Occupying the Principal Position: Examining Relationships Between Transformational Leadership, Social Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate

Educational Administration Quarterly46(5) 623 –670

© The University Council forEducational Administration 2010

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0013161X10378689http://eaq.sagepub.com

378689 EAQ

1University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands2University of California, San Diego, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:Nienke M. Moolenaar, Faculty of Behavioral Sciences, Department of Educational Organization & Management, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, the Netherlands; phone: +31 (0) 53 489 4338Email: [email protected]

Occupying the Principal Position: Examining Relationships Between Transformational Leadership, Social Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate

Nienke M. Moolenaar,1 Alan J. Daly,2

and Peter J. C. Sleegers1

AbstractThroughout the world, educational policy makers, practitioners, and scholars have acknowledged the importance of principal leadership in the genera-tion and implementation of innovations. In many studies, transformational leadership has emerged as a promising approach in response to increasing demands to develop and implement innovations in schools. Although research has suggested that having access to leaders with expertise can significantly stimulate innovation, the link between transformational leadership and prin-cipals’ social network position has not yet been extensively studied. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between principals’ positions in their schools’ social networks in combination with transformational

Article

at University of Essex on August 1, 2011eaq.sagepub.comDownloaded from

624 Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5)

leadership and schools’ innovative climate. It was conducted among 702 teachers and 51 principals in 51 elementary schools in a large educational system in the Netherlands. Using social network analysis and multilevel anal-ysis, the authors analyzed a quantitative questionnaire with social network questions on work-related and personal advice and Likert-type scales for transformational leadership and innovative climate. Findings indicated that transformational leadership was positively associated with schools’ innovative climate. Principals’ social network position, in terms of centrality, was also related to schools’ innovative climate. The more principals were sought for professional and personal advice, and the more closely connected they were to their teachers, the more willing teachers were to invest in change and the creation of new knowledge and practices. Moreover, work-related closeness centrality was found to mediate the relationship between transformational leadership and innovative climate. Implications of the study are discussed.

Keywordssocial networks, innovation, leadership, school improvement

Across the globe, there is an increasing demand and allocation of resources for developing and implementing innovations that will improve public edu-cation. For example, the American Recovery and Reinvestment of Act of 2009 devoted $650 million dollars to its Investing in Innovation fund (i3), with the stated purpose of supporting the rapid development and adoption of effective solutions. Despite the call for more innovation, there is much debate as to what constitutes “innovation.” Moreover, largely absent in the discourse is how leaders create and support the necessary conditions in which these inno-vations may be developed. This lack of clarity has spawned significant dis-cussion in the academic and practitioner communities as to a course of action. Although there are multiple disparate voices in the discussion, there is some long-standing general agreement that “leadership” is important in both devel-oping and sustaining the climate and condition for innovation to occur (Bass & Riggio, 2006; Burns, 1978). One of the most referenced types of leadership that may hold potential in reforming systems through innovative practice is transformational leadership (Bass, 1985).

Despite a variety of perspectives, what undergirds most definitions of transformational leadership (TL) is a leader’s ability to increase organizational members’ commitment, capacity, and engagement in meeting goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Marks & Printy, 2003). TL motivates followers to do more


Moolenaar et al. 625

than they originally expected and often even more than they thought possible, resulting in extra effort and greater productivity (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994). Research around TL in education has been associated with stimulation of innovation (Day, Harris, Hadfield, Tolly, & Beresford, 2000; Geijsel, Sleegers, Van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2008), changed teacher practices (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009; Leithwood et al., 2004), organizational learning (Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002), organizational commitment and extra effort for change (Geijsel, Sleegers, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2003; Nguni, Sleegers, & Denessen, 2006; Yu, Leithwood, & Jantzi, 2002), and collective teacher efficacy (Ross & Gray, 2006) in a vari-ety of international settings.

Given that TL involves mobilizing social interactions in support of goals, a school’s social network structure has been identified as an important vehi-cle through which leadership may exercise influence (Hallinger & Heck, 1998). Yet studies on the interplay between TL, social network structure, and innovation are scarce. Emerging studies are addressing this absence by taking a social network approach to study innovations in organizations (Obstfeld, 2005) and reforms in schools (Coburn & Russell, 2008; Daly & Finnigan, 2010; Daly, Moolenaar, Bolivar, & Burke, in press). Research in this area suggests that relationships between educators within schools are important to foster innovative school climates in which new teaching strategies can be collectively developed and new shared knowledge can emerge (Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, in press). However, there is limited scholarship examining the network position of school leaders and the relationship of that position to an innovative school climate.

By “principal’s social network position,” we are referring to three well-cited measures of centrality (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008; Wasserman & Faust, 1998): degree, defined as the number of teachers who seek a tie with the principal; closeness, conceptualized as the extent to which a principal has a direct tie to all teachers in the school; and betweenness, operationalized by the degree to which a principal occupies a position between disconnected teachers. Each of these measures provides a related, but different, perspective of a principal’s position in the informal social network. In this article, we argue that the social network position of a principal as measured by the three afore-mentioned measures of centrality may support or constrain the flow of res-ources in the school’s social network, thereby affecting the climate in which the generation of new knowledge and practices may arise from interaction among educators. This study extends the current literature by investigating the extent to which the principal’s position in the school’s social network affects the relationship between TL behavior and schools’ innovative climate



(IC). In doing so, we contribute to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms that interact with TL to benefit school improvement.

In this article, we present the results of a study into the potential of TL behavior and principal social network position for supporting an innovative school climate in 51 Dutch elementary schools within a large educational system. The study was guided by the following research questions:

1. To what extent is TL behavior related to a school’s IC?2. To what extent does principals’ social network position mediate the

relationship between TL behavior and a school’s IC?

In the next section, we will provide an overview of literature on innovation-supportive climates in organizations. We will then focus on TL behavior and principals’ network positions as two different aspects of leadership and continue with an empirical investigation designed to answer our research questions.

Theoretical FrameworkInnovative Climate

The subject of organizational innovation has been studied extensively in management and organizational research (Hage, 1999). Innovation, in general, has been defined as the development and use of new ideas, behaviors, or practices (Daft & Becker, 1978; Damanpour & Evan, 1984). In an organiza-tional sense, innovation is not merely transmitting, diffusing, or recycling existing knowledge between members; it is also concerned with the transfor-mation of prevailing knowledge and practices of actors as a means to orga-nizational change (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

In this study, we examine the degree to which a school is characterized by a climate for innovation, rather than study the development or implementa-tion of specific innovations. We have selected to move in this direction as scholars have emphasized the importance of a proinnovation climate to foster innovative behavior and the generation, adoption, and implementation of new practices (Amabile, 1998; Van der Vegt, Van de Vliert, & Huang, 2005). Whereas the development, adoption, and implementation of actual innova-tions is an important field of inquiry for understanding school improvement (Ellis, 2005; Fullan, 1992; Huberman & Miles, 1984), literature has argued that organizations with climates that are open to innovation, in which members are willing to take risks and to continuously learn to improve the organization,



are more successful at implementing actual innovations than organizations with less innovative climates (Geijsel, 2001; Van den Berg & Sleegers, 1996). Research into the innovative climates at schools offers valuable knowledge on the extent to which organizations may or may not succeed at efforts of school improvement and, as such, may provide insights in the fertile ground on which innovations may flourish.

Focusing on IC, instead of innovations per se, also helps to transcend the contextual aspect of studying innovations. Whereas innovations are often context-specific, given that one school’s innovation may be another school’s daily practice, studying an IC provides the opportunity to make comparisons between schools. Following Van der Vegt et al. (2005), we define innovative climate as the shared perceptions of organizational members concerning the practices, procedures, and behaviors that promote the generation of new knowledge and practices. Central to this definition are educators’ perceptions of the collective willingness to adopt an open orientation toward new prac-tices and change and to collectively develop new knowledge, practices, and refinements to meet organizational goals (Moolenaar, Karsten, Sleegers, & Zijlstra, 2009).

Organizational innovation often occurs in an iterative and cyclic process that is established and maintained through social interaction in innovative-prone climates (Kanter, 1983). As such, innovation is regarded as a social process in which social interaction provides multiple opportunities for input and refinement (Calantone, Garcia, & Droge, 2003; Nohari & Gulati, 1996). Communication, sharing information and ideas, and opportunities to engage in discussion and decision making are critical for an open orientation towards innovation (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Monge, Cozzens, & Contractor, 1992). This suggests that a social learning process underlies the development of organizational innovation in innovative climates (Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004), in which the combination of different people, knowl-edge, and resources triggers the generation of new ideas and practices (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Next, we will elaborate on how these innovative climates may be supported by leadership behavior, in the form of TL, as well as lead-ers’ social network position.

Leadership Behavior in Relation to Innovative ClimateAn increasing number of studies suggest that innovation-supportive climates that foster creativity may be facilitated or constrained by leadership behavior (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Creativity is key to the innova-tion process and is often referred to as “the first step in innovation” (Amabile,



1998, p. 80). A leader’s ability to support the fertile ground of creativity involves bringing together the knowledge, expertise, and skills of others in a risk-tolerant climate (Jung, 2001; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Storey & Salaman, 2005). Moreover, leaders can create opportunities for actors to interact and test out creative ideas in a supportive environment (Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Mumford et al., 2002). To foster a school’s IC, leaders may direct their behavior towards encourage-ment and support, as well as develop nurturing relationships (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

Although there are multiple leadership theories in the literature that pro-vide a theoretical lens for understanding innovation and school improvement, TL is one of the most prominent contemporary approaches to leadership in relation to innovation. TL has been well studied both outside and within edu-cation and provides an empirically grounded theory on the role of leadership in supporting organizational change (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Drawing on the work of Burns (1978) concerning political leadership, Bass (1985) developed a model of TL that conceptualized transactional and transformational forms as separate but interdependent dimensions. Transactional leadership behav-iors are those that are most associated with “transactions” between leaders and followers and is often associated with compliance in attaining a certain task or behavior (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003). Desired actions are obtained primarily through rewards and consequences. TL involve a leader’s ability to increase organizational members’ commitment, capacity, and engagement in meeting goals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Marks & Printy, 2003). TL motivates followers to do more than they originally expected and often even more than they thought possible, resulting in extra effort and greater productivity (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Whereas transactional leadership is generally sufficient for maintaining the status quo, TL focuses on capacity building for the purpose of organiza-tional change. Transformational leaders aim to motivate followers to accom-plish and even exceed their initial achievement expectations (Jung & Avolio, 2000). The success of a transformational leader is demonstrated both by increased performance outcomes and the degree to which followers develop their own leadership potential and skills. What is more, TL has been found to significantly enhance satisfaction with, and perceived effectiveness of, leadership beyond levels achieved with transactional leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Research on TL in educational settings was initiated by Leithwood and his colleagues in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Leithwood, 1994). Since then, numerous studies on TL have demonstrated positive relationships between



TL and various school and teacher organizational conditions. For example, studies have found increases in teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness; successful implementation of innovations; boost in teachers’ behaviors, emo-tions, and job satisfaction; increased participation in decision making and commitment to school improvement; and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies (Geijsel et al., 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002). Transformational leaders were found to be able to influence organizational members to move beyond self-interest in support of larger organizational goals (Marks & Printy, 2003). Moreover, TL has been associated with student outcomes, both directly and indirectly through these conditions (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2004).

Studies on TL within the educational context have distinguished three spe-cific dimensions of transformational school leadership: vision building, which refers to the development of a shared vision, goals, and priorities; individual consideration, which includes attending to the feelings and needs of indi-vidual teachers; and providing intellectual stimulation, which entails the sup-port of teacher professional development and the constant challenging of teachers to readdress their knowledge and daily practice (Geijsel et al., 2009; Geijsel, Van den Berg, & Sleegers, 1999).

Whereas the balance of this literature associates TL with innovation and school improvement in education, few studies have empirically examined the role of TL in supporting an IC. However, a conceptual link between the three TL dimensions (vision building, individual consideration, and intellectual stimulation) and schools’ innovative climates seems plausible. For example, transformational leaders may increase a team’s orientation towards inno-vation by providing a vision for school improvement through supporting a risk-tolerant climate, providing opportunities for learning and professional development, and challenging team members to invent new solutions to old problems by thinking “out of the box” (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997). Transformational leaders who collectively develop and share a clear vision may boost followers’ innovativeness by serving as role models in the development and implementation of innovations (Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Tierney & Farmer, 2002), clarifying the challenges for the school’s future and the importance of developing new knowledge and practice, pointing out opportunities for school improvement through innova-tion, and motivating team members by envisioning an attractive future for the school (e.g., Amabile, 1996). In addition, setting clear goals toward outcomes can help transformational leaders manage time frames of complex innovation projects, which represents a critical competency of leaders of innovative organizations (Halbesleben, Novicevic, Buckley, & Harvey, 2003).



Transformational leaders who provide individual consideration demon-strate confidence in individuals’ innovative capacities, share the responsibili-ties and risks with team members when adopting new strategies, and recognize individual contributions to the team (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). Individual consideration creates and sustains a climate in which innovations can grow and public criticism of followers’ mistakes is minimized (Bass & Avolio, 1994). By providing meaning and understanding to followers’ tasks, leaders can increase organizational members’ intrinsic motivation and address their individual needs, which are basic sources of creativity (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). In this way, leaders encourage followers to innovate by provid-ing a psychologically “safe” workplace environment without the fear of being punished or ridiculed (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). Innovative and creative behaviors involve risk-taking (Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997) and an acceptance of the possibility of failure. To motivate teachers to share creative new ideas and practices, for example, by inviting colleagues into their classroom, leaders have to establish and maintain a “safe” climate that is conducive to innovation.

Through intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders may for instance encourage teachers to spend more time on training and professional develop-ment. This in turn may stimulate an innovation-oriented climate, as training may increase teachers’ knowledge and skills, broaden their horizon with a variety of experiences and perspectives, teach them how to make the devel-opment of innovative teaching strategies an integral part of their job, and increase their confidence and comfort with the implementation of new ideas (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995). To be innovative as a team, it is vital that indi-vidual team members are stimulated to share and discuss creative ideas and different views with each other (Amabile et al., 1996). Moreover, to support the development of new ideas, organizations need to foster an open orienta-tion towards innovation in a climate in which creative efforts and the distri-bution of new knowledge and practices are encouraged (Bain, Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994).

Given this robust literature base and our expectations about the theoretical connection between TL practices and innovation, we hypothesize that princi-pals’ TL behavior will be positively associated with teachers’ perceptions of their school’s IC (Hypothesis 1).

Leadership Position in Relation to Innovative ClimateThe research around TL as referenced in the previous section is robust in terms of its support for innovation and school improvement. The theoretical



underpinnings and empirical work around TL also suggest the importance of social relations and the distribution of tasks over formal and informal leaders. Recent educational studies suggest that having access to leaders who possess expertise may significantly affect teachers’ of innovation use (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007; Penuel, Frank, & Krause, 2007). However, there remains an empirical gap in the TL literature in regard to the social net-work position of formal leaders in relation to organizational members (Daly & Finnigan, 2009; Moolenaar, 2010).

Complementary to traditional leadership behavior research, organizational literature is now starting to focus on leadership effectiveness in terms of a leader’s position in a social network (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006; Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005). The balance of this literature underscores the importance of a leader’s informal position in the social network in terms of access and leveraging social capital as well as brokering between parts of a system. Moreover, studies suggest that a leader’s social network position is related to group performance and leader reputation (Mehra, Dixon, Brass, & Robertson, 2006; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997). The social network position of an individual in a social network of interpersonal relationships may support or constrain the distribution of resources and information in a social network (Burt, 1983). Connections and access, or a lack thereof, to available resources presents some structural positions with more or less power and influence than other positions in the social network. However, this assertion has received limited attention in the context of educational leadership (Daly & Finnigan, 2009; Moolenaar et al., in press).

A key determinant of the structural advantage of an individual’s position in a social network is an actor’s centrality in the network. Centrality is defined in terms of the relative number of connections that an individual has to others in the network. The more connections, or ties, a leader has to the team members, the more centrally the leader is positioned in the network. Central actors play a major role in their social network (Baker & Iyer, 1992). A meta-analysis by Balkundi and Harrison (2006) indicated that groups with leaders who occupy a central position in the group’s social network tended to show higher group performance than groups with less central leaders.

Different types of centrality can be inferred from an individual’s position relative to others in the social network. Whereas most studies on individual position in networks only include a single centrality measure, we examine three types of centrality that each may offer a different perspective on leader-ship: degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality. Degree centrality is perhaps the most familiar form of centrality and refers to the popularity of the leader. Degree centrality is assessed simply as the number



of people who seek out the principal for, for instance, advice, information, expertise, friendship, or social support. In other words, the higher the princi-pal’s degree centrality, the more he or she is nominated as a valuable resource in the network.

Closeness centrality indicates how “close” a principal is to the team mem-bers, or how quickly a principal can reach all team members through the social network. Closeness centrality can thus be interpreted as a measure of “reachability” by the principal. The higher a principal’s closeness centrality, the quicker information dispensed by the principal will reach all team mem-bers. In contrast to degree centrality, closeness centrality includes principals’ indirect relationships to all team members. Uzzi (1996) suggests that not only direct but also indirect connections are important, as these relationships may dampen or enhance leader effectiveness.

By occupying a more central position, a leader is more often sought for resources (friendship, expertise, etc.) and has easier access to resources, information, or support from the social network (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Moreover, having more relationships increases a leader’s opportunities to access novel information (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005; Krackhardt, 1996). This access to diverse resources provides a central leader with the possibility to guide the flow of information and resources within the team (Burt, 2005). A leader may use the power and status attained through occupying a central position to direct certain knowledge and information to the right people who might need it most. Therefore, we expect that principals who hold more cen-tral positions, as assessed by higher degree centrality and closeness central-ity, are associated with schools that are characterized by more innovative climates (Hypotheses 2a and 2b, respectively).

Whereas degree and closeness centrality refer to social network positions that may be positively associated with innovative school climates, between-ness centrality refers to the potential of an individual to “broker” his or her relationships, thereby in effect controlling the flow of resources between two actors. Betweenness is assessed as the number of times an actor is positioned “in between” two people in the network who are themselves disconnected. Betweenness has been argued to support the flow of resources in a social network by creating bridging ties between disconnected actors (Burt, 1992). However, recent work (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005) suggests that actors who occupy these social positions may also constrain the distribution of resources across a system. Actors with high betweenness are in a position of social control and, as such, are able to determine both the type and content of resources that flow between actors. This position therefore provides the actor with disproportionate influence over the system, effectively buffering



disconnected individuals. Given this ability to control the flow and content of resources, high betweenness has therefore been conceptualized as represent-ing a “power” position and, as such, holds benefit for the goals of the individual actor, at the potential cost of the goals of the larger systems (Burt, 1992). In line with previous research (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2005; Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008), we argue that this “brokerage” position will be negatively associated with an IC because such a brokerage position signifies a social network in which new ideas and practices that originate from teachers’ interaction are disproportionately mediated, and potentially controlled and changed, by the principal (Hypothesis 2c).

Relationship Between Transformational Leadership Behavior, Position, and Innovative ClimateThrough this literature review, we have related the conditions necessary for innovation, leadership behavior through TL, and the influence of a leader’s network position on the movement of resources. As reflected in our first two hypotheses, we will be examining the relationships between IC and leadership behavior, in the form of TL, as well as between IC and a principal’s position in the social network of the school. These examinations will begin to fill the gap in the literature surrounding leadership behavior, network position, and IC.

In addition, we are interested in potential mediators that bring together all three areas as a way to potentially clarify the relationship between TL and innovation (Avolio & Yammarino, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). There are indications in the literature about the interrelatedness of all three areas. For instance, Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) found that the level of network cohesion in a U.S. army unit partially mediated the relation-ship between TL and performance. In addition, Ibarra and Andrews (1993) suggested that central actors played a more prominent role in innovation than less central actors. We argue that transformational leaders may be more effective in stimulating teachers to share learning experiences and collec-tively develop new practices in support of school improvement when they occupy a more centralized network position in terms of degree and closeness centrality. TL may be more supportive of innovative climates when it is enacted by leaders who are more often sought out for advice or expertise and occupy a position that is close to teachers, as they have opportunity to access novel information and guide resources toward where they are needed. Therefore, we expect degree and closeness centrality to positively mediate the relation-ship between TL and innovative climates in schools (Hypotheses 3a and 3b, respectively).



In contrast, we argue that transformational leaders who occupy a high betweenness centrality position may have more difficulty in supporting inno-vative school climates as they effectively buffer the direct interactions between teachers. TL entails motivating teachers to go above and beyond their individual capacities by sharing collective responsibilities and risks, providing teachers the opportunity to develop their own ideas and collec-tively create new practices. When formal leaders, who also have an evalua-tive role over teachers, occupy a betweenness position, in which they control, and potentially alter, the resources that flow between teachers, this may actu-ally inhibit educators in taking risks and exhibiting the vulnerability that comes from seeking advice and sharing experiences and expertise. Therefore, we hypothesize that betweenness centrality will negatively mediate the rela-tionship between TL and innovative climates (Hypothesis 3c).

MethodContext

Strengthening principal expertise and fostering innovations are two major foci in educational policy in the United States, as evidenced by recent fed-eral government initiatives such as Investing in Innovation (i3). This same level of federal emphasis is also true in the Netherlands where this study took place (The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science, 2009). Our inquiry was conducted in 51 Dutch elementary schools located in the south of the Netherlands. Principals are the main instructional and orga-nizational leaders at their schools, and the schools are supported and served by a single district that provided administrative, financial, and instructional technology support. The schools’ overall performance varies to about the same extent as other school districts, with one underperforming school (which was excluded from the sample), and all other schools meeting per-formance standards set by the Dutch school inspectorate. The average num-ber of students per school is 213 (M = 213.0, SD = 116.6), which entails that the schools are small compared to average U.S. elementary school. The student population in the schools was rather reflective of the average Dutch student population in regard to SES and ethnicity. The schools participated in the study as part of a large-scale reform effort that was designed, imple-mented, and supported by the district. The reform effort was focused on professional development through professional training of principals and teachers but did not include a focus on strengthening relationships or devel-oping a professional community.



Sample

A total of 51 principals and 702 teachers participated in the study by com-pleting a survey on TL, social networks, and IC, with a response rate of 100.0% and 96.7%, respectively. Whereas a majority of principals were male (76.5%), a majority of teachers were female (74.6%). This gender ratio is approximately reflective of elementary education across the Netherlands. Principals’ age varied between 27 and 61 (M = 49.0, SD = 9.0). School team size varied between six and 31, with an average of 15 teachers per team. Additional sample demographics are presented in Table 1.

Data Collection and InstrumentationSocial network position. In social network research, studies often concen-

trate on two types of social networks that reflect different content flowing through the ties: instrumental and expressive networks (Ibarra, 1993). Instru-mental social networks are conduits for the circulation of information and resources that pertain to organizational goals. Expressive social networks reflect patterns of more affect-laden relationships, such as friendships, that are believed to transport and diffuse resources such as social support, trust, and values (Ibarra, 1993, 1995).

Guided by previous studies on social networks and innovation (Copeland, Reynolds, & Burton, 2008; Obstfeld, 2005), we focused on the network struc-ture around advice. Advice relationships are important in the diffusion of new knowledge and information and the development of innovations, as advice relationships are arguably the primary channel for principals to guide and support teachers in their practice. As such, the act of giving advice presents the principal with a powerful tool to assert social control and to steer activi-ties and opinions about innovation. The act of asking advice conveys infor-mation about the advice seeker, who may be in a position of vulnerability, thereby taking a risk in asking for support. In turn, the advice giver has the potential to create a safe psychological space for the exchange and may be able to actively influence the advice seeker’s perceptions, actions, and behavior.

We employed social network analysis to obtain information about princi-pals’ structural position in their schools’ instrumental and expressive advice network. All teachers and principals in the sample schools were asked to respond to a social network survey. The following question was posed to examine the social network around work-related advice: “Whom do you go to for work related advice?” In line with Ibarra (1993), we will refer to this social net-work as the instrumental network. The social network around personal advice



was obtained by asking the question, “Whom do you go to for guidance on more personal matters?” This social network is referred to as the expressive network.

Table 1. Sample Characteristics of Schools (N = 51), Principals (N = 51), and Teachers (N = 702)

N Min. Max. M SD

Teachers Age 702 21 63 45.5 10.8 FTE 702 0.20 1.00 0.73 0.24 Administrative tasks 702 0 1 0.19 0.39Principals Age 50 27 61 48.96 8.96 FTE 50 0.33 1.00 0.77 0.25School Gender ratioa 51 59.0 100.0 77.1 10.5 Number of students 50 53 545 213.0 120.1 Team size 51 6 31 14.8 6.9 SESb 51 0.4 47.3 7.9 9.7 Principals Teachers

N % N %

Gender Male 39 76.5 166 23.6 Female 12 23.5 536 74.6 Years of experience at the school

0.5-3 years 27 52.9 122 17.4 4-10 years 10 19.6 243 34.6 >10 years 14 27.5 337 48.0 Years of experience as a principal

0.5-3 years 18 35.3 4-6 years 18 35.3 >10 years 14 27.5 Unknown 1 1.9

Note: aGender ratio is calculated as the ratio of female to male team members with100% referring to a team with only female team members.bSES is calculated as the weighted percentage of students for whom the school receives extra financial resources.



The survey was complemented with a school-specific appendix, which included the names of all the team members in combination with a letter code (e.g., Mrs. Marcia Peters = AB). Teachers and principals answered the ques-tions by writing down the letter codes of the colleagues to whom they turn for work-related or personal advice. The respondents could indicate a relation-ship with as many colleagues as they preferred.

Transformational leadership. We assessed teachers’ perceptions of their principal’s TL with a questionnaire based on the work of Geijsel and col-leagues (2001, 2009). Following prior research on TL, the scale evaluated teachers’ perceptions of principals’ vision building, individualized consider-ation, and intellectual stimulation. An example of an item designed to assess principals’ vision building is, “The principal of my school refers explicitly at our school’s goals during decision-making processes.” A sample item from individualized consideration included asking teachers to evaluate the follow-ing statement: “The principal of my school takes opinions of individual teachers seriously.” To measure the extent to which principals provide intel-lectual stimulation to their team members, we asked a series of questions typified by the following: “The principal of my school encourages teachers to experiment with new didactic strategies.” Principal component analysis was conducted on the 18 items and rendered a three-factor solution that explained 73.7% of the variance. However, because all items loaded highly on the first component, and the three components were highly interrelated, we combined the three scales into a single higher order component that explained 58.4% of the variance (α = .96). Combining the three scales is in line with previous research on TL (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999; Bono & Judge, 2003; Jung & Sosik, 2002; Kark et al., 2003).

Whereas TL was assessed at the individual level, we also interpreted it as a school-level variable, as we were interested in school leadership as per-ceived by the teacher team as a whole. To justify the aggregation of individ-ual teacher perceptions of TL into a school-level aggregate, we calculated interrater agreement (r wg[j]; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984) and interrater reliability (ICC[1] and ICC[2]; cf. Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The three measures were found to be sufficiently supportive of aggregation (r wg[j] = .95, ICC[1] = .09, ICC[2] = .73). Following previous research, we therefore aggregated individual teacher perceptions of TL to a school-level variable (Avolio, Zhu, Koh, & Bhatia, 2004).

Innovative climate. We measured teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ cli-mate in support of innovation with six items that were developed to assess schools’ orientation to improve (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Consortium on Chicago School Research, 2004). The items were translated and adapted



to fit the context of Dutch elementary education. The scale was designed to measure the extent to which teachers have a positive attitude towards devel-oping and trying new ideas. A sample item is, “In my school, teachers are generally willing try new ideas.” Principal component analysis provided evi-dence that the six items contributed to a single factor solution explaining 59.8% of the variance (α = .86).

The scales on TL and IC used a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (dis-agree) to 4 (agree). Whereas the social network survey was presented to principals and teachers to assess principals’ structural position in the net-works, the scales on TL and IC were given to teachers only. To assess whether the latter scales measured separate constructs, the TL and IC items were both entered in a single principal component analysis with varimax rotation. This analysis resulted in a four-factor solution that accounted for 70.6% of the variance. The first three factors represented the highly interrelated TL scales that were combined earlier into a single TL scale, whereas the fourth compo-nent comprised the items of the IC scale, thus indicating that the TL and IC scales assessed separate constructs. The items and factor loadings of this principal component analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Demographics. Several demographic characteristics were collected in the questionnaire to assess their relationship with demographics, principals’ social network position, TL, and IC (see Table 1). As background variables regarding the principal, we included age, gender, and years of experience as a principal, as these have been indicated as potential predictors of TL and IC (Geijsel, 2001). We also included number of working hours (FTE) and years of experience at the school since both may affect the extent to which teachers are able to, and comfortable with, asking the principal for work related advice and advice regarding personal matters. At the teacher level, we added teacher age, gender, number of working hours (FTE), and years of experience at the school for similar reasons. We also included whether teachers had additional administrative tasks in support of the principal, which would potentially involve increased contact with the principal and could therefore explain an advice relationship. As school-level demographics, we entered gender ratio (the per-centage of female to male teachers in the team), school size (as represented by the number of students), and team size (total number of school staff with teaching and/or administrative tasks) in the models, because these demograph-ics may be related to structural characteristics of social networks (Tsai, 2001). Finally, schools’ socioeconomic status (SES; based on a governmental weigh-ing factor for additional financial support) was added as a demographic school-level variable. Typically, schools that serve more high-needs communities,


Tabl

e 2.

Item

s an

d Fa

ctor

Loa

ding

s of

the

Scal

es U

sed

in th

e St

udy

(N =

702

)

III

IIIIV

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

(α =

.96)

: The

pri

ncip

al o

f my

scho

ol. .

.

Vi

sion

build

ing

Re

fers

exp

licitl

y at

our

sch

ool’s

goa

ls du

ring

dec

ision

- m

akin

g pr

oces

ses

.77

.16

.24

.18

Expl

ains

the

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

the

scho

ols’

visio

n an

d in

itiat

ives

o

f the

sch

ool d

istri

ct, c

olla

bora

tive

proj

ects

, or

the

gove

rnm

ent

.77

.29

.25

.17

Disc

usse

s th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f the

sch

ool’s

visi

on fo

r

eve

ryda

y pr

actic

e.7

6.2

4.2

9.1

9

Use

s al

l pos

sible

mom

ents

to s

hare

the

scho

ol’s

visio

n

with

the

team

, the

stu

dent

s, pa

rent

s, an

d ot

hers

.75

.26

.29

.17

Inco

rpor

ates

the

scho

ol’s

visio

n an

d go

als

for

the

futu

re

to

talk

abo

ut th

e cu

rren

t iss

ues

and

prob

lem

s fa

cing

the

scho

ol.7

2.3

8.2

9.1

4

In

divi

dual

ized

con

sider

atio

n

Take

s op

inio

ns o

f ind

ivid

ual t

each

ers

seri

ously

.24

.81

.28

Li

sten

s ca

refu

lly to

team

mem

bers

’ ide

as a

nd s

ugge

stio

ns.2

8.8

0.2

7

Is a

tten

tive

to p

robl

ems

that

teac

hers

enc

ount

er w

hen

i

mpl

emen

ting

inno

vatio

ns.2

4.7

8.3

3.1

1

Show

s ap

prec

iatio

n w

hen

a te

ache

r ta

kes

initi

ativ

es to

i

mpr

ove

the

educ

atio

n.2

1.7

6.3

6

Hel

ps te

ache

rs ta

lk a

bout

thei

r fe

elin

gs.2

4.7

5.3

3

In

telle

ctua

l stim

ulat

ion

En

cour

ages

teac

hers

to e

xper

imen

t with

new

did

actic

str

ateg

ies

.23

.10

.79

.13

Invo

lves

teac

hers

in a

con

stan

t disc

ussio

n ab

out t

heir

ow

n

pro

fess

iona

l per

sona

l goa

ls.1

9.2

9.7

7.1

1

(con

tinue

d)

639


III

IIIIV

Enco

urag

es te

ache

rs to

try

new

str

ateg

ies

that

mat

ch th

eir

pers

onal

i

nter

ests

.21

.33

.74

.11

Hel

ps te

ache

rs to

ref

lect

on

new

exp

erie

nces

.16

.40

.72

.20

Mot

ivat

es te

ache

rs to

look

for

and

disc

uss

new

info

rmat

ion

and

i

deas

that

are

rel

evan

t to

the

scho

ol’s

deve

lopm

ent

.34

.27

.72

.13

Stim

ulat

es te

ache

rs to

con

stan

tly th

ink

abou

t how

to im

prov

e th

e

sch

ool

.34

.29

.70

.15

Offe

rs e

noug

h po

ssib

ilitie

s fo

r te

ache

rs’ p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

.19

.33

.62

.18

Hel

ps te

ache

rs ta

lk a

bout

and

exp

lain

thei

r pe

rson

al v

iew

s on

e

duca

tion

.22

.53

.61

.10

Inno

vativ

e cl

imat

e (α

= .8

6)

Te

ache

rs a

re g

ener

ally

will

ing

to tr

y ne

w id

eas

.12

.84

Te

ache

rs a

re c

ontin

uous

ly le

arni

ng a

nd d

evel

opin

g ne

w id

eas

.22

.11

.80

Te

ache

rs h

ave

a po

sitiv

e “c

an-d

o” a

ttitu

de.1

4.7

8

Teac

hers

are

will

ing

to ta

ke r

isks

to m

ake

this

scho

ol

bet

ter

.14

.76

Te

ache

rs a

re c

onst

antly

tryi

ng to

impr

ove

thei

r te

achi

ng.1

9.1

2.7

3

Teac

hers

are

enc

oura

ged

to g

o as

far

as th

ey c

an.2

6.2

4.6

1

Not

e: H

ighe

st fa

ctor

load

ings

per

item

are

disp

layed

in b

old.

Tabl

e 2.

(co

ntin

ued)

640



and schools that are under pressure to improve, are associated with greater urgency in developing new approaches (Sunderman, Kim, & Orfield, 2005).

Data AnalysisSocial network position. For each principal, we calculated three measures

that reflected the centrality of his or her position in the schools’ instrumental (work-related advice) and expressive (personal guidance) social network: degree centrality, closeness centrality, and betweenness centrality (cf. Borgatti, Jones, & Everett, 1998; Burt, 1983). These social network characteristics were calculated using both teachers’ and principals’ answers to the social network survey and were analyzed using UCINET 6.0 (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). The three types of centrality, discussed below, were assessed as each offers a different perspective on principals’ centrality position in the team.

A principal’s degree centrality reflects the number of people who indicated the principal as a source of work-related or personal advice. Degree centrality scores are normalized to facilitate between-school comparisons and can, therefore, be interpreted as a proportional measure of principals’ popularity for advice in the network. Degree centrality is an asymmetric measure in which the direction of the tie (who nominates whom) is taken into account. In contrast, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality are calculated using symmetrized networks, in which the direction and reciprocity of the tie is ignored. Closeness centrality is calculated as one minus the sum of the short-est paths between the principal and the teachers in the network. As such, closeness centrality can be interpreted as a measure of how much effort it will take for the principal to reach all teachers in the network. The higher a prin-cipal’s closeness centrality in the network, the quicker the principal’s advice or information will spread through the social network because the principal is close to many teachers. Closeness centrality is then also normalized to facili-tate comparisons among individuals (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). A princi-pal’s betweenness centrality assesses the degree to which a principal occupies a position “in between” the teachers in the network. A principal who has a central betweenness position has the capacity to broker contacts between actors in the organization and, as such, the power to control the flow of infor-mation and resources in the network. Betweenness centrality is calculated as the proportion of times an individual occupies a position between two other actors who are themselves unconnected. This measure is then normalized as a percentage of the maximum possible betweenness position that an individ-ual could possibly reach in the network, in order to facilitate comparisons among principals (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).



The centrality measures of the principals’ position in their schools’ social networks range from 0 (the principal is not central at all) to 1 (the principal occupies a very central position in the network). The centrality measures are to be interpreted as school-level variables, because we were interested in the centrality of the principal to all teachers in the network as a proxy for the principals’ influence on the school’s IC.

Transformational leadership and innovative climate. We calculated descrip-tive and inferential statistics including correlations and internal consistencies for the scales assessing TL and IC, as well as correlations with the social network measures regarding the centrality of principals’ positions in their schools’ networks.

Analysis strategy. Four steps were taken to test our hypotheses (see Figure 1 for a path diagram of the hypothesized relationships). First, we conducted correlation analyses to examine the relationships between principals’ struc-tural position, TL, and schools’ IC as perceived by teachers. Second, we ana-lyzed the influence of demographic variables on the proposed relationships to identify potential control variables that must be taken into account. Third, we conducted multilevel regression analyses to test the relationships between TL and IC (Path 1) and the relationship between principals’ centrality in their schools’ networks and IC (Path 2). Finally, we tested whether principals’ network position mediated the relationship between TL and IC following procedures as described by Baron and Kenny (1986).

An important methodological concern when conducting social network analyses is that the basic assumption of independence of observations under-lying regression analyses techniques does not hold, as actors in bounded social networks are constrained by the same relationship opportunities (see Kenny, Kashy, & Bolger, 1998). Therefore, principals’ centrality in the instru-mental advice network is not entirely independent of their centrality in the expressive social network. Moreover, because all three types of centrality are calculated using the same source (the number of relationships between the principal and the other team members), the observations of different types of principals’ centrality cannot be considered independent. Because of this inter-dependency, there is a considerable risk of multicollinearity. Previous research has demonstrated that often degree, closeness, and betweenness centrality are characterized by medium to high correlations (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). This is also reflected in our sample for both the instrumental and expressive network (r = .61, p < .01; and r = .64, p < .01, respectively). Whereas multi-collinearity does not affect the predictive power of the model as a whole, it may inflate the standard errors of the individual predictors. To address this



methodological concern, we ran separate models for all types of centrality (degree, closeness, and betweenness) and for both network types (instrumen-tal and expressive). Given this strategy and the substantial size of our data set, we may assume that multicollinearity did not create a significant threat to the robustness of our findings.

ResultsDescriptive Analyses

We calculated descriptive statistics for TL, principals’ social network posi-tion, and schools’ IC (see Table 3). Findings indicate that principals’ position in both the instrumental and expressive network is very similar. Teachers in the sample schools nominate their principals as much as a person from whom they seek work-related advice as a person by whom they seek guidance on more personal matters (degree centrality for the instrumental network is .35 and for the expressive network is .32). In general, principals thus receive work-related advice nominations from about 35% of the teachers, and 32% of the teachers indicate the principal to be a valuable source of advice related to personal matters. In both networks, principals are similarly close to teachers,

TransformationalLeadership

Level 1

Level 2

Path 3 Principals’social network position

- Degree centrality- Closeness centrality- Betweenness centrality

Innovative Climate

Path 1 Path 2

Figure 1. Path diagram of hypothesized multilevel mediation



Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Transformational Leadership, Principals’ Social Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate at the School Level (N = 51) and the Teacher Level (N = 702)

N Min. Max. M SD

Instrumental network Principal degree

centrality51 0.03 0.89 0.35 0.18

Principal closeness centrality

51 0.22 1.00 0.59 0.18

Principal betweenness centrality

51 0.00 0.55 0.08 0.11

Principal number of nominations (degree)

51 1 17 4.8 3.5

Expressive network Principal degree

centrality51 0.00 0.78 0.32 0.18

Principal closeness centrality

51 0.19 1.00 0.62 0.18

Principal betweenness centrality

51 0.00 0.33 0.06 0.08

Principal number of nominations (degree)

51 0 18 4.1 3.2

Transformational leadership 51 2.12 3.87 3.06 0.38Innovative Climate 702 1.00 4.00 2.96 0.55

respectively 59% and 62%. On average, principals’ betweenness centrality is 8% in the instrumental network and 6% in the expressive network. This implies that principals in general seldom occupy a brokerage position in the advice networks in their school. Results thus suggest that principals occupy similar positions in both the instrumental and expressive social network.

Relationships Between Transformational Leadership, Principals’ Structural Position, and Innovative ClimateResults from the correlation analyses (see Table 4) indicate that TL is positively and significantly related to teachers’ perceptions of their schools’ IC. TL is also positively related to principals’ popularity (degree) in both the instrumental (work advice) and expressive (personal advice) network. The more teachers perceive their principal as a transformational leader, the more the principal was nominated as a source of work-related advice and as a person whom



teachers approach for guidance on more personal matters. Moreover, the more transformational a principal is perceived, the closer she or he is to all teachers in both the instrumental and expressive networks, as illustrated by positive correlations between TL and closeness centrality. TL was not sig-nificantly related to betweenness centrality, which reflects the degree to which a principal occupies a brokerage position.

Results also suggest that principals’ structural position within the social network is related to their schools’ IC. The degree to which teachers rely on the principal for work-related and personal advice is related to teachers’ per-ceptions of the school’s climate as supportive of innovation. Interestingly, an increase in principals’ betweenness in the schools’ instrumental networks is associated with a lower perception of IC within the school. This finding

Table 4. Correlations and Internal Consistencies (Cronbach’s Alpha) at the School Level (N = 51)

1 2a 2b 2c 3a 3b 3c 4

1. Transformational leadership

(.96) .58** .50** .05 .49** .35* .11 .52**

2. Position in instrumental network

a. Degree centrality

1.00 .61** .26 .61** .52** .30* .39**

b. Closeness centrality

1.00 .06 .47** .36** .23 .38**

c. Betweenness centrality

1.00 .18 −.14 .08 −.32**

3. Position in expressive network

a. Degree centrality

1.00 .64** .30* .41**

b. Closeness centrality

1.00 .58** .38**

c. Betweenness centrality

1.00 .01

4. Innovative Climatea

(.86)

Note: aAggregated at the school level for this table only.***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10



suggests that the more a principal occupies a brokerage role in the advice relationships between teachers, the less the team is characterized by a will-ingness to develop new knowledge, create novel practices, and try innovative teaching strategies. Principals’ betweenness centrality in the expressive social network was not significantly related to schools’ IC.

The Role of Demographic Variables in Principals’ Social Network Position and Schools’ Innovative ClimateTo examine whether demographic characteristics of teachers, principals, and schools played a role in the relationships under study, we tested the extent to which demographics were related to principals’ structural posi-tion and schools’ IC. We found that teachers who performed administrative tasks in support of the principal besides their teaching task perceived their school’s climate as slightly less innovative than teachers without addi-tional administrative tasks. Moreover, teachers who have more than one year of experience at the school perceived their school’s climate to be slightly more innovation-supportive than teachers who just started work-ing at the school. In regard to principals, we found that teachers with older principals perceived their schools’ climate on average as less supportive of innovation than teachers who work with younger principals. Principals’ gender and years of experience at the school were not significantly related to their schools’ IC (see Table 7). Demographic variables that were sig-nificantly associated with the relationships under study were included in further analyses. All other demographics were found to have no effect on the relationships under study and were therefore excluded from fur-ther analyses.

The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Innovative ClimateHypothesis 1 addressed the extent to which principals’ TL was associated with their schools’ IC (see Table 5). Results from multilevel analyses indi-cated that the more principals displayed TL behavior in the form of building a shared vision, considering individual teachers’ feelings and needs, and intellectually stimulating the teachers, the more their team was characterized by a willingness to take risks to improve the school by developing and imple-menting new knowledge and practices (β = .146, p < .001). TL accounted for 11.0% of the variance in teacher perceptions of IC between schools, whereas



Table 5. Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived Innovative Climate (IC) by Transformational Leadership (TL) (Path 1)

Model 1 Model 2

Estimate SE Estimate SE

Intercept 2.971*** .040 2.974*** .035Teacher level Administrative tasks

(dummy code)–.046* .019 –.046* .019

Years of experience at school (dummy code)

.038* .019 .037† .019

School level Principal age –.095* .038 –.063† .034 Principal gender .054 .040 .006 .037 Principal years of

experience at the school (dummy code)

.025 .043 .014 .037

Transformational leadership

.146*** .038

−2 log likelihood 1,047.181 1,034.130(Null model χ2(3) = 1,064.449)

χ2DIFF.

(5) = 17.268*** χ2DIFF.

(6) = 30.319***

Explained variance (total) School (23.8%) 4.9% 11.0% Teacher (76.2%) 13.1% 34.3%

Note: N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers.***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10

34.3% of the variance in teacher perceptions of IC was explained at the teacher level. As such, this finding offers support for Hypothesis 1.

The Relationship Between the Principal’s Position and Innovative ClimateHypothesis 2 concerned the extent to which principals’ structural position was associated with schools’ IC (see Table 6). Results indicated that princi-pals’ degree centrality was significantly related to schools’ IC (β = .098, p < .05), meaning that the more a principal was sought for work-related advice, the more teachers perceived their schools’ climate to be open to innovation



and supportive of change. This finding was even stronger in regard to the expressive relationships (β = .125, p < .01). The more the principal was regarded as a person from whom teachers seek personal guidance, the more the team was oriented towards the development of novel teaching strategies and implementation of innovations. This finding provides evidence in sup-port of Hypothesis 2a.

The extent to which principals are closely connected to all teachers through work-related advice, as indicated by high closeness centrality in the instrumental network, was also positively associated with schools’ IC (β = .147, p < .001) . This finding held as well for the expressive network, but to a lesser extent (β = .102, p < .05). In other words, the more the prin-cipal was embedded in the network as a central “hub” of work-related and

Table 6. Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived Innovative Climate (IC) by Principals’ Social Network Position (Path 2)

β SE Model

School Variance

(%)

Teacher Variance

(%)

Instrumental network position

Degree centrality

.098* .046 1,042.845, χ2D(6) = 21.604** 7.3 21.8

Closeness centrality

.147*** .042 1,035.819, χ2D(6) = 28.630*** 9.7 29.3

Betweenness centrality

–.090* .039 1,042.027, χ2D(6) = 22.422** 7.2 20.7

Expressive network position

Degree centrality

.125** .041 1,038.582, χ2D(6) = 25.867*** 8.9 26.8


.102* .042 1,041.715, χ2D(6) = 22.734*** 7.7 22.9

Betweenness Centrality

−.015 .041 1,047.049, χ2D(6) = 17.440** 4.9 13.0

Note: Null model for IC: χ2Null

(3) = 1,064.449. ICCIC

= .238, χ2(1) = 85.212, p < .001. N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers. All models include the following demographic control variables: Teacher level, administrative tasks (dummy), years of experience at school (dummy); School level, principal age, principal gender, principal years of experience at school (dummy).***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10


649

Tabl

e 7.

Mul

tiple

Reg

ress

ion

Ana

lysis

Res

ults

of t

he P

redi

ctio

n of

Pri

ncip

als’

Soci

al N

etw

ork

Posit

ion

by T

rans

form

atio

nal

Lead

ersh

ip (T

L) (N

= 5

1) (P

ath

3)

Inst

rum

enta

l Deg

ree

Cen

tral

ityIn

stru

men

tal C

lose

ness

Cen

tral

ityIn

stru

men

tal B

etw

eenn

ess

Cen

tral

ity

B

SEβ

BSE

βB

SEβ

Inte

rcep

t−.

276

.176

−.08

7.1

87−.

021

.141

Pr

inci

pal a

ge−.

061

.021

–.32

8**

−.01

8.0

22−.

101

.01

6.0

17.1

46Pr

inci

pal g

ende

r.0

41.0

21.2

22†

−.00

5.0

23.0

27−.

011

.017

−.10

6Pr

inci

pal y

ears

of e

xper

ienc

e at

t

he s

choo

l (du

mm

y co

de)

.033

.021

.179

† .

056

.022

.320

* .

000

.016

−.00

2

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

.205

.057

.417

***

.22

2.0

61.4

76**

* .

034

.046

.118

R2.4

83.3

58.0

31A

djus

ted

R2.4

37.3

01.0

00F

10.5

19**

6.26

7***

.354

Ex

pres

sive

Deg

ree

Cen

tral

ityEx

pres

sive

Clo

sene

ss C

entr

ality

Expr

essiv

e Be

twee

nnes

s C

entr

ality

B

SEβ

BSE

βB

SEβ

Inte

rcep

t−.

273

.198

.25

9.2

09 .

025

.098

Pr

inci

pal a

ge−.

024

.024

−.13

2−.

035

.025

−.19

4−.

010

.012

−.12

8Pr

inci

pal g

ende

r.0

20.0

24.1

12 .

025

.025

.136

.00

5.0

12.0

64Pr

inci

pal y

ears

of e

xper

ienc

e at

t

he s

choo

l (du

mm

y co

de)

.031

.023

.172

.04

9.0

24.2

69†

.01

0.0

11.1

36

Tran

sfor

mat

iona

l lea

ders

hip

.193

.064

.410

** .

119

.068

.248

† .

011

.032

.055

R2.2

89.2

35.0

45A

djus

ted

R2.2

26.1

67.0

00F

4.57

6**

3.45

4*.5

27

Not

e: **

*p <

.001

, **p

< .0

1, *

p <

.05,

† p <

.10



personal advice, the more the team was willing to try new practices and take risks in improving the school. As such, this finding corroborates Hypothesis 2b.

In line with our expectation, we found that schools’ IC was negatively related to principals’ betweenness centrality in the instrumental network (β = –.090, p < .05). The more a principal occupied a “brokerage” position in the work-related advice network, thereby controlling the flow of information, the less a team was open towards innovation and willing to collectively invent new teaching strategies and ideas. This finding could not be confirmed for the expressive network (β = –.015, ns). Brokering principals may have interrupted and inhibited the development of new ideas and risk-taking behavior by con-trolling the dissemination of work-related advice. This result provides evi-dence for Hypothesis 2c, but only for the instrumental social network and not for the expressive social network.

Mediating Role of Principals’ Structural Position in the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Innovative Climate

Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether principals’ struc-tural position played a mediating role in the relationship between TL and innovation orientation (Hypotheses 3a, 3b, and 3c). To test for mediation, we followed a procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986). The first step involved confirmation of a positive predictive relationship between TL and schools’ IC (Path 1 in Figure 1, confirmed by Hypothesis 1).

The second step in testing the mediation hypotheses required the confir-mation of relationships between TL and principals’ structural position (Path 3) (see Table 7). Because both variables are school-level variables, we con-ducted multiple regression analysis (N = 51) to test our hypotheses. We found that TL was positively associated with principals’ popularity in the instru-mental and the expressive network (respectively, β = .417, p < .001; and β = .410, p < .01). The more a principal displayed TL by disseminating the school’s vision, considering teachers’ individual needs and stimulating the professional development of teachers, the more she or he was sought out for work-related and personal advice.

Principals’ TL also had a positive relationship with the extent to which they were close to all teachers in the network. The more teachers perceived their principal as a transformational leader, the closer the principal was to all teachers in the team with regard to work-related advice. This result



suggests that transformational leaders had an increased ability to reach all teachers with work-related advice, in contrast to principals who displayed less TL behavior. This finding was stronger for the instrumental network than for the expressive network (respectively, β = .476, p < .001; and β = .248, p < .10), indicating the importance of TL particularly for the dissemination of knowledge and information through work-related advice ties. Finally, we found that TL was unrelated to betweenness centrality in the instrumental and expressive network (respectively, β = .118, ns; and β = .055, ns).

Because TL was found to be unrelated to betweenness centrality in both networks, preconditions for mediation by betweenness centrality are not met. In addition, TL failed to significantly explain closeness centrality in the expressive network. Therefore, a test of mediation was limited to potential mediation by degree centrality in both networks and by closeness centrality in the expressive network.

To confirm mediation, it must be shown that the mediator is related to the dependent variable while “fixing” the independent variable (Pearl, 2000). Therefore, we conducted three additional multilevel analyses in which TL was added to the prediction of IC by principals’ structural position. This way, we examined whether TL accounted for any additional explained variance above the effect of principals’ structural position on IC. Mediation by princi-pals’ structural position is evidenced when the direct effect of TL on IC in this model is either zero (full mediation) or decreases significantly in abso-lute size (partial mediation). Confirmation of mediation is then provided by a test of the significance of the indirect effect as examined by Sobel’s test (1982). Results of this multilevel analysis are reported in Table 8.

Previous analyses (see Table 5) already indicated that TL had a significant predictive relationship with IC (β = .146, p < .001). Including both TL and principals’ degree centrality in the instrumental network in the regression equation did not reduce the direct effect of TL on IC significantly (β = .134, p < .01). A similar result was obtained for TL in combination with principals’ degree centrality in the expressive network (β = .116, p < .01). Both effects of principals’ instrumental network position were not significant when TL was included in the equation. Sobel’s test confirmed that both proposed mediator effects were nonsignificant (for instrumental degree centrality, Sobel test statistic = 0.56, ns; for expressive degree centrality, Sobel test sta-tistic = 1.56, ns). The inclusion of TL and principals’ closeness centrality in the instrumental network reduced the relationship between TL and IC consid-erably (from β = .146, p < .001, to β = .106, p < .05). The mediating effect was found to be significant as evidenced by Sobel’s test (Sobel test statistic = 1.97, p < .05). As such, partial mediation could be confirmed in the case of



instrumental closeness centrality but has to be rejected for other forms of centrality. This finding suggests that the relationship between TL and schools’ IC can be partially explained by the finding that transformational leaders are more closely positioned to the teachers in their school’s instru-mental network.

The results from our analyses can also be illustrated graphically. In Figures 2 and 3, we provide two typical instrumental social networks of similar size sample schools (Schools 39 and 19, respectively) that represent principals with high and low scores on perceived TL and IC coupled with centrality scores. In these social network visualizations, teachers are represented by circles, principals by triangles (sized by degree), and relationships between actors by arrowed lines representing the directional flow of work-related advice. Teachers from School 39 (Figure 2) reported significantly higher lev-els of TL and IC in comparison to School 19 (Figure 3): TL, t(34) = 2.02, p < .05;

Table 8. Testing Mediation: Multilevel Analysis Results of the Prediction of Perceived Innovative Climate (IC) by Principals’ Social Network Position and Transformational Leadership (Path 3 and Path 2)

β SE Model

School Variance

(%)

Teacher Variance

(%)

Instrumental network position

Degree centrality .027 .048 1,033.807, χ2D(7) = 30.642*** 11.2 35.0


.134** .043


.094* .040 1,029.734, χ2D(7) = 34.715*** 12.3 38.5


.106* .041

Expressive network position

Degree centrality .075† .041 1,030.906, χ2D(7) = 33.543*** 12.1 38.1


.116** .040

Null model for IC: χ2Null

(3) = 1,064.449. ICCIC

= .238, χ2(1) = 85.212, p < .001. N = 51 schools, 51 principals, 702 teachers. All models include the following demographic control variables: Teacher level, administrative tasks (dummy), years of experience at school (dummy); School level, principal age, principal gender, principal years of experience at school (dummy).***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, †p < .10.



and IC, t(34) = 4.98, p < .001. In addition to significantly “more” TL and IC for School 39 (Figure 2), the principal’s position in this school was also char-acterized by higher degree and closeness centrality and lower betweenness centrality than the principal in School 19 (Figure 3).

Discussion and ConclusionOur study is at the forefront of research into the interplay of leadership behavior and leadership position in support of innovative climates that char-acterize schools in which teachers collaboratively develop new ideas and shared practices to increase school improvement. Our study yielded valuable results, indicating that the more a principal engaged in TL, the more likely

Figure 2. Example of principal’s position in a school’s instrumental advice network: High innovative climate



teachers were to take risks in developing and implementing new knowledge and practices. Also, transformational principals were more sought out for advice and were significantly closer to teachers in their school than princi-pals who showed less TL behavior. Moreover, the more connected and the closer a principal was to the teachers, the more teachers perceived the school’s climate to be supportive of innovative practices and risk taking. Conversely, we also found that when principals were positioned “in between” others in the network, thus having the potential to control the flow of work-related knowledge and information, the less their schools’ climates were perceived as oriented towards innovation. Although one of the earliest attempts to examine both leadership behavior and social position around IC, our study offers several themes related to leadership practice and research.

Figure 3. Example of principal’s position in a school’s instrumental advice network: Low innovative climate



The Role of Leadership Behavior in Supporting Innovative Climates

With increasing pressure and incentives to innovate, educational systems are seeking new ideas and practices to improve performance. This study contrib-utes to previous literature by underlining that leadership behaviors matter for innovation by creating risk-tolerant environments. Our work suggests that by enacting TL behavior, principals can support a school climate that is more oriented towards innovation and provides opportunities to challenge the sta-tus quo. As such, leadership behavior is important for nurturing and stimulat-ing a climate in which teachers are more likely to engage in risk-taking and the development of novel solutions. Those leaders who are able to develop shared vision and goals, attend to the social needs of individuals, and provide intellectual stimulation are perceived to support the fertile ground for inno-vation to develop.

This finding, although maybe not overly surprising, is important for edu-cational systems that are attempting to improve. Whereas school improve-ment efforts are more likely to succeed in innovation-supportive climates, the need for leadership behaviors that foster such climates is often overlooked. Most policy related to improvement is focused on technical elements of reform, and therefore many reform efforts in underperforming system focus on program fidelity, rigid curriculum, and prescriptive approaches (Daly, 2009; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2007). In response, many leaders in these systems also tend to become more focused on the technical elements of the reform and thus perhaps engage less in shared vision building and creating opportunities to enact novel solutions that may lead to the new approaches necessary to improve performance. Although our research did not examine these more transactional behaviors and their role in nurturing an IC, our work does sug-gest that principals, through TL, have the potential to support such innovation-oriented climates that in turn may strengthen efforts at improvement.

The Role of Leadership Behavior in Occupying the Principal PositionThe results of the study suggest that principals who are recognized as trans-formational leaders occupy more central positions in their schools’ social networks. Teachers with transformational principals seek out their principals more often for work-related and personal advice, thus enabling principals to exert control over the (new) knowledge that gets disseminated within teams.



Through sharing and developing a school’s vision, providing personalized attention, and intellectually stimulating organizational members, transforma-tional leaders may have something to offer above and beyond nontransfor-mational leaders, making them more actively sought as a source of advice. It may also be possible that in addition to being sought for advice, transforma-tional leaders themselves actively seek to obtain a more central position in their network, thus enabling them to provide more targeted individualized attention. Examining the agency of transformational principals in this regard may be an important future area of inquiry. Additionally, our results suggest that highly transformational principals are also closer to their teachers in the instrumental network, meaning that they may reach their teachers more quickly with professional information and knowledge that may support efforts at innovation. A principal who is close to staff may have a greater opportunity to collectively share and develop the school’s vision as well as provide timely access to the resources necessary in realizing that vision.

Combining Leadership Behavior and Position for Innovative ClimatesThe combination of speed, ease, and consistency of resource flow (informa-tion, knowledge, etc.) throughout the network is important because sharing information, ideas, and opportunities to interact is critical for innovative climates (Moolenaar et al., in press; Mumford et al., 2002). The significant contribution of this work is that, in addition to leadership behavior, the princi-pal’s network position may play an important role in stimulating or inhibit-ing the flow of information and knowledge within schools, and occupying such a position is associated with the extent to which schools are character-ized by an IC. We will now discuss the facilitating and inhibiting roles of principals’ network positions in support of innovative climates.

The facilitating role of closeness. Our work suggests that teachers who per-ceive their school’s climate as innovative are often guided by leaders who both display transformational behavior and occupy a close position to these teachers. Hence, at least one of the mechanisms through which transformational leaders succeed in supporting an IC is by occupying a position “close” to their teachers. The greater a principal’s closeness centrality, the quicker and with more ease information that passes the principal’s office will reach all team members. Moreover, this closeness also implies that the information dissemi-nated by the principal will have less chance of being modified as it passes from person to person. Being close to their team members may thus be of strategic advantage for transformational leaders, as increased connections



with team members may enable them to maximize the skills, knowledge, and shared learning experiences that are being exchanged within the network.

As the work of a transformational leader is often done “through” others, a leader who has close access to others may be better positioned to leverage social resources in meeting organizational goals. By supporting the collective development of a clear vision for the school’s future, and attending to teach-ers’ needs for professional development and intellectual growth, transforma-tional leaders also become more valuable as a “hub” of advice. What is clear from this study is that both TL behavior and closeness centrality are impor-tant facilitators in fostering risk tolerance, stimulating teachers’ shared learn-ing, and promoting climates supportive of innovation.

It appears that this risk-taking behavior is also demonstrated in teachers’ search for personal advice from transformational leaders. In addition to culti-vating climates in which innovation can occur, it seems these transforma-tional leaders also supported a psychologically safe environment for personal vulnerabilities to be shared. This openness in communication and the ability to take risks in a psychologically safe environment indicates the importance of trust in these interactions (Daly & Chrispeels, 2008; Moolenaar, Karsten, et al., 2009; Tschannen-Moran, 2009). This suggests the importance of indi-vidual consideration by transformational leaders as one of the elements in fostering school climates supportive of innovation.

The inhibiting role of betweenness. An important finding of this study is that even if a principal is enacting TL, which is associated with increased perception of IC, occupying a go-between position in a network will inhibit the extent to which teachers are willing to innovate. Occupying a high-betweenness position may offer the potential for leaders to bridge the gap between other-wise disconnected individuals or groups within a network, thereby stimulat-ing the flow of information that may support the generation of new knowledge and practices through social learning. However, our research aligns with pre-vious research (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008) that suggests that leaders who occupy a betweenness position also have the power to reduce the opportuni-ties for teachers to interact, share knowledge, and seek advice from each other, thus constraining the generation of new ideas and practices (Hargadon, 2003; Obstfeld, 2005). As such, principals who occupied an “in-between” position in the sample schools may have inhibited the social learning process that underlies innovative climates (Paavola et al., 2004), which may have resulted in a reduction in teachers’ perceptions of opportunities for, and open-ness to, innovation and improvement. In this sense, the position of a principal in a network has as much influence on the fertile grounds for innovation as leadership behavior. The important message from this work is that the



enactment and benefits of TL behaviors can be enhanced or diminished based on principal position in the social network.

Delimiters and Directions for Future ResearchAs an early study into this emerging area, there are several limitations to our work. First off, our work suggests interrelations between behavior and net-work position but does not imply directionality or chronology. Although it is plausible that TL behavior “makes” principals more sought as a resource, and these leaders may themselves seek a more central position, which in turn shapes teachers’ orientation towards innovation, the opposite may also hold. For instance, in schools with an urgent need for innovation, teachers may be more oriented towards school improvement and change. As a consequence, teachers may seek more advice from principals, which in turn may increase principals’ behavior in terms of setting goals, giving individualized attention, and offering intellectual stimulation.

On a related note, it is important to recognize that the mediation hypoth-esis tested in this article is not driven by a specific intervention that varied principals’ centrality position in their schools’ networks. Because the data for this study were collected at a single point in time, mediation of a relationship between two variables was not measured as a longitudinal process that resulted from an intervention but, rather, as an explanation of the existing relationship between two variables. Whereas cross-sectional analysis of mediation is not uncommon, we also believe that the literature provides suf-ficient grounds to suggest that TL is related to the IC in schools because transformational leaders occupy a more central position in their schools’ social networks (Bass et al., 2003; Ibarra & Andrews, 1993).

Another limitation to the study concerns the generalizability of findings. Although we have adequate sample size for the analysis, our results only reflect a single district of schools in the Netherlands. Therefore, caution is warranted in generalizing the findings to other settings, such as the U.S. school context. In addition, although we have attempted to control for a vari-ety of demographic features of principals and teachers, there may be various other variables in play that may partially explain our findings. For instance, although we assessed innovative climates in an attempt to transcend the con-textual aspect of studying specific innovations and facilitate comparisons among schools, it is not to say that our findings may not have been affected by specific innovations or reforms that were implemented at the schools at the time of the study. This study only included teachers’ perceptions of the climate around innovation, not the actual innovations themselves. Whereas



we strongly subscribe the need for a fertile climate as perhaps even a precon-dition for successful school improvement, we acknowledge that the study of conditions for successful improvement needs to be supported by insights in the success of actual innovations.

It is also possible that schools are characterized by highly innovative cli-mates without ever making meaningful change in instructional practice (Rowan, Correnti, Miller, & Camburn, 2009). Moreover, research relating the social network structure of school teams to improvement of instruction and student achievement is scarce. However, we argue throughout this article that a shared openness to new practices in an innovation-supportive climate may provide the necessary precondition for school improvement. To substantiate the importance of innovative school climates in supporting the development and implementation of actual specific innovations, more studies need to be conducted in a variety of settings and under various conditions.

It may be interesting to study other principal leadership behavior in relation to principals’ network position, as well as how leadership may be shared throughout an organization. We foresee a valuable link to another emerging field in leadership, namely, distributed leadership (e.g., Harris, Leithwood, Day, Sammons, & Hopkins, 2007; Mayrowetz, 2008; Spillane, 2006). A dis-tributive perspective on leadership focuses on leadership activities that emerge from the interaction of “all individuals who contribute to leadership practice, whether or not they are formally designated or defined as leaders” (Harris & Spillane, 2008, p. 31). Leadership from this perspective is therefore concerned with both the leadership behavior and the social context in which organiza-tional members interact in support of organizational goals. From this perspec-tive, teachers’ leadership actions may also be studied for their relation to network position and effect on the implementation of innovations and reform.

Several issues should be noted in relation to the finding of the negative association between principals’ occupying a betweenness position and the schools’ IC. First, the networks in our sample were relatively small (network size between 6 and 31), thus increasing the chance of teachers’ interacting. Moreover, schools, relative to other organizations, may be classified as rather “flat” organizations, characterized by norms of egalitarianism (Little, 1982). As such, the small teams may have decreased the possibility for principals to be “in between” teachers who are themselves disconnected. Therefore, in our sample, principals rarely occupied moderate to extreme brokerage roles, sug-gesting an area of further examination. Second, when a leader occupies a brokerage position, there may be multiple reasons why the leader is in this network position. For instance, principals may choose to occupy such a position as they feel the need to control the flow of information, thereby orchestrating



and effectively controlling the extent to which teachers can share knowledge and expertise that may give rise to the creation of new practices in support of school improvement. When principals occupy a betweenness position, this may also signify that there are teachers who are unconnected due to unre-solved conflict or other systemic problems that force the principal to act as a broker. These systemic issues, and teachers’ resulting dependency on the principal to negotiate connections, may in fact hinder the school’s IC more than the principal’s role per se. An examination of the reason why a principal occupies a betweenness position was beyond the scope of this article and yet represents an important area for examination. Research into such antecedents of social network positions is rather scarce (Borgatti & Foster, 2003) but, given the importance of social network position for a variety of outcomes, crucial (Moolenaar, 2010).

An issue that also deserves attention in future studies is the role of princi-pals’ buffering position in relation to forces outside the school. Research has indicated that leaders who play a buffering role in respect to reforms, innova-tions, and organizations that permeate the school from the outside can help schools to avoid instructional incoherence due to a myriad of influences pull-ing the school’s agenda and resources in a variety of different directions (Honig & Hatch, 2004). Therefore, insights into the principal’s position in the network that extends school boundaries may also offer valuable informa-tion on the potential for schools to implement reforms and foster school improvement (Daly & Finnigan, 2009; Moolenaar, 2010).

The limitations of this early work also offer great potential for future research and motivate further questions about the conditions under which TL, network position, and IC interact to yield positive change in instructional practice and student achievement. Additional samples from a variety of inter-national perspectives would add to our understanding and perhaps provide opportunity for comparisons across contexts. Along the same lines, research in other educational settings, such as secondary, higher, or vocational educa-tion, to validate our findings in other settings would also be indicated to enhance our insights in the interplay of leadership behavior, leadership net-work position, and innovative climates. Moreover, longitudinal studies that examine networks over time may broaden our knowledge of network dynam-ics in school teams and changes in principals’ network positions, related to, for instance, the multiphased implementation of reform. In addition, creating matched sets of schools in regard to teacher population would provide for more control in the study and thus more comparable results. We view future research as best done through a combination of both quantitative and qualita-tive methods, as the network methods provide a snapshot of the structure,



whereas the quality and nuanced exchanges that can be captured through more qualitative means.

With regard to leadership education and practice, our results suggest that leaders would be advised to not only focus on developing vision, considering individuals, and supporting intellectual stimulation but to also be aware of the importance of location in a social network, as that position can either enhance or detract from leadership efforts. This research suggests the impor-tance of combining the fields of leadership with network theory in creating a robust picture of future educational leadership.

Occupying the Principal PositionThe work of the contemporary principal in any setting is complex, fraught with decisions, and replete with pressures for performance. In the Dutch context as well as in the United States, there is increasing pressure to “inno-vate.” What is less clear is what comprises an “innovation,” as one system’s novel idea may be another’s common practice. Therefore, we have focused our attention on innovation-supportive climates as the fertile ground for innovations to flourish. Our work suggests that the well-studied area of TL holds promise in supporting innovative climates. However, the behaviors themselves can either be enhanced or diminished based on the social posi-tion the leader occupies. This combination of purposeful action and posi-tion in the social milieu, we believe, holds promise for leaders enacting school improvement and supporting innovation in 21st-century educational settings.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestThe authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This research was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO-PROO grant number 411-03-506).

ReferencesAdler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy

of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of cre-

ativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.



Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-87.Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the

work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam. (2003). Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of trans-formational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Ques-tionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441-462.

Avolio, B. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (2002). Transformational and charismatic leader-ship: The road ahead. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.

Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W., & Bhatia, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: Mediating role of psychological empowerment and mod-erating role of structural distance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 951-968.

Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 55-73.

Baker, W., & Iyer, A. (1992). Information networks and market behaviour. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16, 305-332.

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong infer-ence about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 49, 49-68.

Balkundi, P., & Kilduff, M. (2005). The ties that lead: A social network approach to leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 941-961.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit per-formance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207-218.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understand-ing the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 554−571.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.

Borgatti, S. P., Jones, C., & Everett, M. G. (1998). Network measures of social capi-tal. Connections, 21(2), 27-36.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investi-gation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441-470.

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educa-tional Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Burt, R. S. (1983). Range. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analy-

sis: A methodological introduction (pp. 176-194). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.Calantone, R. J., Garcia, R., & Droge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbu-

lence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innova-tion Management, 20(2), 90-103.

Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203-235.

Consortium on Chicago School Research. (2004). Public use dataset. 2001 Survey of Students and Teachers. User’s manual. Chicago, IL: Author.

Copeland, M., Reynolds, K., & Burton, J. (2008). Social identity, status characteris-tics and social identity: Predictors of advice-seeking in a manufacturing facility. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 75-87.

Daft, R., & Becker, S. (1978). Innovation in organizations: Innovation adoption in school organizations. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Daly, A. J. (2009). Rigid response in an age of accountability: The potential of leader-ship and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 168-216.

Daly, A. J., & Chrispeels, J. (2008). A question of trust: Predictive conditions for adaptive and technical leadership in educational contexts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(1), 30-63.

Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (2010). Understanding network structure to under-stand change strategy. Journal of Educational Change. Volume 111, 111-138. doi: 10.1007/s10833-009-9102-5



Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N., Bolivar, J., & Burke, P. (in press). Relationships in reform: The role of teachers’ social networks. Journal of Educational Administration.

Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984). Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of organizational lag. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 392-409.

Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolly, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools in times of change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 286-307.

Ellis, A. K. (2005). Research on educational innovations. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integra-tive review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231-247.

Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148-171.

Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open Uni-versity Press.

Geijsel, F. P. (2001). Schools and innovations. Conditions fostering the implementation of educational innovations. Nijmegen, the Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2003). Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school re-form. Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 229-256.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Stoel, R. D., & Krüger, M. L. (2009). The effect of teacher psychological, school organizational and leadership factors on teach-ers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal, 109(4), 406-427.

Geijsel, F. P., Sleegers, P. J. C., Van den Berg, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2001). Conditions fostering the implementation of large-scale innovation programs in schools: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(1), 130-166.

Geijsel, F. P., Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (1999). The innovative capac-ity of schools in primary education: A qualitative study. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(2), 175-191.

Hage, J. T. (1999). Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 597-622.

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Novicevic, M. M., Buckley, M. R., & Harvey, M. (2003). The influence of temporal complexity in the leadership of creativity and innovation: A competency- based model. Leadership Quarterly, 14(5), 89-97.



Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improve-ment, 9, 157-191.

Hanneman, R., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. River-side, CA: University of California, Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr .edu/~hanneman/nettext/

Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K. A., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distrib-uted leadership and organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337-347.

Harris, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22(1), 31-34.

Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. C. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16-30.

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improve-ment works. New York, NY: Plenum.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management—A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 56-87.

Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 673-703.

Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administration Sci-ence Quarterly, 38, 277-303.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

Jung, D. (2001). Transformational and transactional leadership and their effects on creativity in groups. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185-195.

Jung, D., & Avolio, B. (2000). Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949-964.

Jung, D., & Sosik, J. (2002). Transformational leadership in work groups: The role of empowerment, cohesiveness, and collective efficacy on perceived group perfor-mance. Small Group Research, 33, 313-336.

Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership:

Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 246-255.Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology.

In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.



Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008), Interpersonal networks in organization: Cog-nition, personality, dynamics, and culture: Structural analysis in the social sci-ences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Studies, 3, 383-397.

Krackhardt, D. (1996). Social networks and the liability of newness for managers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3, 159-173.

LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reli-ability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815-852.

Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administra-tion Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about success-ful school leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational leadership research 1996-2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177-200.

Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201-228.

Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Earl, L., Watson, N., Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2004). Stra-tegic leadership for large-scale reform: The case of England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Journal of School Leadership and Management, 24(1), 57-80.

Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Education Administration Quar-terly, 38(1), 94-119.

Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340.

Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.

Mayrowetz, D. (2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the mul-tiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 424-435.

Mehra, A., Dixon, A. L., Brass, D. J., & Robertson, B. (2006). The social network ties of group leaders: Implications for group performance and leader reputation. Organization Science, 17(1), 64-82.

Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educa-tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 319-352.



Monge, P. R., Cozzens, M. D., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Communication and moti-vational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3, 250-274.

Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with potential: Nature, antecedents, and consequences of social networks in school teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (in press). Ties with potential: Social network structure and Innovative Climate in Dutch Schools. Teachers Col-lege Record.

Moolenaar, N. M., Karsten, S., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Zijlstra, B. J. H. (2009). Profes-sional learning communities from a social capital perspective: Studying social networks and trust in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA.

Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705-750.

Nguni, S., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transac-tional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17, 145-177.

Nohari, K., & Gulati, S. (1996). Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 799-825.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge- creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involve-ment in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100-130.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contex-tual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634.

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowl-edge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 557-576.

Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implemen-tation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958.

Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., & Krause, A. E. (2007). A social network approach to examining the effects of distributed leadership in school wide reform initiatives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.



Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89-106.

Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179-201.

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., Miller, R., & Camburn, E. (2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 37, 580-607.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.

Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evalu-ation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 1-22.

Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613-642.

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. (1997). Effects of leadership style and ano-nymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 89-103.

Sparrowe, R. T., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22, 522-552.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Storey, J., & Salaman, G. (2005). Managers of innovation. Insights into making inno-

vation happen. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities:

Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. (1997). Influences of organizational culture

and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 27-41.The Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science. (2009). Maatschap-

pelijke Innovatie Agenda Onderwijs [Social Innovation Education Plan]. Retrieve from http://www.minocw.nl/documenten/128216b.pdf (in Dutch).



Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1148.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychol-ogy, 52, 591-620.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of net-work position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and perfor-mance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools. The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247.

Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.

Van den Berg, R., & Sleegers, P. J. C. (1996). Building innovative capacity and lead-ership. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-699). London, UK: Kluwer Academic.

Van der Vegt, G. S., Van de Vliert, E., & Huang, X. (2005). Location-level links between diversity and innovative climate depend on national power distance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1171-1182.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applica-tions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002). The comparative effects of transforma-tional leadership on teachers commitment to change in Hong Kong and Canada. Journal of Educational Administration, 1(4), 368-384.

BioNienke M. Moolenaar, PhD, is an assistant professor of Educational Sciences and Human Resource Development at the University of Twente, The Netherlands. Her research interests include social capital theory, social network analysis, school leader-ship, organizational behavior and students’ citizenship competences in elementary education. During her PhD project, she received various grants and scholarships to present her work at international conferences. As a visiting scholar, she attended the University of California, San Diego. Recently, she received the distinction ‘cum laude’ for her dissertation ‘Ties with Potential’ on social networks in school teams.

Alan J. Daly, PhD, is an assistant professor of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego. His research interests include leadership, educational policy



and reform, and social network theory. Recent journal publications include, A Bridge Between Two Worlds: Understanding Leadership Network Structure to Understand Change Strategy (2009, Journal of Educational Change), and The Ebb and Flow of Social Network Ties between District Leaders Under High Stakes Accountability (in press, American Educational Research Journal). In addition, he has a book on social networks entitled, Ties of Change: Social Network Theory and Application in Education, due out in the Fall of 2010.

Peter J. C. Sleegers, PhD, is Professor of Educational Organization and Management at the University of Twente. He has published extensively on leadership, innovation and educational policy in more than 40 referred journal articles and several edited books. Current research projects are studies into the effects of educational leadership on student motivation for school, longitudinal research into sustainability of reforms and design studies into professional learning communities.


Documents

Occupying the Principal Position: Examining Relationships Between Transformational Leadership, Social Network Position, and Schools’ Innovative Climate