 92

what they are currently doing. An innovation would be aimed at different outcomes using
different practices or using different tools. E5 cautioned that innovation can create inequity in a
system because it allows or encourages people to do things differently, hopefully resulting “step
function improvement” that means some classrooms are experiencing growth in “steps” instead
of incremental, linear improvement.
Understand challenges associated with innovation diffusion. Two of the experts
shared cautions specific to innovation diffusion. E3 assumed that even in schools that have the
ability to “control all the levers and get to hire who they want,” there are wide variations in the
quality of implementation of an innovation across a school. He stated that he does not believe a
school will ever obtain high quality, wide scale innovation. Instead, E3 believed that a principal
needs to make judgments about how far a school can go and then keep trying to increase the
quality in all the classes. E5 stated that education is highly prone to fads but deeply immune to
real innovations that require structural changes. The example he used was the concept of project-
based learning, which he believes can be innovative if done well but unfortunately is too often
implemented without the required changes to the traditional structure. This results in a drop in
the level of rigor. E5 also reflected on the term innovation diffusion, noting that education
struggles to do this even when there are examples of an innovation having positive impact on
student learning already within the school or at a school nearby. He believed this is because
schools have “built this sedimentary system of years of traditions and policies and it’s turned into
a big Gordian knot that’s made schools very unsusceptible to the deep and structural innovation.”
E5 stated that innovation diffusion in a school was too passive a term because there has to be
active innovation leadership that does not “tolerate malpractice.” Additionally, leaders need to
actively manage an agenda that does not leave innovation to chance. Leaders cannot wait for
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 93

these innovations to spread or assume that they will spread. There needs to be an active set of
agreements that change the culture, the incentives, and the community conversation to ensure
that innovation happens, not wait to see if it happens.
Utilize Rogers’ adoption continuum. Rogers (2010) postulated that those who adopt
innovations fall into five categories that rest along a continuum: innovators, early adopters,
early majority, late majority, and laggards. Leaders need to understand that each category is
likely to be represented in any population so they are able to better understand the perspective
of their followers in order to differentiate communication and strategies to support each group
(Rogers, 2010).
While not every practitioner used the terms found in Rogers’ adoption continuum, four of
the practitioners discussed relying on either the entire construct or aspects of the construct to
help them diffuse an innovation across their school. P2 discussed the importance of moving
laggards out of the system. As she explained, high schools only get students for four years.
Therefore, adults need to get on board with change quickly because students cannot wait years
for changes to be implemented. If a faculty member is doing the professional development
necessary to grow and learn, P2 is very supportive of their continued efforts. But if a faculty
member is not willing to change (a laggard), she does not offer them a new contract or, if they
are in the middle of the contract, closely monitors them until they either implement the change or
decide to ask for a transfer. P3 shared how her first years as a new leader in a school were brutal
and that she had to rely on the small group of faculty who supported the direction the school was
moving in. She stated that she regularly engaged the rest of her leadership team in conversation
about who is at what stage in adopting an innovation, allowing her team to be strategic in
planning their next steps. P6 relied on a coalition of early adopters to become “enthusiasts that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 94

have got skin in the game” to demonstrate to other faculty that the change is not just “leadership
down” but also “bottom up.” She believed this in resulted in increased buy in from other
segments of the faculty.
P5 stated that he used Rogers’ adoption continuum as a model for his work, using it to
process how a change is going to unfold. He mentioned that early into the diffusion process, he
found that many strategies he was trying were not actually working because he was not able to
move the change past the group of faculty who were the early majority. He believed that
addressing the gap between the early and late majority was the biggest obstacle he needed to
overcome. To address this gap, he and his team developed “learning maps” for each innovation
being diffused using the five steps of the creative process identified by Csikszentmihayli (1997).
Each stage on the learning map addressed one of the stages of Rogers’ continuum: preparation
(laggards), incubation (late majority), insight (early majority), evaluation (early adopters), and
elaboration (innovators). For each stage, a description and indicators specific to the innovation
were drafted so individuals could see at what stage they were. There was then a specific action
plan for the conversations and experiences needed to move individuals to the next stage. P5
stated that these learning maps helped him “think through” an initiative before he launched it.
Additionally, they allowed all of the leaders in the system to evaluate where teams were in
relation to the innovation in order to better differentiate support for teams by providing target
professional development that would help the group move forward. Finally, these learning maps
allowed P5 to track data over time to see if implementation was increasing as evidenced by
fewer teams being in the preparation and incubation stages and more teams being in the
evaluation and elaboration stages.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 95

Three of the experts also referred to Rogers’ adoption continuum, directly or indirectly.
E2 believed that a disproportionate amount of time needs to be spent nurturing and encouraging
innovators and early adopters because they are too often taken for granted. He stated that most
principals are over observing their least performing people and under observing their best. He
encouraged principals to pay attention to and observe these high performers, even if is just a
quick stop by their classrooms to express appreciation for what they are doing. This indicates
the system sees this group is valued and helps the innovators and early adopters know they are
not being taken for granted. E2 also spoke about using the early adopters and early majority to
help bring along the “doubters” (late majority), which, according to his research, make up
about 33 percent of a group. He stated that this category were often skeptical of a change and
respond well to action research and professional development that is led by peers. Finally, E2
spoke about the need to “stop converting the heathen” (laggards) which in his research is about
two percent. He suggested that principals should disengage from these faculty and refuse to
have arguments with them. For example, a principal could say, “I've got a list of six goodies for
you. To make sure you're not going to make my staff meetings miserable for everybody else,
then here's some copying that needs to be done, here's a hallway that needs to be patrolled,
here’s a study hall. You pick it but you're not going to be back in this room.” If the laggard said
they want to be in the room for these conversations, then E2 stated a principal should discuss
expectations for civil behavior and hold them accountable.
E4 postulated that 30 percent of faculty are early adopters, 30 percent are in the middle
and will come along only if they see it working, and 30 percent will be resistant. Like E2, E4
believed that it is most effective for principals to nurture the early adopters and give them a
platform from which they can convince the middle 30 percent. E4 stated that for the 30 percent
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 96

that are resistant, principals need to be clear that they need to “come on board.” Principals
should give this group a window of time to adopt the change but be clear on when they will no
longer tolerate teachers who are not moving forward.
E5 shared a different stance on how innovations should be adopted. He discussed the
importance of inviting people that are interested in participating and then allowing it to expand
from there. He recognized that many innovations in education require changing multiple
dimensions, including technology, practices, and structures. He suggested that principals should
find an entry point and then allow people to progress when they are ready through “fast lanes” or
“slow lanes.” Finally, E5 shared that “working from the outside in” can be a successful strategy
to bring faculty along. This strategy required principals to find an easy entry point, like creating a
“makery lab” in a shared space that students can access at break times. As faculty became used
to components of makery, they started to envision what the change might look like in their
classrooms. Principals could then support faculty who wanted to try an aspect of makery with
their students. Finally, certain aspects of makery, like pursuing a topic of interest, could be
implemented in all classrooms. If using this strategy, E5 stressed the importance of principals
establishing a timeline for their vision so it is clear that everyone is eventually expected to
implement the innovation because the change is providing a better opportunity for all students.
He emphasized that principals cannot tolerate chronic underperformance.
Utilize Enablers to Innovation Diffusion
Shiell-Davis and associates (2015) identified through a meta-analysis of innovation
diffusion research several enablers that leaders should utilize. Respondents supported many of
the enablers shared in the literature. One enabler that was not supported through the interviews
was determining the compatibility between the innovation and the existing system prior to
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 97

beginning diffusion (Card, Soloman, & Cunningham, 2011; Elliott & Mihalic, 2004).
Two of the enablers have previously been discussed. Being transparent about what the
innovation will look like and how success will be assessed (Minnis, Bryce, Phin, & Wilson,
2010; Littlejohn, Campbell, Tizard, & Smith, 2003) are both strategies related to aspects of
change leadership. P2, P3, P5, P6, E4, E5, and E6 spoke about how they use vision as a strategy
to enable change (see pages 67 to 68). P1, P4, P5, P6, E2, and E5 discussed assessing success
through monitoring and evaluation (see pages 81). Contextualizing the innovation to fit the
context (Browne, Medd, & Anderson, 2013; Knickel, Brunori, Rand, & Proost, 2009) is an
important step in systems leadership and, as previously explained, was discussed by P4, P5, E1,
and E5 (see pages 76 to 77).
One enabler supported by respondents that was not related to other sections of this
dissertation was obtaining feedback from the earliest stages to respond to problem and make the
innovation relevant (Cederbaum, Ahyoung, Hsun-Ta, Tucker, & Wenzel, 2014). E1 focused on
the importance of feedback. She advocated for “feedback loops” where stakeholders groups have
the ability to give input during the process of developing a change instead of after a change is
fully planned. This prevents a large gap being developed between innovators or developers and
those who will be impacted by the innovation. E2 also focused on the importance of feedback.
He stated that “early change happens much more frequently than we think it happens with
greater encouragement than we think.” He stated that it is important to gather feedback to gather
both positive and negative view of how the change is going. He posited that principals need to
have a fearless approach to feedback and be objective when screening comments received. E5
agreed with the need for rapid feedback cycles, stating that principals need to be creative in
collecting formative feedback to inform iterations of an innovation. He recognized that the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 98

infrastructure to support this currently does not exist and that the solution will require a shift in
mind-set and use of standards as well as technology solutions.
A second enabler supported by respondents that was not related to other sections of this
dissertation was insuring adequate time and developing realistic time frames (Edvardsson et al.,
2011). P1 discussed the need to ensure that faculty meeting time and early release professional
development time was devoted to moving innovations forward instead of on topics that were
operational. Additionally, P1 dedicated money towards substitute teachers to provide release
time for teachers to engage in professional development and collaborative tasks that will help
them implement an innovation. E6 shared that schools need to plan a regular schedule for
focusing on implementation of an innovation, like bi-weekly meetings, so faculty know the
innovation is important and feel supported. This time would also allow faculty a chance to
discuss how changes are going and problem-solve issues that are arising.
A third enabler supported by respondents that is not related to other sections of this
dissertation was establishing networks and knowledge exchange platforms for peer-to-peer
sharing and regular feedback (Shea, Callis, Cassidy-Stewart, Cranston, & Tomoyasu, 2006;
Talukder & Quazi, 2011). Two experts shared strategies that create knowledge exchange
platforms. E2 described the “science fair” technique. In this technique, volunteer faculty
members shared innovations they are implementing, including the challenge they are
addressing, what they did, and the results that occurred as a result of the change. E2 believed
this was an effective strategy because faculty members could “vote with their feet,” going to
hear about the innovations in which they are interested. Principals should support diffusing the
innovations that had the most interest because there will already be credibility in the system for
that particular change. E5 stated that the most important way for innovation to spread is by
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 99

demonstrating a “strong track record.” Principals need to be able to show faculty, using data
from teachers who are already implementing the change, the positive impact the change is
having on student learning.
Two enablers are related to concepts that will be addressed later in this chapter. The first,
providing technical assistance to those who are new to the innovation (Buzhardt et al., 2007;
Kegeles et al., 2012), is a form of professional development, which is also a component of
learning leadership. P2, P4, P5, E1, E2, E4, and E6 discussed using this strategy to support
change (see pages 107 to 109). The second, establishing distributed leadership that is multi-
directional and inclusive of champions of the innovation (Grinstein-Weiss, Edwards, Charles, &
Wagner, 2011; Meijer, 2014; Morrow, 2011), is directly related to fostering distributed
leadership. P1, P2, P3, P4, P6, E1, E3, E4, E5 and E6 discussed ways to support distributed
leadership. This is one of the components of the proposed conceptual framework covered later in
this chapter (see pages 116 to 124).
Address Barriers to Innovation Diffusion
In addition to identifying enablers that should be utilized, Shiell-Davis and associates
(2015) identified barriers to innovation diffusion that leaders should address. Several barriers
found in the literature review were not ones specifically addressed by respondents. These
included: unsolved tensions around core elements of an innovation (Bradley, Webster,
Schlesinger, Baker, & Inouye, 2006; Morrow, Maben, Griffiths, 2012); inconsistent perceptions
(Salveron, Arney, & Arney, 2006); flagging momentum (Shiell-Davis, 2015); human and
financial resource difficulties (Buzhardt et al., 2007); reluctance to change components of the
system to accommodate the change (Watson, 2014; Shapiro, Prinz, & Sanders, 2012); and too
simple or too complex of an innovation (Miller & Shinn, 2005; Morrow et al., 2012).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 100

One barrier from the literature reviewed that was supported by respondents and is not
related to other sections of this dissertation is addressing silo thinking and behavior that
discourage collaboration (Morrow et al., 2012). To address this barrier, three practitioners spoke
about the importance of explicitly expecting teachers to collaborate. P1 stated that the
expectation to work collaboratively has been the most important structure he has established and
recognized that it was the hardest for his faculty to accept. He recognized that teams would not
“just magically work together” so he brought in professional development related to the stages
of team development and had explicit conversation about what should happen when there are
arguments. P2 utilized a professional learning community construct to promote collaboration
amongst faculty. P5 also required his faculty to be in professional learning communities and
stated that the willingness to collaborate is more important than anything, even their ability to
teach. He considered a professional learning community to be the “smallest unit of change” and
relied on this team structure to take care of most individual resistors. P5 also explained that was
important to help teachers understand the relationship between collaboration and autonomy,
being specific about where teachers need to be “tight” (adhere to team decisions) and where
they can be “loose” (make their own decisions). To support the requirement to be collaborative,
P1 and P5 had the expectation as a component of their performance appraisal systems.
Four experts spoke about the importance of explicitly expecting teachers to collaborate.
E3 spoke about the need to have organized sharing among teachers. Collaborating in this was
allows teachers to learn from each other, especially about the “nuts and bolts” issues that are an
important part of any change. E4 said that the schools where he has seen significant change
have insisted on collaboration by hiring teachers who demonstrate the ability to collaborate and
firing teachers who do not. He also stated that these schools have established protocols that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 101

foster collaboration by creating safe spaces for teachers to engage in conversations about their
practice. This need to support collaboration through protocols was also expressed by E1. She
also described the need to create time in teachers’ schedules to allow collaboration to take place.
E6 agreed that requiring teachers to collaborate was essential for innovation diffusion because
she believed change will only take place if there are strong relationships. She said that
collaboration could best be fostered by posing a problem to a team (e.g., “We need to increase
science scores”) and asking the team to develop the process for addressing the problem and
monitoring their impact.
Respondents addressed several additional barriers that were not found in the literature
review. These included tradition creep (P2), opposition from others in the system (P2), lack of
prioritization (E4, E6), how funding is allocated (E5), and facilities (E5). These barriers and
how they were addressed were discussed in the section on change theory (see pages 70 to 72).
Manage Transitions, Expand Thinking, and Monitor Progress
Leadership plays a vital role in diffusing innovation across classrooms and schools
(Cravens & Hallinger 2012) because innovations will diffuse under the right set of conditions
(Fullan & Langworthy, 2014). Using strategies to manage transitions, expand thinking, and
assess and monitor progress will help leaders diffuse an innovation (Carr & Lhussier, 2007;
Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Clarke & Dede, 2009; Doyle et al., 2013; Penuel &
Fisherman, 2012; Miller & Shinn, 2005; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Waters & Grubb, 2005). One
strategy that was already discussed was monitoring progress (P1, P4, P5, P6, E2, E5; see page
81). Additional strategies shared included identifying innovations to diffuse, launching
innovation diffusion, evolving innovations, and creating feedback loops.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 102

Identify innovation to diffuse. One transition that needs to be managed is determining
what innovation should be diffused. In some cases, the innovations that diffuse across a system
are not always the ones that should diffuse (Rogers, 2010). Diffusion of the right innovations is
important so that isolated pockets of high-impact practices can spread beyond individual
classrooms or schools, spreading improvement across a system (Toh et al., 2014). There are
several factors that influence whether an innovation should be diffused. The most important
factor is whether there is evidence that demonstrates it will have a positive impact on a problem
(Elliott & Mihalic, 2004; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). Innovations that meet identified needs,
whether it is solving a problem, making something more efficient, or better addressing an
underserved population, will more likely diffuse (Ashby, Trying, & Longley, 2007; Christensen,
Baumann, Ruggles, & Sadtler, 2006).
Three practitioners shared strategies that align to these findings. P2 shared the importance
of connecting innovation to “workforce pipeline” to help faculty learn about and embrace a
specific change. P3 focused on connecting innovation to the school’s mission. P4 discussed the
importance of learning about an innovation through the creation of “brain space” opportunities
that allow faculty in safe ways to come up with crazy ideas for how to teach differently. Specific
strategies he shared included having a teacher “hackathon” focused on solving a specific issue or
having “think weeks” that would allow teachers to come forward with ideas. E4 was the only
expert who provided a strategy for identifying innovations to diffuse. He suggested focusing on
dissatisfactions that are in the system because teachers are more likely to embrace a change that
is solving a problem they are facing or a failure they have recognized.
Launch innovation diffusion. Another transition that needs to be managed is the
beginning of innovation diffusion. Launching innovation diffusion requires leaders who can act
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 103

as change agents, spreading messages about an innovation through interpersonal networks,
resulting in followers deciding to move along the innovation-decision continuum in the direction
established by the system (Rogers, 2010).
Several respondents discussed strategies specific to launching innovation. P1 and P4 both
stated that they launch any innovation with an emphasis on why it is important. P5 discussed the
need to have indicators of effectiveness at each stage of the journey prior to beginning it. He
believed the first thing that a teacher, a principal, and leadership team had to do was identify
what the innovation would look like at different levels of implementation (beginning to end).
This could then be used to differentiate how the innovation was introduced to specific teams. E4
shared the importance of making sure the school was ready for the innovation before it was
launched. This could be done through a school readiness assessment that determined how many
faculty are in each category - “goer,” “middle,” “questionable.” With this information, a
principal could make better decisions about how to launch an innovation. E3 discussed
connecting the innovation with the school’s identity by building on the work that has gone before
and emphasizing that the innovation is the next step in a journey.
Evolve innovations. To increase the chance that an innovation will diffuse, principals
need to expand thinking and help innovations evolve (Shiell-Davis et al., 2015). Three
practitioners and two experts mentioned evolving innovations. P2 discussed the importance of
not being “cookie cutter” and instead “stealing this and that,” combining innovative approaches
into an integrated process that is applicable for her context. E6 also discussed avoiding a
“cookie cutter” approach. She highlighted the importance of being clear about what “nuggets”
need to remain intact and what elements of the innovation can be evolved. Being clear on the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 104

non-negotiable components of the innovation will increase the chance that the impact of the
innovation will not be diluted because of how it evolves.
P1 discussed the importance of recognizing when an innovation is creating an
unintended negative consequence by decreasing attainment of a specific set of learning targets.
He gave an example of when he and his team determined that an innovation would need to be
supplemented with additional approaches to ensure all learning targets were supported. P3
shared the need to evolve innovations for one part of the system (e.g., elementary school) to
address problems in another part of the system (e.g., high school). For example, components of
an elementary program on linguistics could evolve into an innovative approach English teachers
could use at the high school. E1 supported the view of the practitioners by sharing the need to
evolve innovations to meet the developmental needs of the students. For example, project-based
learning for young students will require a level of scaffolding that might not be needed by older
students.
Summary of Diffusion Innovation Leadership Strategies Used
According to the literature reviewed previously, to effectively diffuse innovation leaders
need to: understand how and why innovations diffuse, embrace factors that enable innovation
diffusion, address barriers to innovation diffusion, and use strategies to manage transitions,
expand thinking, and assess and monitor progress (Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Toh
et al., 2014). All four aspects of innovation diffusion leadership were specifically addressed by
comments during the interviews. Managing transitions, expanding thinking, and assessing and
monitoring progress was discussed the most, with comments from all practitioners (15
comments total) and five of the experts (10 comments total). Understanding how and why
innovations diffuse had the second most comments by both groups, with eight comments from
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 105

practitioners and seven comments from experts. Utilizing enablers was third in frequency for
practitioners (six comments) while addressing barriers was third for experts (five comments).
Addressing barriers was the least frequently mentioned by practitioners (3 comments) while
utilizing enablers was the least frequently mentioned by experts (4 comments).
Learning Leadership Strategies
To positively impact student learning, principals need to act as learning leaders (Fullan,
2014a; Reeves, 2006) by creating and sustaining a system-wide focus on learning (Hallinger &
Heck, 2010; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Marks & Printy, 2003; Toll, 2010). Many scholars
took this one step further by saying that principals should be professional learners that develop
alongside a school’s faculty and students (Fullan, 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Soini,
Pietarinen, & Pyhältö, 2016). Learning leaders focus on both the adult actions and student
learning (Reeves, 2006). Learning leaders draw upon two conceptualizations of school
improvement: the teaching and learning focus of instructional leadership and the general
capacity-building mindset of transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014).
Practitioners and experts discussed strategies related to all three aspects of learning leadership.
Understand Antecedents That Lead to Results
Learning leadership requires principals to understand how antecedents (adult actions)
lead to results (student learning) (Reeves, 2006). By developing holistic accountability systems
that identify causes and effects, learning leaders are able to ensure that changes are having the
intended impact on student learning. P1 was the only practitioner who discussed the importance
of understanding the relationship between adult actions and student learning. He felt strongly
about this, saying that one needs to be willing to “just put anything on the table” and to only
keep those adult actions that have a positive impact. E1 shared this view, stating that if students
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 106

are really at the center, they will drive the actions adults will take and the actions that adults will
let go. She recognized that this is hard for schools to do and noted how impactful it could be
when schools have the courage to act on the intersection of their findings. She gave an example
of a school that decided to become asynchronous. The school bought a curriculum to give the
teachers some time to get used to being facilitators of learning rather than leaders of learning.
After implementing the new model for about four months, they realized they had about 25
percent of the students “ready to soar,” 50 percent of the students for whom the model was
“working great” and 25 percent of the students for which model was not working. They did
action research around why it was not working and realized it depended on the degree to which
the student were self-directed in their own learning. As a result, they decided to reorganize their
school around the students ability to self-direct learning, regardless of the chronological grade
in which they were. They understood the result the adult actions were having on learning and
were able to manipulate those actions to have a great impact for every student.
Instructional Leadership
Instructional leadership requires principals to promote evidence-based teaching practices
so student learning is maximized (Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Rigby, 2014; Shaked & Schechter,
2016; Tan, 2012). Principals act as instructional leaders when they articulate a school mission
focused on student learning; develop a positive climate for learning with high expectations;
establish professional learning communities; develop and support instructional programs;
provide faculty with feedback and resources, including professional development; monitor
learning; and supervise teacher use of instructional practices (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck
& Hallinger, 2014; Jenkins & Pfeifer, 2012; Louis et al., 2010; Osborne-Lampkin & Cohen-
Voget, 2014; Shaked & Schechter, 2016).
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 107

Two of the experts shared cautions about principals acting as instructional leaders in
order to diffuse innovation. E2 recognized that if a principal is not able to act as an instructional
leader, then she or he needs to be “fearless” and acknowledge that they are not this type of
leader, then empower those that are. If principals are not willing to do this because they are
afraid of faculty judging them, the result can be detrimental to diffusing an innovation. For
example, if a principal “holds all the data close to the vest,” not sharing the results with faculty
and middle level leaders, the consequence could be teams who are not able to monitor their
actions or make informed decisions about how to improve student learning. E3 also recognized
that the instructional leader and principal do not necessarily have to be the same person.
All of the respondents shared specific strategies related to instructional leadership.
Several of these strategies have been referred to previously, including articulating a vision (P2,
P3, P4, P5, P6, E4, E5, E6; see pages 67 to 68), understanding curriculum, assessment, and
instruction (P1, P2, P3, P5, E1, E2, E3, E4, E6; see pages 82 to 84), and developing a positive
climate (P4, P6, E1, E5, E6; see pages 84 to 85). Additional strategies mentioned by
respondents include: providing professional development, monitoring learning, clarifying
expectations for teachers, focusing on student learning, acting as a mentor or coach, appraising
performance, visiting classrooms, and hiring the right people.
Provide professional development. Principals should be professional learners that
develop alongside a school’s faculty and students (Fullan, 2001; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Soini,
Pietarinen, & Pyhältö, 2016). Principals act as instructional leaders when they recruit, organize,
professional development (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). Three of the practitioners described
providing professional development as a strategy they use to diffuse innovation. P2 relied on
professional development to move innovation across her school, putting “a third of [her] budget”
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 108

towards it. She had established an approach to selecting professional development based on data
she has collected and the number of students it will impact. P2 had identified certain practices
that all teachers must be trained in and regularly provided opportunities for teachers to engage in
varied professional development opportunities related to these practices. P2 believed that in
addition to upskilling her teachers, this approach of “PD on steroids” helped her teachers feel
like she cared about them, having a positive impact on climate. P4 also talked about the
importance of providing professional development and stated that it was vital for him be in
workshops with teachers. This helped teachers know that he was not an expert and was learning
alongside them, resulting in increased trust and credibility because he was demonstrating
vulnerability. While P5 agreed providing professional development was vital to success, he
added that differentiating professional development to meet teacher needs was also necessary.
Several of the experts referenced providing professional development as a strategy
principals should use to diffuse innovation. E1 said principals should focus on experiences that
help faculty understand why the change is taking place and what is going to be different once the
change is in effect. E2 believed that principals need to strategically determine the best method
for providing professional learning. E2 stated that principals should be cautious about bringing in
external experts to whom everyone is expected to listen. He believed a better approach is to
allow faculty to decide whether they would attend. E2 recognized that it is counterintuitive to
spend the same money to have 50 instead of 500 listen to an expert, but believed that the money
would be recouped because the expert could be used in different ways (e.g., as a thought partner
or critical friend to the leadership team). E4 stated that it was important that professional
development first be offered for principals and those on their leadership team. By acting as their
own professional learning community, principals and their teams could surface potential issues
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 109

before the professional development is given to faculty. Taking this approach also allowed
principals to have a team with whom they could problem-solve as the innovation continued to be
diffused and allowed the leadership team to present a “united front” to faculty. E6 agreed that it
is important to provide professional learning opportunities for the principals as well. She also
believed the way schools do professional learning has to change, moving from schoolwide
professional development to allowing teachers to engage in learning opportunities of their own
choice. Principals should also find ways to recognize learning that takes place through
professional social media, like twitter feeds. E6 posited that as long as a teacher or principal can
actually demonstrate they have learned, that learning should be recognized regardless of when or
how it was done.
Monitor learning. Principals act as instructional leaders when they focus on the
instructional environment by monitoring time spent on instruction, how frequently students are
actively learning, and the quantity and quality of extra help provided (Heck & Hallinger, 2014).
Two practitioners discussed monitoring learning as a strategy they use to diffuse innovation. P1
discussed the importance of having a deep understanding of how to assess 21st century skills like
communication and critical thinking. One mechanism he used to monitor student attainment of
these type of skills was student-led conferences that required students to exhibit a defense of
their learning. P4 discussed how mining growth data allowed him to monitor the learning that
was taking place and whether changes being implemented were having a positive or negative
impact. He also relied on the use of student survey anecdotal data to monitor student perceptions
of changes taking place.
One expert discussed the importance of monitoring learning. E6 shared that it was
important to collect baseline learning data from multiple sources, including student perception.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 110

Principals should then target particular indicators to “move the needle on” during the next year,
creating specific tactical plans and professional learning opportunities to increase the chance of
success.
Clarify expectations for teachers. Principals need to clarify high expectations for
faculty that help them focus on continuous improvement (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). One
practitioner and one expert discussed the importance of clarifying expectations for teacher. P1
supported innovation diffusion by developing the “qualities of beliefs” of what he wanted in
teachers. This included having staff believe that all students could succeed at high levels
regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or family situation. He also wanted staff who believed
school should be a nurturing place, caring about students outside of school hours as well as
within. Finally, he wanted teachers who believed in collaboration and were willing to contribute
to a shared leadership model. P1 used these expectations to hire new teachers, appraise existing
teachers, and terminate contracts of teachers who were not wanting to be a part of the innovation
his school was diffusing. E1 shared a similar view, stating that “you can’t just lay competency
down.” Instead, E1 believed that principals need to outline how expectations for teachers will
change as a result of the innovation being diffused, particularly in the areas of assessment and
instruction.
In addition to clarifying expectations for teacher competency, Principals also need to be
clear on what expectations are tight, requiring compliance, and what expectations are loose,
where the teacher has flexibility in how they implement the expectation (DuFour, DuFour,
Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004). P1 believed the tight expectations were important so his faculty
would know what he expected them to do. He believed identifying what was loose was equally
important so his faculty did not feel like he was micromanaging the work they were doing. P3
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 111

recognized the need to be more “tight” as an innovation was being diffused to ensure
implementation was occurring as it is supposed to, but that expectations could become more
“loose” as people become familiar with the change. She used the specific example of being very
explicit about what tools teachers needed to use during the early stages of implementing social-
emotional learning practices. She stated that as people became familiar with these practices,
teachers were given the flexibility to evolve tools or develop their own, as long as the original
parameters are met. P4 shared similar views, stating that that certain parameters needed to be met
but that decisions within those parameters were up to the teams doing the implementing. He
recognized that this could be “tricky” because if he became too tight faculty buy-in could drop,
but that if he was not tight enough quality could be compromised. He viewed quality as a bell-
shaped curve and each tail of the curve was too tight or too loose. He recognized that the “sweet
spot is in the middle” and that one of the greatest leadership challenges is finding “that sweet
spot for any given innovation” because it is different for every innovation and every context. E6
was the only expert who mentioned this concept of tight and loose. She stated that innovations
fail when they are “cookie cutter” or too tight. Instead, principals need to identify what is most
important about the innovation and then make these non-negotiable with everyone else being
flexible.
Focus on student learning. Principals act as instructional leaders when they have high
expectations for student learning and focus on how frequently students are actively learning
(Heck & Hallinger, 2014). Three of the practitioners and one expert shared how focusing on
student learning was a strategy that helped them diffuse innovation. P1 stressed the importance
of focusing on the profile of a graduate, which he described as a school’s desired learning
outcomes. He used the profile to guide what programs the school implemented to ensure students
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 112

built competence in each outcome. E1 also discussed the importance of developing a graduate
profile focused on “21
st
Century” learning outcomes. This graduate profile would outline what
students would be expected to know and be able to do as a result of being at the school.
Principals should use the profile as the starting point of conversations about learning with
faculty, parents, and other stakeholders. P3 discussed using student learning as a lens to filter
what structures should stay and what should change. As an example, P3 cited changing the role
of classroom aides from teacher assistants that performed menial tasks to instructional assistants
that worked with students. P5 also stated the importance of using student learning as a filter for
decision-making. He shared that many times decisions start to be based on the impact on adult
autonomy or convenience and that he had to shift the conversation to have a focus on student
learning instead. This was important so barriers to learning are not maintained or unintentionally
erected.
Act as a mentor or coach. Effective leaders are those who help followers commit to a
vision (Collins, 2001) by acting as a coach who provides individualized support and intellectual
stimulation and models desired behavior is a practice (Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Three
practitioners and one expert mentioned acting as a coach or mentor. P1 recognized that one of
his roles is to coach teams, especially when those teams are facing difficulty. In this role, he
listened and asked questions in order to get the team to generate ideas. P2 focused on letting
staff know that they are professionals and then acted as a mentor by being authentic, grounded,
and “walking the talk.” P4 shared that it was the role of the principal to act as a coach, ensuring
that staff have the skills needed to implement whatever the innovation is. E3 was more explicit,
stating that principals should not “military generals” but should be mentors who guide staff
towards the vision.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 113

Appraise performance. Principals act as instructional leaders when they supervise the
teacher use of instructional practices (Louis et al., 2010). Three practitioners referred to
appraising performance as a strategy to diffuse innovation. P1 used performance appraisal as an
opportunity to coach others and ask questions. He explained that when somebody came into his
office, the focus was on the degree to which the teacher was demonstrating the expectations of
the school (e.g., collaborating with peers) and not the state performance standards for teachers.
P3 believed in “planned turnover” and used the appraisal process to address issues that arose
when teachers were not putting student needs before their own. She recognized that there were
also times when a teacher was actually really excellent in the classroom but had a negative
influence on the climate of the school. She stated that these were harder conversations to have
but were necessary in order to implement change across a school. P5 discussed using the
“learning maps” explained earlier (page 94) to monitor and evaluate where teams were in the
process of change over time. He stated that his approach had insured that innovation diffusion
was not left to chance because he was able to intervene where needed and provide additional
support to those who were struggling. P5 reflected on the importance of have a principal
appraisal tool that clearly evaluated the impact a principal was having on their teachers. In his
setting, this tool had three indicators: (1) every teacher was pursuing successful learning for
every student; (2) teachers helped others within the school; and (3) teachers were having an
impact the extended community. Principals were appraised on how well they were helping every
teacher demonstrate these three indicators.
Visit classrooms. Principals act as an instructional leader when they visit classrooms to
observes instruction and provides faculty with feedback (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). One
practitioner and two experts stressed the importance of classroom visits in relation to diffusing
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 114

innovations. P1 stated that he tried to visit classrooms every day and spent time after school
attending teacher planning meetings. The classroom visits allowed him to witness the impact of
changes on classroom practice and student learning. Attending planning meetings help him hear
concerns with implementation so he could address them in a timely manner. E1 posited that
classroom visits were important to innovation diffusion because it allowed principals to know
who was implementing a change effectively and who needed additional support. She believed
that “targeted walk throughs,” where one aspect of a program is examined while visiting a series
of classrooms, allowed a principal to provide feedback to teachers on how well a specific
practice is being implemented. E6 agreed with the importance of given feedback to teachers
about whether or not a practice is being implemented. By doing this, principals could celebrate
areas where progress is evident and provide additional training or resources to support areas
where progress is lacking.
Hire the right people. Principals act as instructional leaders when they recruit quality
teachers (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). One practitioner and one expert referred to this strategy. P2
spoke about the importance of hiring teachers who, at a minimum, wanted to be a part of the
change taking place or, ideally, had experience implementing the innovation already. By hiring
the right people, P2 could rely on her teachers to come up with actions that would help move
theory into practice. She would also have teachers on staff who could provide “scaffolding” to
teachers who were not as experienced with the innovation. E1 discussed the need to have the
“right people on the bus,” referring to the fact that just because someone was good at teaching a
particular content area it did not mean they would necessarily be a good fit for the culture or the
changes taking place. Sometimes, this meant moving teachers from one grade level or team to
another to better utilize their talents.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 115

Transformational Leadership
Principals need to utilize transformational leadership to focus on cross-school
improvement, address systemic tensions, and create the conditions that support, but are not
directly related to, teaching and learning (Toh et al., 2014). Specific actions of transformational
leaders include establishing shared goals and vision, building a culture, establishing rigorous
expectations and rewards, providing intellectual stimulation, modeling expectations, and
individualizing support (Bass, 1985; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008).
Five of the components of transformational leadership identified in the literature review
relate to other parts of this dissertation. P2, P3, P5, E4, E5, and E6 discussed establishing shared
goals and vision relates applying change theory (see pages 66 to 68). P4, P6, E2, E3, and E5 –
discussed the importance of building a certain type of culture (see pages 84 to 85). P1, P3, P5,
and E6 discussed establishing rigorous expectations, though none of them mentioned rewards
(see pages 110 to 111). Only one practitioner (P3) shared the importance of providing
intellectual stimulation (see pages 85 to 86). Similarly, only one practitioner (P5) discussed an
approach to individualizing support in relation to how people adopt innovations (see page 94).
The one component that was not discussed by any of the respondents was modeling
expectations.
Summary of Learning Leadership Strategies Used
Learning leaders focus on both the adult actions and student learning (Reeves, 2006).
Learning leaders draw upon two conceptualizations of school improvement: the teaching and
learning focus of instructional leadership and the general capacity-building mindset of
transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014). Practitioners and experts discussed
strategies related to all three aspects of learning leadership, though only one practitioner and one
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 116

expert referred to the need to understand how antecedents lead to results. In contrast, 50
comments were made regarding elements of instructional leadership, 29 from practitioners and
21 from experts. There was also support for elements of transformational leadership, with 10
practitioner and seven expert comments connected to this topic. These elements of
transformational leadership all related to other aspects of the proposed conceptual framework.
Distributed Leadership Strategies
Principals must foster distributed leadership in order to identify and act upon ideas that
come from others (Conger as quoted in Bolman & Deal, 1994; Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
Fostering distributed leadership is necessary because the scope of responsibilities and tasks
necessary to effectively operate a school and improve conditions for teaching and learning is too
great for any one individual (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2004; Waters & Grubb, 2005). Fostering distributed leadership also helps a principal
fulfill the important role of acknowledging good ideas, supporting those ideas, and being
willing to challenge the status quo to adopt those ideas (Kouzes & Posner, 2012).
The broad-based involvement of teachers in the leadership function of a school is
typically referred to as teacher leadership (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011;
Spillane, 2005; Spillane 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). Although there are competing
definitions of teacher leadership, (e.g., Harris, 2003; Katzenmeyer & Moller 2009; Lambert,
1988; Wasley, 1991), one similarity is that they all focus on leadership from within the level of
the classroom (Harris 2003).
To foster distributed leadership, principals need to create conditions where leadership
capacity is encouraged, nurtured, and sustained in purposeful ways (Bush, 2013). Specific
strategies that can foster distributed leadership include valuing it, creating structures that fit
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 117

their context, selecting leaders based on qualities that are needed (as opposed to those who are
convenient), developing the leadership of those individuals, and utilizing the leaders in
authentic ways (Bush, 2013; Elmore, 2006; Harris, 2008; Hartley, 2010; Heck & Hallinger,
2014; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005; Waters & Grubb,
2005). Except for P3 and E2, each respondent shared examples of these strategies.
Value Distributed Leadership
Bush (2013) considered distributed leadership the preferred leadership model in the 21st
century. This was partly due to the fact that it helped ease the strain on principals and other
senior administrators who were overloaded (Bush, 2013; Hartley, 2010). It was also due to the
power in combining all the expertise available in a school (Bush, 2013). This resulted in
principals managing less directly and more indirectly through the networks that have developed
(Elmore, 2006). Frost (2008) identified distributed leadership as a key factor in supporting
innovation in schools.
Three of the practitioners spoke about valuing distributed leadership. P1 shared that he
believed “wholeheartedly in a shared leadership model” and that he relied on teacher leaders to
guide the work of his school. P1 also shared a caution that shared leadership can lead to
decision fatigue, so it is important to know when to involve everyone in decisions and when to
make decisions as the principal. P2 shared a similar view of relying on teacher leaders, though
she counted on them to make decisions and only inserted herself when necessary “to keep the
school legal.” P6 discussed the importance of bringing people together around shared problems
or shared things to improve. She believed this was a more meaningful way to work than being
in isolation as a traditional leader of a system.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 118

Three of the experts spoke about the importance of distributed leadership. E1 stated that
principals needed to build a design team with representative stakeholders. She believed that
having a design team gave principals different perspectives and helped them see “landmines”
before they arise. E4 stated that principals needed to support teachers who became excited about
an innovation through both emotional and structural support, fostering their ability to lead the
innovation from the classroom level. E5 postulated that a shared vision required distributed
leadership. He stated, “what we can say now about both high quality schools and high quality
school systems is that the heroic leadership model just doesn't work, at least not long term.” He
believed taking the time to create a distributed leadership structure was much more likely to
lead to success instead of doing the change by oneself. E5 also discussed that one reason
distributed leadership is now more important than ever is that here has been a shift to digital
learning where everybody and everything is connected. He suggested that if a leader does not
look for “really promising practices among teacher leaders” and instead tries to impose a change
on the system, it is likely to fail. To create a generative environment where teacher leaders are
shaping a framework, E5 stated it is important that a principal identified, cultivated, and
rewarded teacher leaders.
Structure Distributed Leadership to Fit the Context
Distributed leadership is not restricted to one structure or hierarchy. Instead, it is
comprised of a network of employees who share the vision of the school and are actively
involved in the decision making (Harris, 2008; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005).
Three practitioners and one expert discussed successful structures they used or had seen used.
P1 discussed having his team leaders sit on a strategic planning team. The strategic planning
team met every other week and collectively decided how to use faculty meetings and what
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 119

directions needed to be given to the teams each leader represented. P6 focused on ensuring that
there was no hierarchy and that there was a flat structure where all faculty acted as leaders. E5
noted that taking the time to create a distributed leadership structure was “super important”
because the heroic leadership models did not work, at least in the long term.
P5 discussed in detail a different type of structure that included team leaders, core
leaders, and curriculum specialists. Instead of traditional department chairs, P5 had at the head
of this structure “curriculum directors.” These positions were administrator level and oversaw
the core leaders. They teach one or two classes and the rest of the time they are focused on the
entire department by leading changes in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. For those
within their department, curriculum directors were responsible for hiring, evaluating, making
recommendations for firing, and providing professional development. Core leaders focused on
discipline-based departments and directed the work of the team leaders. Core leaders were given
release time to work with the professional learning communities, supporting changes in
curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Team leaders focused on leading professional learning
communities. They were given occasional release time to visit classrooms of those in their
professional learning community in order to provide teachers with feedback on teacher practice
and student learning. P5 believed that this structure provided more opportunities for leadership
and resulted in better teachers because those core leaders and curriculum directors were
themselves becoming more adept at the changes underway. Additionally, the structure supports
the principal in “leveraging transformational change” across a large faculty by providing the
principal with “multiple levers” to impact teacher behaviors.
The remaining comments were not about a specific structure but were instead about the
importance of the composition of teams within the structure. E3 discussed the importance of
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 120

making sure team members matched the innovation being implemented. Examples included
having a technology person on the team if the innovation required use of specific technology or
having an instructional coach on the team if the innovation required a change in instructional
practice. E6 also discussed the importance of including specialist roles (e.g., curriculum,
technology), parents, or instructional aides in distributed leadership structures. She believed that
these roles brought expertise that could help address “zingers” as they occurred. E1posited that it
was important to “utilize everybody on staff as leaders,” specifically referencing the role non-
faculty on campus could have on teams. P2 shared this perspective, stating that on her teams it
would be common to see, based on the innovation, office and campus security professionals,
outside experts, and interns from STEM industries. E5 discussed having “grade span” teams that
teacher leaders could manage. These teams should include “junior” (intern) teachers as well as
special and para educators. E5 posited that this form of “pod leadership” was being seen more
frequently.
Select Leaders
Principals should not just give influence to those with expertise or years of experience.
Instead, they need to identify and develop potential leaders (Waters & Grubb, 2005). Four of the
practitioners shared practices aligned with this statement. P1 choose leaders who were “willing
to be in a room and not worry about getting along.” He also selected leaders that helped provide
gender and ethnic diversity as well as leaders who had different areas of passion. For P1, the
most important attribute in those he selected was their willingness to allow him to “shed the
label of principal during a meeting.” He wanted people who were willing to push his thinking.
P2 took a different approach, saying that she identified the “natural leaders that just sort of rise
to the occasion.” P4 stated that choosing leaders was about identifying “who the power players
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 121

are inside of the system.” He identified these people as the ones that had credibility within the
system because they understand why a change needs to happen (knowledge), how a change
should happen (skills), and had the ability to positively impact culture. P4 also noted that some
potential leaders might have the skills but not the political credibility or vice versa. He viewed
both cases as a “limiter” and suggested that the focus needed to be on finding people who had a
cross section of all three areas mentioned previously. P6 shared a similar view, stating that she
concentrated on finding leaders with “specific expertise and skills based on problems she is
trying and solve.” Her energy goes into “intentional work” that helps team members make a
connection and develop relationships and a sense of belonging. One specific strategy she cited
is strengths-based coaching, which allowed different people on a team to lead in different ways
or at different times.
Two of the experts shared views pertaining to selecting teacher leaders. E3 stated that
principals should try to choose team members who have status and influence already to avoid
creating a group with new people. E5 believed selection of teacher leaders depended on whether
they were permanent roles (e.g., grade level teacher leader) or project based roles (e.g., team
responsible for implementing a new strategy). If roles were permanent, teachers needed to be
selected who were willing to perform supervisory duties and work with new teachers. If roles
were project based, appointed teachers leaders needed to have an “innovation mindset” and be
skilled in project management and design thinking. These teacher leaders also needed to be
willing to say “I don’t know” and be comfortable with learning alongside the team they are
leading.
Develop Leaders
Leaders can actually increase their power by developing individuals or groups that
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 122

follow them (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Two of the practitioners specifically mentioned the need
to develop leaders. P4 recognized the need to invest in people that he wanted to develop at a
faster rate than others so they would be able to share out their learning and lead the efforts of
their colleagues. P6 shared that it is important for a principal to “grow succession” so she could
“lead [her] way out of things.” One expert, E5, also discussed the need to develop leaders. He
believed that helping teacher leaders network through “networked improved communities”
connected people around improvement strategies. He also shared that online organizations like
publicimpact.org or opportunityculture.org could also provide teachers leaders with the
opportunity to learn new strategies, increasing the impact they can have on their own teams.
Utilize Leaders
Bush (2013) considered distributed leadership the preferred leadership model in the 21st
century because it helps ease the strain on principals and other senior administrators who are
overloaded (Bush, 2013; Hartley, 2010). It is also due to the power in combining all the expertise
available in a school (Bush, 2013). Three of the practitioners focused on how they used
distributed leadership teams. P1 used his distributed leadership structure to conduct action
research, explore different resources, advocate for professional development or training, and
request allocation of resources. P2 discussed how she her distributed leadership structure for
decision-making resulted in her rarely needing to make decisions on her own. She referenced the
use of “interest-based negotiation” as a strategy she used to help her leadership team make
decisions “as one team” instead of through consensus or majority voting. She noted that the
impact of this strategy is that her teacher leaders used it with the teams that they are running,
leading to all members of her faculty feeling like they have a role to play in decision-making. P4
used teacher leaders in a different way. He recognized that a small percentage of his teachers
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 123

would have all three attributes he looks for in a leader – knowledge, skill, and ability to impact
culture. He tapped this group to form a guiding coalition to lead the change and bring along more
faculty until they “get to the tipping point (around 50 to 60 percent) and then it becomes uncool
to not be on board.” P4 also believed distributed leadership had a role to play in communication.
If principals were willing to use their teacher leaders in this way, P4 believed messages would
move faster across the organization.
E3 was the only expert to speak about how teacher leaders could be used. He recognized
that the principal did not actually need to lead meetings, though they should be present to play a
“listening, supportive role.” He also believed that teacher leaders should help the principal set
goals and then be held accountable to them. E3 suggested that progress should be shared publicly
so the rest of the faculty would understand what was happening and would not feel like things
are being done behind their backs.
Summary of Distributed Leadership Strategies Used
To foster distributed leadership, principals need to create conditions where leadership
capacity is encouraged, nurtured, and sustained in purposeful ways (Bush, 2013). Specific
strategies that can foster distributed leadership include valuing it, creating structures that fit
their context, selecting leaders based on qualities that are needed (as opposed to those who are
convenient), developing the leadership of those individuals, and utilizing the leaders in
authentic ways (Bush, 2013; Elmore, 2006; Harris, 2008; Hartley, 2010; Heck & Hallinger,
2014; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005; Waters & Grubb,
2005). More practitioners made comments about distributed leadership then experts (16 to 10).
The area that received the most comments was creating a structure to fit the context (four
practitioner comments, three expert comments). Practitioners mentioned selecting the right
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 124

leaders four times, while only two experts mentioned it. Practitioners and leaders both
mentioned valuing distributed leadership three times. Practitioners also mentioned utilizing
leaders three times, as compared to only once by an expert. Developing leaders had the fewest
comments with two from practitioners and one from experts.
Additional Leadership Strategies
Demonstrate Characteristics Associated with Effective Leadership
Fullan (2004a) identified mutually dependent elements that effective leaders have: (1) a
strong sense of moral purpose; (2) an understanding of the change process; (3) emotional
intelligence; (4) a capacity to facilitate knowledge sharing; and (5) an ability to help a group
achieve coherence and connectedness. He added that effective leaders have a sense of purpose
to make a difference, use strategies that will help people tackle tough problems, hold themselves
accountable through measurable indicators, and assess success by the degree to which others
become intrinsically committed (Fullan, 2004a).
Practitioners interviewed demonstrated several of these characteristics. P1 had a strong
sense of moral purpose that drove his pursuit of the vision he has established for his school
(which focused on every student achieving at high levels). P2 demonstrated a sense of purpose to
make a difference, wanting to positively impact the workforce pipeline for the common good. P2
focused on establishing shared values that required every teacher to ensure that “every student
has every opportunity that he or she needs to be a really good learner, an achiever, and a problem
solver so that they can get to the next level, whatever that means for them.”
P3 regularly assessed success by the degree to which others were intrinsically
committed. She did this through “planned turnover” of faculty who put their needs before
student needs, resulting in letting twenty-seven staff members go during her first two years. P5
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 125

perceived that past leaders he had worked with were charismatic, which resulted in compliance
but not commitment towards changes taking place. He recognized that to make significant
change, he would need to hold himself accountable to very specific outcomes that pushed “both
breadth and depth to allow an innovation to permeate a school.” He also recognized that it was
important for him to always be learning and iterating as the change unfolded to show his faculty
that he was also committed to making the change take place.
P6 reflected that she that her own “secret sauce” that needed to be intact to be a really
good leader. She described this secret sauce as having clarity about her own “purpose, vision,
and aspiration” for change which should could then lever to help a group achieve coherence and
connectedness. P6 agreed with the importance of having shared values because they form “the
conditions which will enable people to flourish.”
Focus on Management
Principals must overcome the challenge of balancing two main roles: acting as a
manager of the day-to-day tasks that need to be done and acting as a facilitator of school
improvement (Earley & Evans, 2013; Lewis & Murphy, 2008; Soini, Pietarinen, & Pyhältö,
2016). In order to create this balance, principals need to avoid spending all of their time putting
out fires, answering parents, dealing with operational functions like maintenance and finance,
and solving problems (Maccoby as cited in Bolman & Deal, 1994; Waters & Grubb, 2005).
One practitioner and two experts spoke about focusing on the tactical not just strategic.
P1 recognized that while his role in leading innovation change was important, he was also
responsible for making sure all other aspects of the school were “running right.” E6 discussed
the importance of principals balancing strategic leadership with tactical planning in order to
ensure policy, operational procedures, and structures helped make a change take place. E1
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 126

spoke at length about the need for principals to better balance the need for change leadership
with day-to-day events that come with running a school. She suggested that principals should
change the title of their secretary to “administrative assistant” and then to allow this person to
run the principal’s calendar and to handle the managerial portions of the principals job. E1 also
suggested that principals set up systems for handling predictable parent interactions. For
example, if a parent dropped in unexpectedly to see a principal, the administrative assistant
would know to prioritize the time being spent in classrooms. The assistant would have the
training to diffuse any tension and would find a time for the principal to meet with the parent
that is more suitable. Finally, E1 suggested that principals set up systems for handling
predictable student issues or physical space issues. She stated that principals need to become
better at learning to use other people in the building for things that were not emergencies. By
prioritizing being in the classroom, principals send a strong message that monitoring teacher
practice and student learning is one of the most important aspects of the position.
Recruit Followers
A leader can exist only if followers are present (Gage & Smith, 2016). To maintain
power, a leader must continue to satisfy follower expectations (Harris 2003) and develop the
individuals or groups that follow them (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). Two practitioners mentioned
this strategy. P1 recognized the important role he has in recruiting and developing followers. He
stated that while he originally felt he was the one responsible for the work, he now recognized
that a primary role he had was to motivate his staff to follow him. He recognized that he could
not be “the naked dancing guy on the hill” but instead needed to get other people “dancing”
with him. P4 shared that the ability to develop relationships, instead of intellectual prowess, was
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 127

the key to gaining followers. To do this, principals needed to be willing to understand where
people’s needs were and meet them where they are at.
Focus on Effective Meetings
Focusing on effective meetings was not a strategy that was specifically identified in the
literature reviewed. Two practitioners viewed this as an important strategy to use when
diffusing an innovation. P1 highlighted his focus on meetings as a key strategy he used to
diffuse innovations across his school. To positively impact culture, he started each faculty
meeting with a prompt that asked teachers to identify what is keeping them from being fully
present. This allowed him to understand what was happening with his teachers, both
professionally and personally. There have been times when knowing the mood was not positive
or that his faculty were feeling overwhelmed caused him to change his approach to the rest of
the meeting. P1 recognized that many meeting were not focused on student learning or the
change that needed to be implemented. In addition to clarifying expectations for how meeting
time should be spent, he asked teams to share out the work they were doing as a means to
increase accountability. He viewed these “share outs” as a way to also help with “cross-
pollination” of ideas because teams have the opportunity to learn from each other. P4 stressed
the importance of making sure that meetings are a good use of time. He noted that when
teachers feel their time is seen as valuable and is therefore well spent, they feel better about
what they are being asked to do, leading to a higher level of effectiveness in implementing the
innovation.
Two experts also mentioned meetings, specifically discussing the importance of using
protocols during these times. E3 believed that most teachers do not know how to lead meetings.
They need support, in the form of protocols, to help guide their teams in meetings that require
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 128

decision-making or conflict. E4 also discussed the importance of protocols, particularly ones
that foster that collaboration. For example, he discussed schools that have developed or adopted
protocols that are used for vetting project-based learning projects before they can be used with
students. He stated the use of protocols in these settings provided safe spaces for teachers to
engage in critical conversations.
Themes Derived from Analysis
Qualitative analysis of the interviews revealed that both practitioners and experts
perceived principals as having an important role in innovation diffusion. Additionally, both
practitioners and experts revealed strategies that principals can use to diffuse innovation across
already high-performing schools. All but one of these strategies, focusing on effective
meetings, related to concepts covered in the literature view on change leadership, innovation
diffusion leadership, learning leadership, and distributed leadership. Additionally, the majority
of the related strategies supported the proposed conceptual framework.
The conclusions below outline the themes discovered in each section of the analysis. To
be classified as a theme, the researcher looked for strategies that had been discussed by at least
three respondents. The conclusions below are categorized by the components in the proposed
conceptual framework. The components are in order of how many comments were made for
each one. Within each component, the themes are in rank order, based on how many comments
were made by respondents.
Change Leadership Strategies
With 102 comments, strategies related to change leadership were most frequently
mentioned by respondents. According to the literature reviewed, to effectively lead change
leaders need to apply change theory; utilize systems thinking; demonstrate the ability to be
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 129

agile, anticipate change and take action in rapidly evolving conditions; match their leadership
actions to the type of change taking place; understand the difference between transition and
change so they can help faculty through the process of accepting and adjusting to change
(known as transitioning); and embrace paradox that uses ‘both-and’ thinking to balance
interdependent opposites (Bridges & Bridges, 2017; Fullan, 2004a; Fullan, 2004b; Fullan,
2004c; Harris & Chrispeels, 2006; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002; Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009;
Joiner & Josephs, 2006; Marzano, Waters & McNulty, 2005; Schroeder-Saulnier, 2014; Shaked
& Schechter, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003; Tretheway, 1999;
Waters & Grubb, 2005; Watson, 2013).
Two of these aspects of change leadership were not referenced at all during the
interviews: the ability to be agile and embracing paradox. Four of these aspects were supported
by both practitioners and experts: applying change theory, utilizing systems thinking, matching
leadership actions to the type of change, and helping followers transition through change. Of
these, practitioners referred most frequently to matching leadership actions to type of change
taking place (17 comments) followed by applying change theory (15 comments). Experts had a
different order with applying change theory the most frequent (19 comments) followed by
matching leadership actions to type of change taking place (13). Utilizing system thinking was
referenced third most frequently for both groups, with experts making many more comments
(18) than practitioners (12). Helping faculty through transition was referenced the least with
four comments from each group.
Applying change theory was the subcategory that had the most comments (34 total, 15
from practitioners and 19 from experts). Applying change theory included creating a sense of
urgency, building a guiding coalition, forming a change vision and strategic initiatives, enlisting
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 130

a volunteer army, enabling action by removing barriers, and generating (and celebrating) short-
term wins, sustaining acceleration, and instituting change (Kotter, 2014). Every respondent
discussed the importance of forming a change vision and strategic initiatives. This is of note
because it is the only specific strategy in the entire study that was mentioned by every person
interviewed. Five practitioners and three experts discussed enabling action by removing
barriers. Four practitioners and three experts shared specific strategies for creating a sense of
urgency. Two experts discussed the importance of generating short term wins and one expert
discussed the importance of establishing a guiding coalition. Although no respondents directly
discussed enlisting a volunteer army, many did discuss the importance of relying on early
adopters and early adopters that is one strategy mentioned by Kotter (2014). These responses
were described in the section on utilizing Rogers’ adoption continuum. Similarly, although no
respondents directly discussed instituting change, several shared strategies that integrated the
changes into processes for hiring and supervising teachers. These responses are described later
in the section on instructional leadership. No respondents discussed strategies for sustaining
acceleration. The researcher drew the conclusion from this analysis that practitioners overall
found the strategies of creating a sense of urgency, building a change vision and plan, and
enabling action by removing barriers important in the diffusion of innovation. While the experts
supported these same strategies, except for building a change vision and plan, there was not the
same frequency of support across the group for these strategies.
Utilizing systems thinking and matching leadership actions to the type of change were
sub-categories related to change leadership that both had 30 comments with more experts
focused on utilizing systems thinking (18 experts versus 12 practitioners) and more practitioners
focused on matching leadership actions to the type of change (17 practitioners versus 13
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 131

experts). Within the sub-category of utilizing systems thinking, two strategies that almost all
experts (5 out of 6) discussed were involving the community and conducting school visits. In
contrast, only two practitioners mentioned each of these. Three experts mentioned managing
politics while two practitioners gave examples of using this strategy. Three practitioners
discussed engaging outside expertise as a useful strategy while one expert agreed and two
experts gave cautions that this strategy should only be used at the beginning stages of
innovation diffusion (with a reliance on internal expertise once an innovation has begun
diffusing). Two practitioners and two experts referred to the need to contextualize change. The
researcher drew the conclusion from this analysis that experts viewed systems thinking as more
important than the practitioners did.
Within the subcategory of matching leadership actions, connecting the innovation to
curriculum, instruction, and assessment was discussed the most frequently, with five experts
and four practitioners sharing specific strategies for how they do this. Five experts mentioned
the need to focus on addressing culture while only two practitioners did so. For the remaining
areas of monitoring and evaluating, offsetting a negative dip in communication, and
communicating ideals and beliefs, practitioners mentioned the strategy more frequently than
experts did (4 to 2, 3 to 1, and 3 to 0). The other responsibilities (change agent, flexibility, and
optimizer) were not directly addressed. Respondents also did not reference the need to offset the
negative impact on input and order. The researcher drew the conclusion from this analysis that
practitioners viewed matching leadership actions to the type of change as more important than
the experts did. The exception to this was connecting innovation to curriculum, instruction, and
assessment.
The subcategory under change leadership with the least amount of comments was
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 132

helping faculty through transition. The researcher recognized that the lack of comments might
have been because respondents were not clear on the difference between change and transition
instead of a lack of importance for this subcategory. Four experts and four practitioners
mentioned a variety of strategies related to this subcategory. Of particular interest is a specific
strategy that was discussed by both practitioners and experts: putting adults first. P1 described
this strategy best when he argued that while the focus needs to be on student learning, principals
cannot think of students first; instead they need to think of their adults first. He explained that if
a principal does not nurture the adults, they will not make the changes in the classroom. This
strategy is not something that was found in the literature reviewed.
The overall conclusion the researcher drew regarding change leadership is that
practitioners are more focused on taking action by creating a sense of urgency, developing a
change vision, enabling action by removing barriers, and matching their leadership actions to
the type of change taking place. While experts shared the importance of developing a change
vision, in contrast they were more focused on strategies related to changing the system and
culture to support the change needing to take place. To confirm this generalization would
require further study.
Learning Leadership Strategies
With 68 comments, strategies related to learning leadership were the second most
frequently mentioned by respondents. Learning leaders focus on both the adult actions and
student learning (Reeves, 2006). Learning leaders draw upon two conceptualizations of school
improvement: the teaching and learning focus of instructional leadership and the general
capacity-building mindset of transformational leadership (Heck & Hallinger, 2014).
Practitioners and experts discussed strategies related to all three aspects of learning leadership,
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 133

though only one practitioner and one expert referred to the need to understand how antecedents
lead to results. In contrast, 50 comments were made regarding elements of instructional
leadership, 29 from practitioners and 21 from experts. There was also support for elements of
transformational leadership, with 10 practitioner and seven expert comments connected to this
topic.
Principals act as instructional leaders when they articulate a school mission focused on
student learning; develop a positive climate for learning with high expectations; establish
professional learning communities; develop and support instructional programs; provide faculty
with feedback and resources, including professional development; monitor learning; and
supervise teacher use of instructional practices (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Heck & Hallinger,
2014; Jenkins & Pfeifer, 2012; Louis et al., 2010; Osborne-Lampkin & Cohen-Voget, 2014;
Shaked & Schechter, 2016). Every respondent discussed strategies related to instructional
leadership. The specific strategy that received the most comments was understanding
curriculum, instruction, and assessment (4 practitioners and 5 experts). Articulating a vision
focused on learning was mentioned as frequently by practitioners (4 comments) but less
frequently by experts (3 comments). This trend of more comments by practitioners than experts
was true for clarifying expectations (3 practitioners, 1 expert), focusing on learning (3
practitioners, 1 expert), acting as mentor or coach (3 practitioners, 1 expert), appraising teacher
performance (3 practitioners, 0 experts), and monitoring learning (2 practitioners, 1 expert). The
opposite was true for providing professional development (3 practitioners, 4 experts) and
ensuring a positive climate (3 experts, 2 practitioners). Two of the experts shared cautions
about principals acting as instructional leaders in order to diffuse innovation, recognizing that if
the principal does not have the capacity to act as an instructional leader, those who are capable
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 134

need to be empowered to act in this way. Although there were other comments related to
strategies for instructional leadership, they were singletons (not themes) so have not been shared
in this summary.
Specific actions of transformational leaders included establishing shared goals and
vision, building a culture, establishing rigorous expectations and rewards, providing intellectual
stimulation, modeling expectations, and individualizing support (Bass, 1985; Leithwood, Harris,
& Hopkins, 2008). While there were multiple comments that supported transformational
leadership, the strategies mentioned were all ones that overlapped with other parts of the
proposed conceptual framework. For example, shared goals and vision, which had three
comments from practitioners and three from experts, is related to applying change theory so was
discussed in the section under change leadership. The same is true for developing a culture
supportive to the change taking place (2 practitioner, 3 experts). Clarifying expectations, which
overlaps with instructional leadership, received three comments from practitioners and one from
an expert. Although there were other comments related to transformational leadership, they
were singletons (not themes) and related to other parts of the proposed conceptual framework.
The one component of transformational leadership that was not discussed by any of the
respondents was modeling expectations.
Learning leadership requires principals to understand how antecedents (adult actions)
lead to results (student learning) (Reeves, 2006). Only one practitioner and one expert made
reference to this as a strategy for leading learning. While this may have been because
respondents did not see the importance of directly linking data cause data (antecedents) to effect
data (student learning), the researcher recognized that the lack of comments also might have
been because respondents were not clear on this construct. Further investigation would need to
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 135

be done to understand this result.
The overall conclusion the researcher drew regarding learning leadership is that strong
instructional leadership is necessary, whether by the principal or by someone the principal
empowers. Practitioners shared more strategies for instructional leadership than experts did (29
to 21). Practitioners were focused on taking action that directly impacted teachers. Themes that
emerged included clarifying expectations, focusing on learning, understanding curriculum,
instruction, and assessment, offering professional development, acting as a mentor or coach, and
appraising performance. While experts shared the themes of understanding curriculum,
instruction, and assessment and offering professional development, singleton experts referred
the other strategies. This led the researcher to conclude that overall, practitioners viewed
strategies associated with instructional leadership as more helpful than experts did. To confirm
this generalization would require further study.
Innovation Diffusion Leadership Strategies
According to the literature reviewed previously, to effectively diffuse innovation,
leaders need to: understand how and why innovations diffuse, embrace factors that enable
innovation diffusion, address barriers to innovation diffusion, and use strategies to manage
transitions and expand thinking (Rogers, 2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Toh et al., 2014). All
four aspects of innovation diffusion leadership were specifically addressed by comments during
the interviews. Managing transitions and expanding thinking was discussed the most, with
comments from all practitioners (15 comments total) and five of the experts (10 comments
total). Understanding how and why innovations diffuse had the second most comments by both
groups, with eight comments from practitioners and seven comments from experts. Utilizing
enablers was third in frequency for practitioners (6 comments) while addressing barriers was
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 136

third for experts (5 comments). Addressing barriers was the least frequently mentioned by
practitioners (3 comments) while utilizing enablers was the least frequently mentioned by
experts (4 comments).
Managing transitions and expanded thinking including selecting what innovation to
diffuse, launching innovation diffusion, and evolving innovations once they were diffused. For
each of these strategies, there were three practitioner comments. One expert spoke about
selecting what innovation to diffuse, two spoke about launching innovation diffusion, and two
spoke about evolving innovations once they were launched.
Understanding how and why innovations diffuse included defining the term innovation,
understanding challenges related to innovation, and utilizing the concepts found in Rogers’
adoption continuum to differentiate approaches based on where teachers fell. Of these, utilizing
concepts associated with Rogers’ adoption continuum was most frequently mentioned (4
practitioners, 3 experts). Four respondents spoke about their definition of innovations. These
definitions ranged from “this is not really innovation, its continuous improvement” (P1) to “this
is the application of a creative idea or process to existing challenges (E2) to “this is a
completely new way of working” (P4). The lack of common definition confirmed for the
researcher the need to understand the context in which the change was taking place because
what was viewed as an innovation in one setting might not be viewed the same way by a
different group of people in another setting.
Respondents mentioned multiple enablers mentioned in the literature review. The
enabler that was not supported through the interviews was determining the compatibility
between the innovation and the existing system prior to beginning diffusion. Enablers that were
mentioned more frequently by practitioners included being transparent about what the
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 137

innovation will look like (4 practitioners, 3 experts) and determining how success will be
assessed (4 practitioners, 2 experts). One enabler that was mentioned more frequently by experts
was providing technical assistance to those new to the innovation (4 experts, 3 practitioners).
The enabler that was mentioned with the same frequency was establishing distributed leadership
(5 of each group). Other enablers like ensuring adequate time and obtaining feedback were
mentioned but were supported by only one or two comments and therefore were not themes.
Several barriers mentioned in the literature review were also mentioned by respondents,
although there were also many that were not. The ones that were not specifically addressed by
respondents included: unsolved tensions around core elements of an innovation; inconsistent
perceptions; flagging momentum; human and financial resource difficulties; reluctance to
change components of the system to accommodate the change and too simple or too complex of
an innovation. The barrier that was supported by both practitioners (3) and experts (4) was
addressing silo thinking and behavior that discourage collaboration. Several other barriers were
mentioned but were supported by only one or two comments and therefore were not themes.
These included tradition creep, opposition from others in the system, lack of prioritization, how
funding is allocated, and facilities.
The overall conclusion the researcher drew regarding innovation diffusion leadership is
that principals focused on the various stages of innovation and how faculty will react to those
stages. This included supporting innovators and early adopters to evolve innovations after they
have already implemented them. Additionally, principals focused on utilizing enablers that will
help innovations diffuse and removing barriers that will make them harder to diffuse. Except for
the specific strategy of addressing barriers that prevent collaboration where there were five
experts and three practitioners, practitioners consistently had more comments than experts. This
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 138

leads the researcher to conclude that overall, practitioners viewed strategies associated with
innovation diffusion as more helpful than experts did. To confirm this generalization would
require further study.
Distributed Leadership Strategies
To foster distributed leadership, principals need to create conditions where leadership
capacity is encouraged, nurtured, and sustained in purposeful ways (Bush, 2013). Specific
strategies that can foster distributed leadership include valuing it, creating structures that fit
their context, selecting leaders based on qualities that are needed (as opposed to those who are
convenient), developing the leadership of those individuals, and utilizing the leaders in
authentic ways (Bush, 2013; Elmore, 2006; Harris, 2008; Hartley, 2010; Heck & Hallinger,
2014; Kouzes & Posner, 2012; Leithwood & Seashore, 2011; Spillane, 2005; Waters & Grubb,
2005). All practitioners except one (P3) discussed at least one way that they fostered distributed
leadership. Practitioners made more comments about distributed leadership then experts (16 to
10). The area that received the most comments was creating a structure to fit the context (4
practitioner comments, 3 expert comments). Four practitioners also mentioned selecting the
right leaders four times, while only two experts mentioned it. Three practitioners and three
experts mentioned valuing distributed leadership. Three practitioners also mentioned utilizing
leaders, as compared to only one expert. Developing leaders had the fewest comments with two
from practitioners and one from expert.
The overall conclusion the researcher drew regarding fostering distributed leadership is
that while there was a recognition that distributed leadership was a useful strategy, there was not
the same level of support for distributed leadership as there was for the other components in the
framework. This may be because of the way the question was worded on the interview. It also
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 139

may be because fostering distributed leadership by its nature delegates action to other people, so
practitioners did not see this as key to successful innovation diffusion as the other categories
discussed. To confirm why fostering distributed leadership was not as significant as originally
predicted in the proposed conceptual framework would require further study.
Additional Leadership Strategies
Demonstrate characteristics associated with effective leadership. Fullan (2004a)
stated that effective leaders have a sense of purpose to make a difference, use strategies that will
help people tackle tough problems, hold themselves accountable through measurable indicators,
and assess success by the degree to which others become intrinsically committed (Fullan,
2004a). Five of the practitioners shared specific strategies that demonstrate that they have these
characteristics. Four practitioners spoke about why they lead innovation diffusion, connecting it
to wanting to make a difference. Two practitioners spoke about assessing their success by the
degree to which others were intrinsically committed.
Focus on management. Principals must overcome the challenge of balancing two main
roles: acting as a manager of the day-to-day tasks that need to be done and acting as a facilitator
of school improvement (Earley & Evans, 2013; Lewis & Murphy, 2008; Soini, Pietarinen, &
Pyhältö, 2016). One practitioner and two experts spoke about balancing leadership with
management, especially the day-to-day events that come with running a school. All three
respondents focused on strategies that establish systems or processes to support management
issues when they arise.
Focus on effective meetings. Focusing on effective meetings was not a strategy that
was specifically identified in the literature reviewed. Two practitioners and two experts viewed
this as an important strategy to use when diffusing an innovation. The strategies mentioned by
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 140

practitioners focused on ensuring meeting time was focused was on the right topics while
experts mentioned the strategy of using protocols to make meetings feel safe.
All three of these additional themes related to the concept of acting like both a leader
and a manager. The overall conclusion the researcher drew is that while it is important for
principals to use strategies related to change leadership, instructional leadership, innovation
diffusion leadership, and distributed leadership, principals need to remember how to be
effective leaders while also staying focused on management issues. While this was not
originally in the proposed conceptual framework, it is based by the literature reviewed.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 141

CHAPTER FIVE:
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
To ensure that innovative high-impact practices do not just stay in isolated pockets of
implementation, there must be strong leadership to facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion
(Judd, 2017). Principals are challenged with the complex task of fostering and supporting
innovation diffusion. Although many studies have sought to understand aspects of principal
leadership (e.g., Bush & Glover, 2014; Day, Leithwood, & Sammons, 2008; Earley & Evans,
2003: Heck & Hallinger, 2014; Lewis & Murphy, 2008; Waters & Grubb, 2005) and many
studies have focused on diffusion or scaling of innovation (e.g., Dyer, Gregersen, &
Christensen, 2011; Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008; Glazer & Peurach, 2013; Rogers,
2010; Shiell-Davis et al., 2015; Toh et al., 2014), limited research has been conducted to
examine the intersection of the two. The purpose of this study was to understand what
leadership strategies that have helped principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an
established, high-performing school.
Chapter One introduced the study, including the proposed conceptual framework.
Chapter Two reviewed literature pertaining to the components found in the proposed conceptual
framework: change leadership, innovation diffusion leadership, learning leadership, and
distributed leadership. Chapter Three described the methodology used for this qualitative study.
Chapter Four began with analysis of interviews conducted with practitioners and experts and
ended with conclusions the researcher drew from that analysis. This chapter will provide a
summary of the findings, how these findings informed a final conceptual framework, and
suggestions for further research.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 142

Summary of Findings
Both practitioners and experts viewed principals as having an important role in diffusing
innovative high-impact practices across a school context. Both groups were able to identify
specific strategies that principals used to successfully diffuse innovation. Overall, practitioners
were focused more on nurturing the innovation at the classroom level, starting from where their
school was in relation to the change and then working with faculty to propel the change across
the system. None of the practitioners expressed the view that the success or failure of innovation
diffusion was highly dependent on them as principals. Instead, their viewpoints focused on
specific aspects of a principal’s position in helping to diffuse innovations across their schools.
Practitioners believed that their primary role was supporting teachers as they implemented an
innovation.
In contrast, the experts were generally more focused on the actual position of principal
as the ones responsible for leading change and innovation. They believed that a principal’s
primary role was to provide a vision, change the culture and system, and then lead the way in
changing the status quo. The outlier expert view (E2) stated that is was not actually the position
of principal that played an important role; it was the position of instructional leader. He
recognized that at times this might be the principal, but that it can also be staff members that a
principal empowers.
Implications

Findings from the interview have caused the researcher to change the proposed
conceptual framework outlined in Chapter One, as seen in Figure 1. The study had used this
framework to see if principals who successfully diffused an innovation across an established,
high-performing school perceived one or more of these categories as more important than others
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 143

or if they perceived them as equally important.

Figure 1. Proposed Conceptual Framework
Through analysis of interview transcripts, the researcher determined that some of the
categories were more important than others. This is demonstrated on the final conceptual
framework (Figure 4) through different size circles and fonts. Additionally, several of the
strategies originally identified as important were not mentioned and several strategies
emphasized by respondents were missing. The final conceptual framework was revised to
include a list of strategies emphasized by respondents. One category was added that was not
found in the literature reviewed but was based on the interview analysis.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 144

Figure 4. Finalized Conceptual Framework
Strategies relating to change leadership were mentioned the most frequently (102 times),
resulting in the biggest circle. Strategies related to instructional leadership and innovation
diffusion leadership were mentioned with approximately the same frequency (51 and 53 times)
and therefore they have the same size circles. Strategies related to fostering distributed
leadership were significantly less (27), resulting in the third smallest circle. Because strategies
that focus on acting like both a leader and a manager were mentioned the least frequently (14
times), this category has the smallest circle.
Because innovation means a completely new or novel way of working, behaving,
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 145

organizing, delivering, or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement (Rogers, 2010;
Shiell-Davis et al., 2015), it requires change from the status quo. Therefore, it is not surprising
that change leadership was the category that the most comments fell under. The subcategories of
change leadership strategies listed in Figure 4 were originally found in the literature review and
backed by the interviews of both practitioners and experts. Understanding and applying change
theory is listed first because it is the subcategory to which respondents most frequently referred.
Although matching leadership actions to type of change and utilizing systems thinking were
referred to with the same frequency overall, they are ordered as they are because practitioners
referred to matching their leadership actions to the type of change more frequently than to
utilizing systems thinking. Helping faculty through transition came last because, while there
were enough references to make this a trend, it was referred to significantly less frequently than
the other three sub-categories. Two of the original subcategories listed in Figure 1,
demonstrating leadership agility and embracing paradox, were not included in the final
conceptual framework because there was no support for them in the data analysis.
Effectively leading change does not guarantee improved teaching and learning which is
why principals need to utilize instructional leadership strategies. The proposed conceptual
framework originally had the term “learning leadership” and include the subcategories of
focusing on both antecedents of excellence and achievement of results, utilizing instructional
leadership, and utilizing transformational leadership. While all three of these subcategories are
supported through the literature reviewed, there was not the same level of support for two of
them through the interview transcript analysis. Only one practitioner and one expert referred to
the need to understand how antecedents lead to results, which was not a trend in the comments.
Therefore, this subcategory was deleted from the final conceptual framework. Although there
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 146

were identified trends related to transformational leadership strategies, all of them were
repetitive with other parts of the proposed conceptual framework. Therefore, this subcategory
was also deleted from the final conceptual framework. As a result, the category was changed to
utilizing instructional leadership strategies (instead of learning leadership).
The subcategories of instructional leadership strategies listed in Figure 4 were originally
found in the literature review and backed by the interviews of both practitioners and experts.
Supporting teachers through professional development, mentoring, and appraisal is made up of
multiple strategies to which several practitioners referred and at least one expert supported.
This subcategory comes first on the list because it had the highest frequency of comments.
Understanding curriculum, instruction, and assessment was second because it was the
subcategory referred to second most frequently by both practitioners and experts. Articulating a
vision focused on learning is third because it was the next subcategory in terms of comments.
Clarifying expectations came last because, while there were enough references to make this a
trend, it was referred to significantly less frequently than the other three sub-categories.
Because principals do not want high-impact innovative practices to remain isolated in
pockets within a school, it is important that they utilize innovation diffusion leadership
strategies. This category received the third most comments from respondents and is therefore
the third largest circle. While the subcategories in the list in Figure 4 remain the same as those
found in Figure 1, the order is different based on the frequency with which respondents
mentioned them. Managing transitions and expanding thinking was listed first because it had the
most comments, particularly by practitioners. Specific strategies under this subcategory
included determining what innovation to diffuse, launching the diffusion, and evolving the
innovation. Understanding how and innovation diffusion happens had the second most
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 147

comments. Within this subcategory, defining what innovation is for the specific context and
understanding how innovation was adopted along a continuum of implementers were specific
strategies mentioned. Utilizing enablers and addressing barriers are closely tied for frequency of
comments, but because utilizing enablers was addressed slightly more frequently by
practitioners than addressing barriers, it came in third. There were many enablers mentioned,
including being transparent about what the innovation will look like and determining how
success will be assessed. The barrier that was most frequently mentioned was addressing silo
thinking and behavior that discourage collaboration.
Because the scope of responsibilities and tasks necessary to effectively operate a school
and improve conditions for teaching and learning is too great for any one individual (Spillane,
Halverson, & Diamond, 2004) the researcher had anticipated that strategies to foster distributed
leadership would be mentioned frequently by respondents. While there were themes that were
derived from the interview protocol analysis, the frequency by which strategies to foster
distributed leadership was mentioned was significantly less than for the previous three
categories (27 times compared to 102 for change leadership, 51 for instructional leadership, and
53 for innovation diffusion leadership).
The proposed conceptual framework originally included the following subcategories for
distributed leadership: identifying and developing potential leaders, creating a common body of
knowledge and skills in those embracing leadership opportunities, and developing a culture that
defines and creates more leaders. While all three of these sub-categories are supported through
the literature reviewed, there was not the same level of support for two of them through the
interview transcript analysis: creating a common body of knowledge and skills in those
embracing leadership opportunities and developing a culture that defines and creates more
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 148

leaders. Therefore, these were not included in Figure 4. Instead, two new subcategories were
identified based on trends on the data analysis: valuing and utilizing distributed leaders and
establishing a structure to fit the context. Both of these were also supported by literature
reviewed in Chapter Two, they just had not originally been highlighted by the researcher as key
strategies. Valuing and utilizing distributed leaders and selecting and developing leaders had the
same number of comments by practitioners, but experts supported the first more frequently.
Therefore, valuing and utilizing distributed leadership appears first on the list of subcategories
related to fostering distributed leadership in Figure 4. Establishing a structure to fit the context
came last because, while there were enough references to make this a trend, it was referred to
less frequently than the other two sub-categories.
The three themes that emerged from the interview analysis that were not part of the
proposed conceptual framework were put into one category - acting like a leader and manager.
Two of the subcategories were supported by the literature reviewed: demonstrate characteristics
of effective leaders and focus on management. One subcategory – focus on effective meetings –
was not found in the literature reviewed. Five out of the six practitioners mentioned ways in
which they demonstrated characteristics of effective leaders (no experts commented on these
attributes). This is why demonstrating characteristics of effective leaders is first on the list
related to acting as a leader and manager in Figure 4. Two practitioners and two experts
discussed the importance of focusing on effective meetings, which is why it is listed second.
This includes both a focus on how meeting time is used and the use of protocols to make the
meeting feel safe. Two experts discussed the need to focus on management while only one
practitioner did, which is why it is listed third.
Creating innovative learning environments requires school leaders to become adept at
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 149

supporting and sustaining innovations. The success or failure of a reform is highly dependent on
the quality of the leadership (Day, Leighwood, & Sammons 2008) and requires principals who
are skilled, motivated, and willing to take risks, especially during times of uncertainty (Earley &
Evans, 2013). The results of this study should allow principals in similar contexts (already
established, high-performing schools) understand how they can better facilitate and sustain
innovation diffusion in their own schools.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on understanding what leadership strategies have helped principals
successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-performing school. The researcher
had five recommendations for future research.
1. Several concepts that were found in the literature reviewed and included in the
proposed conceptual framework were not referenced during the interviews. These
concepts included leadership agility, embracing paradox, and focusing on both
antecedents of excellence and student results. Further research should be
conducted to identify whether the lack of comments regarding any of these
concepts is because the respondents did not support these concepts or because
these concepts were unknown to the respondents.
2. The researcher recognized that that generalizability of these findings is limited to
school contexts that are established and high performing. Further research should
be conducted to see if these findings would be similar if principals were from
either start up schools or low-performing schools were interviewed.
3. While there was a recognition that distributed leadership was a useful strategy,
there was not the same level of support for distributed leadership as there was for
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 150

the other components in the framework. This may be because of the way the
question was worded on the interview. It also may be because fostering
distributed leadership by its nature delegates action to other people, so
practitioners did not see this as key to successful innovation diffusion as the other
categories discussed. To confirm why fostering distributed leadership was not as
significant as originally predicted in the proposed conceptual framework would
require further study.
4. A focus on effective meetings emerged from the interviews. This was not found in
the originally literature reviewed. Further study should be conducted to verify that
this is indeed an important aspect of innovation diffusion across a school.
5. There appears to be a trend that practitioners were more focused on nurturing
change at the classroom level while experts were more focused on leading change
at the systems level. For example, practitioners more frequently mentioned
strategies related to instructional leadership while experts more frequently
mentioned strategies related to systems thinking. Further study should be
conducted to verify if this trend is true and if it is, why the trend occurs.
Conclusion

Today, students are entering workplaces where they need knowledge and skills that go
beyond cultural literacy (Moore, 2015). They need to be competent in 21st century skills such as
collaborating, communicating, critically and creatively thinking, being agile, and assessing and
analyzing information (Levy, 2014; Zhao, 2012; Wagner, 2012). Schools need “to educate
students in a manner that maximizes their changes, over the course of their lives, both to be
open to innovation and to understand how to solve problems in a manner that may lead to
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 151

innovative solutions” (Zimmerman, 2015, p. 25). Traditional programs and practices are viewed
as not producing the necessary learning outcomes (Wagner, 2012; Zhao, 2012; Zimmerman,
2015). Disrupting traditional schooling can lead to institutions that are capable of producing
these types of graduates (Christensen, Johnson, & Horn, 2008). Creating innovative learning
environments requires school leaders to become adept at supporting and sustaining innovations.
The success or failure of a reform is highly dependent on the quality of the leadership (Day,
Leighwood, & Sammons 2008) and requires principals who are skilled, motivated, and willing
to take risks (Earley & Evans, 2013).
The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership strategies have helped
principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high-performing school. The
study can help principals understand how they can facilitate and sustain innovation diffusion in
their own school context. By utilizing specific change leadership strategies, employing
particular instructional leadership strategies, using identified innovation diffusion leadership
strategies, fostering distributed leadership, and acting as both a leader and a manager, principals
will help ensure that all students within their school have the benefit of innovative high-impact
practices that allow them to become better communicators, collaborators, and critical and
creative thinkers.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 152

References
Alkin, M.C. (2011). Section R: How are quantitative data analyzed? Evaluation
essentials: From A to Z. (pp. 166-179). New York: The Guilford Press.
Anderson, D., & Anderson, L. A. (2010). Beyond change management: How to
achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Ashby, D. I., Trying, B. L., & Longley, P. A. (2007). Police reform and the new public
management paradigm: matching technology to the rhetoric. Environment &
Planning C: Government & Policy, 25(2), 159-175.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Stogdill, R. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory,

research, and managerial applications. Simon and Schuster.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness
Through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bevan, H., & Fairman, S. (2014). The new era of thinking and practice in change and
transformation: A call to action for leaders of health and care NHS Improving
Quality.
Block, B. A. (2014). Leadership: A supercomplex phenomenon. Quest, 66(2), 233
246. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.879535
Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1994). Looking for leadership: Another search
party's report. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(1), 77-96.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 153

Bradley, E. H., Webster, T. R., Schlesinger, M., Baker, D., & Inouye, S. K. (2006).
Patterns of diffusion of evidence- based clinical programmes: a case study
of the Hospital Elder Life Program. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 15(5),
334-338.
Bridges, W., & Bridges, S. (2017). Managing transitions: Making the most of
change. Da Capo Press.
Browne, A., Medd, W., & Anderson, B. (2013). Developing Novel Approaches to Tracking
Domestic Water Demand Under Uncertainty-A Reaction on the ‘Up Scaling’ of Social
Science Approaches in the United Kingdom. Water Resources Management,
27(4),1013-1035.
Buell, J. M. (2012). Defining leadership: behavioral competencies for success. Healthcare
executive, 27(6), 18.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Bush, T. (2013). Distributed leadership: The model of choice in the 21st century. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 543-544.
doi:10.1177/1741143213489497
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School
Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553-571. doi:10.1080/13632434.2014.928680
Buzhardt, J., Greenwood, C. R., Abbott, M., & Tapia, Y. (2007). Scaling up
Class Wide Peer Tutoring: Investigating Barriers to Wide-Scale Implementation from
a Distance. Learning Disabilities – A Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 75- 96.
Cabrera, D., & Cabrera, L. (2015). Systems thinking made simple: New hope for
solving wicked problems.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 154

Card, J., Soloman, J., & Cunningham, S. (2011). How to Adapt Effective Programs
for Use in New Contexts [Electronic Version]. Health Promotion Practice, 12,
Carr, S. M., & Lhussier, M. (2008). Sharing practice innovation experiences: the ‘at-pack’
approach. Practice Development in Health Care, 7(4), 180-188.
Cederbaum, J. A., Ahyoung, S., Hsun-Ta, H., Tucker, J. S., & Wenzel, S. L.
(2014). Adapting an Evidence- Based Intervention for Homeless Women: Engaging
the Community in Shared Decision-making. Journal of Health Care for the Poor &
Underserved, 25(4), 1552.
Chang, J. C., Hsiao, H. C., & Tu, Y. L. (2011). Besides using transformational leadership,
what should schools to do achieve innovation. The Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 20(1), 48-60.
Chen, M. (2010). Education nation: Six leading edges of innovation in our schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive
innovation for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94.
Christensen, C. M., Johnson, C. W., & Horn, M. B. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. McGraw-Hill Professional
Publishing.
Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for Scalability: A Case Study of the River City
Curriculum. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 18(4), 353.
Clegg, S., Kohlberger, M., & Pitsis, T. (2008). Managing and organizations: An introduction
to theory and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Collins, J. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap... and others don't.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 155

New York: Harper Collins.
Covey, S.R. (1989). Seven habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Cran, C. (2015). The Art of Change Leadership: Driving Transformation in a Fast Paced
World. John Wiley & Sons.
Cravens, X. C., & Hallinger, P. (2012). School leadership and change in east asia:
Building capacity for education reform. Peabody Journal of Education,
87(2), 157-161. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2012.664461
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Flow and the psychology of discovery and

invention. Harper Perennial, New York, 39.
Day, C., Leithwood, K., & Sammons, P. (2008). What we have learned, what we need to
know more about. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 83-96.
Dekker, T., & Feijs, E. (2005). Scaling up strategies for change: change in formative
assessment practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 12(3),
237-254.
Diaz-Saenz, H. R. (2011). Transformational leadership. In A. Bryman, D. Collinson, K.
Grint, B. Jackson & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership (pp. 299
310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dlugash, M. (2014). Innovating schools: American school reform for the 21
st
century.
Kennedy School Review, XIV, 75-79.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 156

Doyle, C., Howe, C., Woodcock, T., Myron, R., Phekoo, K., McNicholas, C., et al.
(2013). Making change last: applying the NHS institute for innovation and improvement
sustainability model to healthcare improvement. Implementation
Science: IS, 8, 127-127.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How

professional learning communities respond when kids don't learn.

Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the

five skills of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Press.
Earley, P., & Evans, J. (2003). Leading and Managing Schools: A comparison between
independent and state school leaders. Management in Education, 17(1), 24-28.
Edvardsson, K., Garvare, R., Ivarsson, A., Eurenius, E., Mogren, I., & Nyström, M.E.
(2011). Sustainable practice change: Professionals’ experiences with a multisectoral
child health promotion programme in Sweden. BMC HealthServices
Research, 11(1), 61-72.
Eicher, J.P (2005). Leader-manager profile self-assessment. King of Prussia, PA: HRDQ.
Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective
prevention programs. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of The Society For
Prevention Research, 5(1), 47-53.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker
Institute.
Elmore, R. F. (2006, June). International perspectives on School Leadership for Systemic
Improvement. OECD Activity on Improving School Leadership: International
conference.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 157

Evergreen, S. D. H. (2017). Effective data visualization: The right chart for the right data.
Los Angeles: SAGE.
Eyal, O., & Kark, R. (2004). How do transformational leaders transform organizations? A
study of the relationship between leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, 3(30), 211-235. doi:10.1080/15700760490503715
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Fitzgerald, T., & Gunter, H. (2006). Teacher leadership: A new form of managerialism.
quoted in Bush, T. (2013). Distributed leadership: The model of choice in the 21st
century. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 543-544.
doi:10.1177/1741143213489497
Fitzgerald, E., Wankerl, A., & Schramm, C. (2011). Inside real innovation: How the right
approach can move ideas from R&D to market and get the economy moving.
Singapore: World Scientific Publishing.
Frost, D. (2008). Teachers as champions of innovation. Education Review, 21(1), 13-21.
Fullan, M. (Ed.). (2003). The moral imperative of school leadership. Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2004a). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M. (2004b). Leadership across the system. Insight, 61, 14-17.
Fullan, M. (2004c). Systems thinkers in action: Moving beyond the standards plateau:
Teachers transforming teaching. Department for Education and Skills.
Fullan, M. (2005). The New Work of Leaders. Leadership and Sustainability.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. John Wiley & Sons.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 158

Fullan, M. (2014a). The Principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. CA: Jossey Bass.
Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep
learning. London: Pearson.
Gage, T., & Smith, C. (2016). Leadership intelligence: Unlocking the potential for school
leadership effectiveness. South African Journal of Education, 36(4), 1-9.
Glasgow, R. E., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C.
(2012). National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and
implementation science: current and future directions. American Journal Of
Public Health, 102(7), 1274-1281.
Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2013). School improvement networks as a strategy
for large-scale education reform: The role of educational environments.
Educational Policy, 27(4), 676-710. doi:10.1177/0895904811429283
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what’s “right”. Becoming qualitative
researchers, 162-183.
Greany, T. (2014, March 18). The self-improving school system: competing policies
undermine the coalition's admirable sins [blog post]. Retrieved from
https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/the-self-improving
school-system-competing-policies-undermine-the-coalitions-admirable
aims/
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004).
Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and
Recommendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581-629.
Grinstein-Weiss, M., Edwards, K., Charles, P., & Wagner, K. (2009). Adoption of
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 159

a Policy Innovation: The Case of Individual Development Accounts (IDAs).
Journal of Policy Practice, 8(1), 34.
Gronn, P. (2002). Designer Leadership: The Emerging Global Adoption of Preparation
Standards. Journal of School Leadership, 12(5), 552-78.
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of
instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of education, 33(3),
329-352.
Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the principal
instructional management rating scale: A lens on methodological progress in
educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271-306.
doi:10.1177/0013161X10383412
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative
leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 38(6), 654-678. doi:10.1177/1741143210379060
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. doi:10.1086/461445
Halverson, R., Kelley, C., & Shaw, J. (2014). A CALL for improved school leadership. The
Phi Delta Kappan, 95(6), 57-60. doi:10.1177/003172171409500612
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Hargreaves, D.H. (2010). Creating a self-improving school system. Nottingham:
National College for School Leadership.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 160

possibility? School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313-324.
doi:10.1080/1363243032000112801
Harris, A., & Chrispeels, J.H. (Eds.). (2006). Improving schools and educational systems:
International perspectives. London: Routledge.
Hartley, D. (2010). Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership
‘stretch’?. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(3),
271-285.
Heck, H.R., & Hallinger, P. (2014). Modeling the longitudinal effects of school
leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration,
52(5), 653-681.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers (Vol. 465). Harvard University
Press.
Heifetz, R. A. (1998). Walking the fine line of leadership. The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 21(1), 8.
Heifetz, R.A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through
the dangers of leading. Vol. 465. Harvard Business Press.
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.
Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2000). Building change leadership capability: ‘The quest for
change competence’. Journal of change management, 1(2), 116-130.
Hopkins, D. (2003). Instructional leadership and school improvement. Effective
leadership for school improvement, 55-71.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 161

Hopkins, D., & Higham, R. (2007). System leadership: mapping the landscape. School
leadership and management, 27(2), 147-166.
Ingram, J., & Cangemi, J. (2012). Emotions, emotional intelligence and leadership: A
brief, pragmatic perspective Project Innovation (Alabama).
Innovative International School (2017). Accreditation Self-Study.
Jenkins, J., & Pfeifer, R. S. (2012). The principal as curriculum leader. Reston:
National Association of Secondary School Principals.
Jensen, M. L. (2011). Nurturing Self-Knowledge. OD PRACTITIONER, 43(3).
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Chapter 19: Descriptive statistics.
Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. (5
th

ed.) (pp. 516-539). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Joiner, W. B., & Josephs, S. A. (2006). Leadership agility: Five levels of mastery
for anticipating and initiating change (Vol. 307). John Wiley & Sons.
Judd, J. (2017). Exploring Transformational Leadership: How Heads of School
Foster and Support Innovation in Schools (Doctoral dissertation,
Northeastern University).
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in
Enhancing organizational innovation: Hypothesis and some preliminary
findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 525-544. doi:10.1016/51048
9843(03)00050-X
Katzenmeyer, M., & Moller, G. (2009). Awakening the sleeping giant: Helping
teachers develop as leaders (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kegeles, S., Rebchook, G., Pollack, L., Huebner, D., Tebbetts, S., Hamiga, J., et al.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 162

(2012). An intervention to help community-based organizations implement
an evidence- based HIV prevention intervention: The empowerment
project technology exchange system. American Journal of Community Psychology,
49(1/2), 182-198.
Kofman, F., & Senge, P. M. (1993). Communities of commitment: The heart of
learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5-23.
doi:10.1016/0090-2616(93)90050-B
Kotter International (2014, April 24). Change Management vs. Change Leadership –
What's the Difference? Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkotter
/2011/07/12/change-managementvs-change-leadership-whats-the-
difference/#1bc0ad934cc6
Kotter International (2017). 8 steps to accelerate change. Retrieved from
https://www.kotterinc.com/wp-content/uploads/background-photos/8-Steps-for-
Accelerating-Change-eBook.pdf
Kotter, J.P. (1990). Force for change: How leadership differs management. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review

Press.

Kotter, J.P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J.P. (2014). Accelerate. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotterman, J. (2006). Leadership versus management: What's the difference? The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 29(2), 13-17. Retrieved from

http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 163

com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/219091679?accountid=14749

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2016). Learning leadership: The five fundamentals
of becoming an exemplary leader. John Wiley & Sons.
Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J. E. T. (2009). Towards a Better
Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural
Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. Journal of
Agricultural Education & Extension, 15(2), 131.
Kritsonis, A. (2005). Comparison of change theories. International journal of scholarly

academic intellectual diversity, 8(1), 1-7.

Kumar, M. S. (2012). The new landscape for the innovative transformation of
education. Social Research, 79(3), 619-630.
Lai, K. (2015, November 9). Innovation is a mindset. Independent School
Magazine Blog. Retrieved from http://www.nais.org/Independent
Ideas/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=491
Lambert, L. (1998). Building Leadership Capacity in Schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about
successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28, 27
42. doi:10.1080/13632430701800060
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 164

leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387-423.
Levin, B. (2013). What Does It Take to Scale Up Innovations? Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/scaling-up-innovations
Levy, L. (2014, November 3). 10 ways to get student centered learning right. Edudemic.
Retrieved from http://www.edudemic.com/10-ways-to-get
student-centered-learning- right/
Lewis, P., & Murphy, R. (2008). New directions in school leadership. School leadership and
management, 28(2), 127-146.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social change. New York.
Littlejohn, A., Campbell, L. M., Tizard, J., & Smith, A. (2003). From Pilot Projectto
Strategic Development: scaling up staff support in the use of ICT for teaching and
learning. Journal of Further & Higher Education, 27(1), 47.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B.
(2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student
learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of
Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42,
50.
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking:
Working through paradox. The Academy of Management Journal,
51(2), 221-240. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.31767217
Lüscher, L. S., Lewis, M., & Ingram, A. (2006). The social construction of organizational
change paradoxes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), 491-502.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 165

Maccoby, M. (1989). Leadership for our time. In L. Atwater & R. Penn (Eds.) Military
leadership: Traditions and future trends, (pp 41-46). Annapolis: U.S. Naval
Academy.
MacKenzie, G. (1996). Orbiting the giant hairball: A corporate fool’s guide to surviving
with grace. New York: Viking Penguin.
Marks, H. & Printy, S. (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational
Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.
Marzano, R., McNulty, B., & Waters, T. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of
research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Colorado:
McREL.
Marzano, R.J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B.A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
Meijer, A. J. (2014). From Hero-Innovators to Distributed Heroism: An in-depth analysis
of the role of individuals in public sector innovation. Public Management Review,
16(2), 199.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster. “Leadership.” https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/leadership
Miller, R. L., & Shinn, M. (2005). Learning from communities: overcoming
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 166

difficulties in dissemination of prevention and promotion efforts. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3-4), 169-183.
Minnis, H., Bryce, G., Phin, L., & Wilson, P. (2010). The “Spirit of New Orleans”:
Translating a model of intervention with maltreated children and their families for
the Glasgow context. Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 15(4), 497- 509.
McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. Leadership: Placing leadership
development and renewal at the forefront of school change. The School
Administrator.
Moore, L. R. (2015). The affect effect in the 21st century classroom. Independent School,
36-40.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Morillo-Shone, K. (2014). Mindsets for mentoring 21st century leaders. Leadership, 43(3),
32-36.
Morrow, E., Robert, G., Maben, J., & Griffiths, P. (2012). Implementing large scale quality
improvement: lessons from The Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care.
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 25(4), 237-253.
OECD. (2013). Leadership for twenty first century learning, educational research and
innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264205406-en
Osborne-Lampkin, L., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2014). "Spreading the wealth": How principals
use performance data to populate classrooms.” Leadership and Policy in Schools,
13(2), 188-208. doi:10.1080/15700763.2014.901393
Owens, D. A. (2012). Creative people must be stopped: 6 ways to kill innovation without
even trying. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 167

Pang, N. S., & Pisapia, J. (2012). The strategic thinking skills of Hong Kong school
leaders: Usage and effectiveness: 1. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 40(3), 343. doi:10.1177/1741143212436962
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative Interviewing. In Qualitative research &
evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 340-415). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Penuel, W. R., & Fishman, B. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention
research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281.
Rahm, E., & Hong, H. (2016). Data cleaning: Problems and current approaches. Retrieved
from http://lips.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/files/2000-45.pdf on Oct. 31, 2016.
Reeves, D. B. (2002). Holistic accountability: Serving students, schools, and community.
Corwin Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better
results. ASCD.
Rigby, J.G. (2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 50, 610-644.
Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster.
Rutkauskas, A.V, and Stasytyte, V. "Leadership intelligence: how to get there?." Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences 75 (2013): 52-61.
Salveron, M., Arney, F., & D, S. (2006). Sowing the seeds of innovation: Ideas for child and
family services. Family Matters (73), 38-45.
Sarros, J. C., Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2002). Leadership and its impact on
Organizational culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 10(2), 1 26.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H.
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 168

Schein, (Ed.), Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). (pp. 3-24).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schroeder-Saulnier, D. (2014). The power of paradox: harness the energy of
competing ideas to uncover radically innovative solutions. Career Press.
Senge, Peter M. "The fifth discipline." Measuring Business Excellence 1.3 (1997): 46-51.
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2014). Systems school leadership: Exploring an emerging
construct. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6), 792-811. doi:10.1108/JEA-
07-2013-0081
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2016). Holistic school leadership: Systems thinking
as an instructional leadership enabler. NASSP Bulletin, 100(4), 177-202.
doi:10.1177/0192636516683446
Shapiro, C. J., Prinz, R. J., & Sanders, M. R. (2012). Facilitators and Barriers to
Implementation of an Evidence-Based Parenting Intervention to Prevent Child
Maltreatment: The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program. Child
Maltreatment, 17(1), 86-95.
Shea, M. A., Callis, B. P., Cassidy-Stewart, H., Cranston, K., & Tomoyasu, N. (2006).
Diffusion of effective HIV prevention interventions--lessons from
Maryland and Massachusetts. AIDS Education and Prevention: Official
Publication of the International Society For AIDS Education, 18(4 Suppl A), 96-107.
Shiell-Davis, K., Wright, A., Seditas, K., Morton, S., & Bland, N. (2015). Scaling Up
innovations. What Works Scotland Evidence Review. Retrieved from
http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/WWS-EB
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 169

evidence-review-Scaling-Up-Innovations-June-2015.pdf
Smith, K. (2009). Innovation in public education: Problems and opportunities. San
Francisco, CA: New Schools Venture Fund. Retrieved from
http://www.newschools.org/files/innovation-in-education.pdf
Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models:
Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2),
448-461. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.12.003
Smith, W.K., & Lewis, M.W. (2011). toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic
equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review, 36(2),
381-403. doi:10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
Soini, T., Pietarinen, J., & Pyhältö, K. (2016). Leading a school through change principals’
hands-on leadership strategies in school reform. School Leadership & Management,
1-18.
Souba, W. W. (2011). The being of leadership. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities
in Medicine : PEHM, 6(1), 5-5. doi:10.1186/1747-5341-6-5
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J.B. (2004). Toward a theory of leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36 (1), 3-34.
Stoll, L., Fink, D., & Earl, L. M. (2003). It's about learning (and it's about time).
Psychology Press.
Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: Paradoxes of governance.
The Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397-415. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.10196737
Tan, C. (2012). Instructional leadership: Toward a contextualised knowledge creation
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 170

model. School Leadership & Management, 32(2), 183-194.
doi:10.1080/13632434.2011.614944
Talukder, M., & Quazi, A. (2011). The Impact of Social Influence on Individuals’
Adoption of Innovation. Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce,
21(2), 111.
Toh, Y., Jamaludin, A., Hung, W. L. D., & Chua, P. M. (2014). Ecological
leadership: Going beyond system leadership for diffusing school-based
innovations in the crucible of change for 21st century learning. The Asia
Pacific Education Researcher, 23(4), 835-850. doi:10.1007/s40299-0140211-4
Toll, C. A. (2010). 6 STEPS to LEARNING LEADERSHIP. Journal of Staff Development,
31(3), 50-52,54,56,67. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login
?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/870834145?
accountid=14749
Trethewey, A. (1999). Isn't it ironic: Using irony to explore the contradictions of
organizational life. Western Journal of Communication, 63(2), 140-167.
doi:10.1080/10570319909374634
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Wagner, T. (2012). Calling all innovators. Educational Leadership, 69(7), 66-69.
Wagner, T., & Compton, R. A. (2015). Creating innovators: The making of young
people who will change the world. Simon and Schuster.
Wagner, Tony, et al. Change leadership: A practical guide to transforming our
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 171

schools. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Washor, E. (2010, March 18). Thoughts on education. Huffington Post. Retrieved
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliot-washor/thoughts-on
innovation_b_329811.html
Wasley, P.A. (1991). Teachers who lead: The rhetoric of reform and the realities of
practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Watson, C. (2013). How (and why) to avoid making rational decisions: Embracing
paradox in school leadership. School Leadership & Management, 33(3), 256-269.
Watson, N. (2014). IWRM in England: bridging the gap between top-down and bottom-up
implementation. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 30(3),
445-459.
Waters, T., & Grubb, S. (2005). Leading schools: Distinguishing the essential from the
important. Australian Educational Leader, 27(3), 10.
Webster, C. A., Caputi, P., Perreault, M., Doan, R., Doutis, P., & Weaver, R. G. (2013).
Elementary Classroom Teachers’ Adoption of Physical Activity Promotion in the
Context of a Statewide Policy: An Innovation Diffusion and Socio-Ecologic Perspective.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 32(4), 419.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Westenholz, A. (1993). Paradoxical thinking and change in the frames of reference.
Organization Studies, 14(1), 37-58. doi:10.1177/017084069301400104
White, N. (2013, December 12). Thoughts on defining innovation in education. Retrieved
From http://d20innovation.d20blogs.org/2013/12/12/thoughts-on-defining
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 172

-innovation-in-education/
Zaleznik, A. (1992). Managers and leaders: are they different?. Harvard Business

Review, 70(2), 126-135.

Zaleznik, A. (2003). Managers and leaders: are they different? Clinical leadership &
management review: the journal of CLMA, 18(3), 171-177.
Zhao, Y. (2012). World class learners: Educating creative and entrepreneurial students.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Zimmerman, M. (2015). Educating for innovation. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 95(3), 25.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 173

Appendix A: Practitioner Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. This interview will last for approximately 75
minutes. I will be asking you a series of questions about how you perceive your role in fostering
and supporting innovation diffusion as well as what leadership skills and strategies helped you
successfully led innovation diffusion across your school. Your identity will remain anonymous
and any reference to answers you give will be shared using a pseudonym.
Before we begin the interview, please review the consent form and sign it if you agree to
participate. The consent form provides a short overview of the study and the interview process.
The consent form outlines what I will do to protect confidentiality. Please review the consent
form carefully to make sure you are comfortable with everything detailed on the form. Do you
have any questions or concerns?
Although I’ll be taking notes, may I please record this interview so I can accurately
capture your responses? The recording will be kept confidential. You do not have to answer any
questions that make you feel uncomfortable and I will turn off the recording at any time you
request.
I will ask that you share your experiences regarding the school at which you are
currently working. I encourage you to speak openly about the questions. There is no time limit
for specific questions, so it is fine to go into detail with your responses. Do you have any
questions before we begin?
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions to learn more about you, your
context, and your role and responsibilities at the school.
1. How would you describe your role and responsibilities at the school you are presently
leading? (B)
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 174

2. How would you describe yourself as a leader? (B) (potential follow-up: Could you
provide one or two examples demonstrating your leadership style?)
3. How would you describe the academic program at the school you are presently leading?
(B)
4. What is your approach to leading the academic program? (IL)
5. Who else is responsible for the academic program here at the school, and what is their
responsibility to it and what do they do? (DL)
Now I want to spend some time talking about innovation and your role in diffusion
innovation across your school. Before I do, is there anything else you would like to add about
yourself or your context? (Pause). Ok, let’s move on to the how you have led innovation
diffusion.
For this purpose of this study, I am defining innovation as a new or novel way of working,
behaving, organizing, delivering or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement. I am
defining innovation diffusion as the process of moving an innovation from a limited site of
implementation (e.g., a classroom) to implementation across a system (e.g., a school). Using
this as a lens, please think of an innovation that you helped to diffuse across your school.
6. What was the innovation? (B)
7. Why was the innovation instituted? (B)
8. To what degree is the innovation diffused across your school? How do you know? (B)
9. What was your role in diffusing the innovation across your school? (RQ1)
10. What were others’ roles in fostering and supporting innovation? Can you give me some
examples? (DL)
11. What helped you foster and support the innovation as it diffused in your school? (ID)
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 175

12. What obstacles or barriers did you need to overcome to address when diffusing
innovation? How did you overcome these obstacles or barriers? (ID)
13. Innovation by its definition requires people to change. What strategies were useful to
help lead or manage the change taking place? (CL)
14. How do you monitor whether the innovation is having the intended impact on student
learning and teacher practice? (IL)
15. What structures and resources have you put in place to foster and support the innovation
now that it is diffused in your school? (ID)
16. What advice would you have for other principals on how to effectively diffuse
innovation in their schools?
17. Is there anything else you would to share about your work at your school in support of
innovation diffusion?
That brings us to the end of my questions for you. Thank you for your time.

PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 176

Appendix B: Expert Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. This interview will last for approximately 60
minutes. I will be asking you a series of questions about how you the role of a principal in
fostering and supporting innovation diffusion as well as what leadership skills and strategies
you think principals need to have to successfully led innovation diffusion across a school. Your
identity will remain anonymous and any reference to answers you give will be shared using a
pseudonym.
Before we begin the interview, please review the consent form and sign it if you agree to
participate. The consent form provides a short overview of the study and the interview process.
The consent form outlines what I will do to protect confidentiality. Please review the consent
form carefully to make sure you are comfortable with everything detailed on the form. Do you
have any questions or concerns?
Although I’ll be taking notes, may I please record this interview so I can accurately
capture your responses? The recording will be kept confidential. You do not have to answer any
questions that make you feel uncomfortable and I will turn off the recording at any time you
request.
I encourage you to speak openly about the questions. There is no time limit for specific
questions, so it is fine to go into detail with your responses. Do you have any questions before
we begin?
For this purpose of this study, I am defining innovation as a new or novel way of
working, behaving, organizing, delivering or thinking in an effort to bring about improvement. I
am defining innovation diffusion as the process of moving an innovation from a limited site of
implementation (e.g., a classroom) to implementation across a system (e.g., a school). Using
PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP FOR DIFFUSING INNOVATION 177

this as a lens, please think of how you have witnessed principals successfully diffusing
innovation across a school.
1. What was the innovation? (B)
2. Why was the innovation instituted? (B)
3. To what degree was the innovation diffused across the school? How do you know this?
(B)
4. What was the role of the principal in diffusing the innovation across the school? (RQ1)
5. What were others’ roles in fostering and supporting innovation? Can you give me some
examples? (DL)
6. What helped principals foster and support the innovation as it diffused in your school?
(ID)
7. What obstacles or barriers did principals need to overcome to address when diffusing
innovation? How did you observe them overcoming these obstacles or barriers? (ID)
8. Innovation by its definition requires people to change. What strategies were useful to
help lead or manage the change taking place? (CL)
9. How did the system monitor whether the innovation is having the intended impact on
student learning and teacher practice? Who did this monitoring? (IL)
10. What structures and resources have been put in place to foster and support the
innovation now that it is diffused across the school? (ID)
11. What advice would you have for principals on how to effectively diffuse innovation in
their schools?
18. Is there anything else you would to share in support of innovation diffusion?
That brings us to the end of my questions for you. Thank you for your time.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although many studies had sought to understand aspects of principal leadership and others had focused on diffusion or scaling of innovation, limited research had been conducted to examine the intersection of the two. The purpose of this study was to understand what leadership strategies have helped principals successfully diffuse an innovation across an established, high- performing school. A qualitative research design was used to interview both experts on innovation diffusion and practitioners who have successfully diffused an innovation in their context. Transcripts of interviews were coded for keywords and phrases, categories and themes. Both practitioners and experts viewed principals as having an important role in diffusing innovative high-impact practices across a school context. Overall, practitioners were focused more on nurturing the innovation at the classroom level, starting from where their school was in relation to the change and then working with faculty to propel the change across the system. In contrast, the experts were generally more focused on the actual position of principal as the ones responsible for leading change and innovation. In general, they believed that a principal’s primary role was to provide a vision, change the culture and system, and then lead the way in changing the status quo. Several strategies were identified that principals should use to diffuse innovative high-impact practices across a school. These strategies related to change leadership, instructional leadership, innovation diffusion leadership, fostering distributed leadership, and acting as manager.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

PDF

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

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

The candor to live in ongoing educational innovation

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Implementing organizational change in a medical school

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Exploratory study on Race to the Top schools and the impact a school principal has on a school’s academic performance

PDF

Fundraising for construction for the Bangalore Conservatory: an innovation study

PDF

Improving conditions for innovation in magnet and charter schools

PDF

Moving from great to greater: Math growth in high achieving elementary schools - A gap analysis

PDF

Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools

PDF

School integration as a reform strategy: the principal’s role, an evaluation study

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

High school counselors’ support of first-generation students’ postsecondary planning: an evaluative study

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Sparrow, Jennifer Lynn (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 07/26/2018

Defense Date 07/25/2018

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

Tag change leadership,distributed leadership,innovation,innovation diffusion,innovation diffusion leadership,instructional leadership,Management,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Chung, Ruth H. (committee member), Reeves, Douglas B. (committee member)

Creator Email jsparrow@sas.edu.sg,jsparrow@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-22992

Unique identifier UC11672113

Identifier etd-SparrowJen-6484.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-22992 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SparrowJen-6484.pdf

Dmrecord 22992

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sparrow, Jennifer Lynn

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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