School Innovation: The Mutual Impacts of Organizational Learning and Creativity

http://ema.sagepub.com/Administration & Leadership

Educational Management

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/39/6/676The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1741143211416387

2011 39: 676Educational Management Administration & LeadershipBelinda McCharen, JiHoon Song and Jon Martens

School Innovation: The Mutual Impacts of Organizational Learning and Creativity

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Educational Leadership, Management & Administration Society

can be found at:Educational Management Administration & LeadershipAdditional services and information for

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/39/6/676.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 30, 2011Version of Record >>

at TEMPLE UNIV on November 22, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from at TEMPLE UNIV on November 22, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://ema.sagepub.com/

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/39/6/676

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.belmas.org.uk/

http://ema.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ema.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/39/6/676.refs.html

http://ema.sagepub.com/content/39/6/676.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Article

School Innovation: The MutualImpacts of OrganizationalLearning and Creativity

Belinda McCharen, JiHoon Song and Jon Martens

AbstractThe primary aim of this research is to identify cultural determinants of organizational learning andknowledge creation practices, which could be the driving factors for the innovation process inschool settings (Mulford, 1998; Silins et al., 2002). A conceptual process model for schoolinnovation was developed. In contrast to previous approaches, this research primarily focusedon environmental factors and practical processes rather than on individual and policy-relatedcomponents. The major factors and processes included a supportive learning culture, schoolautonomy of teachers and departmental collaboration in the school setting. Furthermore, as anendogenous variable of this research, a practical organizational knowledge creation process amongteachers and administrators was measured. Organizational knowledge creation is the criticalcomponent for school reform and innovation. A Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) approach wasused to evaluate the complex structure of the proposed research constructs. Results suggest that asupportive organizational learning culture positively and significantly impacts all three constructs,but that school job autonomy does not have a statistically significant direct impact on departmentalcreativity and knowledge creation practices in school systems. Conclusions, limitations and recom-mendations for further research are discussed.

Keywordsadministration, innovation, organizational learning culture, schools

Introduction

Organizational innovation is one of the most increasingly interesting areas of workforce education.

One of the most complex settings for organizational change is the school (Bonner et al., 2004;

Newmann and Wehlage, 1996). Sustaining reform over a period long enough to have substantial

and systematic impact is one of the greatest challenges in the US education field (Taylor, 2006). In

response to this challenge, interest in school reform and associated creative innovations has

become more focused in both academia and practice (Silins et al., 2002; Smyth and van der Vegt,

Corresponding author:

Belinda McCharen, Oklahoma State University, 255 Willard, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA

Email: [email protected]

Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership39(6) 676–694ª The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1741143211416387emal.sagepub.com

at TEMPLE UNIV on November 22, 2014ema.sagepub.comDownloaded from


1993). In the management perspective, organizational innovation could be regarded as process

innovation and product improvement; and from the educational context standpoint, school innova-

tion could lead school system and work process innovation and improving the quality of education

and policy (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978, 1982; McRoy and Gibbs, 2009).

From the organizational theory standpoint, according to Watkins and Marsick (1993, 1996) and

Cummings and Worley (2008), organizational innovation is critically related to the learning orga-

nization’s cultural aspects. These cultural aspects support a continuous organizational learning

process (Argyris and Schon, 1996; Garvin, 2000; Gilley and Maycunich, 2000; Senge, 1990),

which, in turn, promotes collaborative creative practices among the group members (Nonaka and

Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). Consequently, organizational creativity is one of the

most critical components for innovative organizational knowledge creation (Leonard, 1998; West

et al., 2006) and is the foundation of organizational innovation and overall change (Cohen and

Levinthal, 1990). In these regards, a supportive learning organization has been defined as systema-

tic supportive learning culture to encourage members’ continuous and collaborative learning

process by providing strategic leadership and inter-departmental connection (Watkins and

Marsick, 1993, 1996). Organizational learning could be defined as a collective and collaborative

learning process for dynamic and creative decision making to respond to changes in both internal

and external environment of the organization (Argyris and Schon, 1996).

The American education system has a similar structure to general organizations in terms of

complex structure, dynamic work process and systematic connections with both internal and exter-

nal organizations (Bonner et al., 2004). According to Silins et al. (2002), educational reform initia-

tives to improve schools and schooling have too little and too slow of an influence on practice. A

supportive learning culture and continuous, collaborative organizational learning process are con-

sidered to be pivotal in driving long-term, innovative educational reform initiatives. These cultural

aspects should be the common and foundational theme for the successful restructuring of school

change (McRoy and Gibbs, 2009; Silins et al., 2002; Smyth and van der Vegt, 1993). Such an

approach enables staff at all levels to continuously and collaboratively learn and create new knowl-

edge and put it to use innovatively through the knowledge conversion process from individual tacit

knowledge to organizational and applicable explicit knowledge (Leithwood et al., 1998; Mulford,

1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). In concert with these views concerning education reform, this

research focuses on organizational theory-related and environmental variables as the required

factors for systematic and continuous education reform and change.

Research Purpose and Problems

The primary purpose of this research is to examine the influencing relationships of the environmental

factors of a supportive learning culture. The influences of job autonomy and departmental creativity

on innovative organizational knowledge creation were examined. Since organizational knowledge

creation is the core factor to school innovation and change, we ultimately propose a practical frame-

work for school reform practices based on the results of evaluation of our proposed model with

empirical data. According to Collinson and Cook (2001), one of the critical inhibitors for school

reform and restructuring is the lack of time for teachers’ continuous learning and lack of opportuni-

ties for knowledge sharing among staff at all levels in school system. These learning-related practices

are fundamental not only for professional development, but also for creating a supportive learning

environment that leads to developing and applying innovative strategies for sustaining long-term

changes in school systems (Leithwood and Louis, 1998; Marks et al., 2000).

McCharen et al.: School Innovation 677



Our literature review integrated concepts from the fields of organizational behavior and theory

(Calantone et al., 2002; Cummings and Worley, 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995), workforce

and human resource education (Conner and Clawson, 2004; Gilley and Maycunich, 2000,

2000a; Watkins et al., 1997; Watkins and Marsick, 1993) and general education system reform

(Leithwood et al., 1998; Marks et al., 1999; Mulford, 1998). Based on our review of relevant

literature from these fields, we propose that organizational knowledge created through the organi-

zational learning process forms the basis for practical application of innovation. Causal and influ-

encing relationships among the proposed research constructs are reviewed in detail in the literature

review section.

The Significance of the Research

This approach of looking at complex environmental factors is valuable in obtaining a better under-

standing school innovation and change because school systems have dynamic structures in terms of

levels of employees and socio-political relationships. To date, more segmented approaches—

teacher job satisfaction, physical innovation and policy-related issues—have focused indepen-

dently on school innovation issues (Connolly and James, 2006; Crossman and Harris, 2006; Tubin,

2009). Little research has been done to examine systematic strategies for school innovation based

on more complicated and structurally influencing relationships—supportive learning culture, levels

of job autonomy, knowledge creation and departmental creativity.

This research has significance in both practical and theoretical perspectives. From a practical

perspective, this research sheds light on how both the complex organizational environmental

factors inherent in schools and innovative knowledge creation practices among teachers and

administrators support structural school innovation. We developed a statistically valid frame-

work based on the evaluation of the proposed model fit to collected data that can be used in

further study of school innovation. From the perspective of management and organizational

behavior theory, this research provides an integrated conceptual framework to link structural

level (organizational learning culture) and individual level (job autonomy, creativity and knowl-

edge creation) factors. This framework, which has been conceptualized, based on integrative

literature review (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Paulus et al., 2006; Senge, 1990; Silins and Mul-

ford, 2002), could be the foundation for future research regarding innovation and organizational

change in school systems.

Framework and Hypotheses

Based on an interdisciplinary literature review, a research framework was developed (see Figure 1).

Learning culture, which includes team learning, strategic leadership roles, system connection,

shared mental model, empowerment, and continuous inquires and dialogue, promotes collabora-

tive organizational learning processes (Watkins and Marsick, 1993; Watkins et al., 1997; Yang

et al., 2004). These aspects of learning culture influence the innovative organizational work cli-

mate in school and workplace settings by enabling collaborative organizational learning (Cohen

and Levinthal, 1990; Silins and Mulford, 2002). In turn, these environmental aspects increase the

chances of developing interdepartmental creative work processes (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995),

which could be foundation for innovative and new knowledge creation practices in the workplace

(Paulus et al., 2006; Song and Chermack, 2008). Finally, these creative knowledge and practices

support organizational changes and innovation in terms of developing new strategies and

678 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 39(6)



renovated work processes (Kotter and Cohen, 2002; Ichijo, 2007; Ichijo and Nonaka, 2007; Smyth

and van der Vegt, 1993) in the school systems.

To examine structural and influential factors of school innovation and change, the following

four hypotheses were derived from the research framework and associated theoretical base of the

literature review.

H1: Supportive learning culture has impacts on the level of school job autonomy, departmental crea-

tivity and organizational knowledge creation practice.

H2: The level of school job autonomy has an impact on departmental creativity and knowledge creation

practices.

H3: Departmental creativity has an impact on the organizational knowledge creation practice.

H4: Organizational knowledge creation practice has an impact on school innovation practices.

Literature Review

In this section, the major components of the research framework and the dynamic relationships

among them are reviewed.

Supportive Learning Culture in School Systems

The theme of teacher empowerment through participatory decision making is becoming associated

more and more with learning in organizations (Leithwood and Louis, 1990). The concepts of

teacher empowerment and organizational learning are not new, but are related to an historical

effort to create more participatory workplaces in industry while also improving organizational pro-

ductivity (Marks and Louis, 1997). Creation of such a dynamic learning climate is a primary attri-

bute of a learning organization (Senge, 1990; Watkins and Marsick, 1993). The relationship

between teacher empowerment and school organizational capacity has been well documented

(Malen et al., 1990; Wohlsetter and Mohrman, 1995, cited in Marks and Louis, 1999). In addition,

this relationship has been studied as a part of the research on the impact of the learning

Figure 1. Proposed research framework for school innovation and change




organization on organizational performance, particularly in terms of process innovation and per-

formance improvement (Song, 2008b; Yang et al., 2004). An organization that learns readily

adapts to change, detects and corrects errors, and continually improves its effectiveness (Argyris

and Schon, 1974). Connecting the continuous learning process with supportive environmental con-

ditions promotes dynamic knowledge creation and organizational innovation (Song and Chermack,

2008).

Learning cannot take place without a knowledge base and access to new ideas. In schools, the

knowledge and ideas may come from several sources such as individual knowledge, knowledge

that is brought into the organization by experts and experiences of other schools, and knowledge

that is created by members of the school community (Kruse, 1995). Sharing this knowledge in a

systematic manner requires connections and permeable boundaries in the organization. Addition-

ally, leadership that embraces shared knowledge and decision-making is essential to successful

knowledge sharing (Newman and Associates, cited in Marks and Louis, 1999). Components for

creating a supportive learning culture include continuous learning, inquiry and dialogue, dynamic

team-based learning, empowerment, system connection, embedded system and strategic leadership

(Watkins and Marsick, 1993). These components contribute to improving organizational capacity

and fostering innovative work processes.

Departmental Creativity in School Systems

School innovation and change is essential to increasing the quality of school systems (McRoy and

Gibbs, 2009). From the general management standpoint, the capacity to innovate is among the

most important factors that impact business performance (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Innovation pro-

vides flexibility for organizations to choose different options to satisfy their customers on a

sustainable basis, thus providing a basis for survival (Banbury and Mitchell, 1995).

Organizational innovation and change can be categorized into two levels: (1) technical product

innovation (McRoy and Gibbs, 2009); and (2) administrative process change (Abernathy and

Utterback, 1978, 1982). In applying this typology to school settings there are two levels to con-

sider. The first level corresponds to the development of high quality educational practice and the

second level corresponds to the school administrative process. Both sides of organizational inno-

vation and change are strategically connected and have symbiotic influences on each other.

Although the group innovation process is not strictly a linear process, it is considered to have

two stages: creativity or ideation and implementation (West et al., 2006; Zhou and George, 2001).

Paulus et al. (2006) viewed group task characteristics from the perspective of generating creative

ideas such as brainstorming. Group task characteristics were considered even more important than

social factors and group membership characteristics in influencing group creativity. Another factor

that can influence group creativity and innovation is the diversity of knowledge and skills that is

present in the group (Paulus et al., 2006; West et al., 2006). Groups whose members who have

diverse backgrounds, knowledge, skills and abilities provide differing perspectives to the problem

that often result in innovative solutions (West et al., 2006).

Job Autonomy and Departmental Creativity in School Systems

Discretion in the job has typically been discussed in terms of job autonomy, which reflects the

extent to which a job allows the freedom, independence and discretion to schedule work, make

decisions and select the methods used to complete tasks (Hackman and Oldham, 1975). According




to the job enrichment theory (Hackman and Oldham, 1975), increased autonomy promotes

individuals’ sense of responsibility and allows them greater flexibility in how they define their role

(Fried et al., 1999; Troyer et al., 2000). Job autonomy has three different facets: work method

autonomy, the degree to which workers can choose the procedure to accomplish a task; work sche-

duling autonomy, the degree to which workers can choose the scheduling of work tasks; and work

criteria autonomy, the degree to which workers can choose the evaluation criteria for a task

(Breaugh, 1985).

Increased autonomy over the work environment motivates workers to try out and master new

tasks, a finding consistent with work-design research that has demonstrated the motivational

benefits of work autonomy (Fried and Ferris, 1987; Morgeson and Campion, 2003; Oldham and

Cummings, 1996). Frese and Fay (2001) found that individuals are motivated to enlarge their roles

if they believe they will be in control of the situation. Participative management enhances views

regarding control because if teachers are involved in the decision-making process, they are likely

to feel that they have control over work processes and outcomes (Parker et al., 2006; Somech and

Bogler, 2002).

From a motivational approach, Locke and Latham (1990) suggested that participation in deci-

sion making enhances involvement and commitment, leading to a sense of ownership of school

objectives and missions. This sense of ownership motivates individuals to broaden their roles to

improve school functioning (Evers, 1990). Teachers’ participation can enhance a sense of fairness

and trust in the organization because teachers can defend their own interests and because they get

information on decisions to be made to which they would not otherwise be exposed (Sagie et al.,

2002). This sense of fairness and the signal to teachers that principals trust them lead to more favor-

able attitudes toward school, which in turn increases role breadth (Morgeson et al., 2006)

Classroom autonomy is associated with positive teacher outcomes. Teachers who have more

freedom in choosing textbooks, instructional techniques, classroom discipline and grading policies

tend to report lower levels of stress (Byrne, 1994; Sutton, 1984) and are more satisfied with their

jobs (Schwab and Iwanicki, 1982). Research has also shown an association between classroom

autonomy and teacher attrition. Ingersoll (2003) reported that schools have lower rates of attrition

when they provide teachers with more classroom autonomy. He explained that a lack of control in

the classroom might make teachers feel hindered and ineffective, leading them to pursue other

employment options.

Studies have found a positive link between administrative support and teacher outcomes. Direct

communication and support from a supervisor, principal or other administrator diminish the per-

ception of stress (Hart et al., 1995; Starnaman and Miller, 1992; van Dick and Wagner, 2001) and

job dissatisfaction (Rosenholtz and Simpson, 1990). Focus by school leadership on supporting

what and how teachers teach by providing common planning time and professional development

aligned with school improvement plans is a key strategy in improving the culture of learning for

both students and teachers (Southern Regional Education Board, 2007).

Knowledge Creating Schools and Expected Outcomes

The essential role of knowledge creation in the innovation process within today’s transformed

work place has been extensively explored in the literature (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).

Hargreaves (1999) asserted that schools could meet the demands of educating a future workforce

destined for that transformed workplace by becoming knowledge creating organizations that can

develop innovative professional practices. For example, a network of practice consisting of over




400 English specialist schools was created for the express purpose of creating knowledge regarding

innovative professional practices (Harris, 2008). Initial evaluation of this network of practice

showed that the network enhanced personal professional practice, strengthened willingness to

share new ideas within individual schools, and introduced a set of effective teaching procedures,

particularly in the area of personalized learning.

In a study conducted by Crowther et al. (2001), the data indicated that successful school-based

innovation tends to occur in response to a definitive educational need and as part of a clearly articu-

lated vision on the part of a leader or leaders. Further, their study revealed that educational needs

and expectations were the primary motivators for schools to innovate. However, market pressures

provided part of the rationale for innovation in 40 per cent of the schools. The schools in the

Crowther et al. (2001) study indicated that their innovation was partly in response to the effects

of market pressures on their school

In public education, processes of ‘collective vision-building’ have been put forward as a more

suitable leadership framework for a mature teaching profession in a post-modern world than his-

torical conceptions of leadership with their emphasis on individually directed visioning (Har-

greaves, 1994, cited in Crowther et al., 2001).

Two forms of organization-wide learning may well be regarded as manifesting leadership pro-

cesses that cultivate organizational innovation and knowledge creation. The first form focuses on

professional development, which has the effect of generating alignment between significant school

elements such as mission and vision. The second form focuses on development of a school-wide

approach to pedagogy based on the successful practices of individual teachers and teams of teach-

ers. This is an example of knowledge creation in the context of a public school building.

Summary of the Literature Review

According to Goh et al. (2006), organizations that exhibit a higher organization learning culture

(OLC) are likely to have several characteristics: clarity and support for mission and vision, leader-

ship that supports learning, an experimenting organizational culture, the ability to transfer

knowledge effectively, teamwork and cooperation. Marks and Louis (1999) supported the charac-

teristics in finding that organizational learning increasingly requires clear performance benchmarks

and incentives that people within the organization can agree upon. Without these, the capacity for

organizational learning is deficient. This perspective is also reflected in a school organizational set-

ting. Teacher empowerment that promotes and supports continuous learning provides a learning

knowledge base. As with any organization, a school system that encourages perpetual learning helps

teachers to become more innovative and creative. Not only does this give the individual teacher a

sense of empowerment, but it helps them work together to form new ideas as a group.

Method

In this section, several method-related issues are presented, including the data collection proce-

dure, research instruments and data analysis strategies.

Data Collection and Sample Framework

An invitation to complete the questionnaire was distributed electronically to all career and technol-

ogy education teachers in middle schools, high schools and technology centers in one state.




Technology centers are regional schools serving multiple high schools that have specialized career

and technical education programs. The email addresses of the career and technical teachers were

acquired by permission from the State Department of Career and Technology Education. A total of

2602 teachers were identified to participate in the study. Approximately 200 emails were returned

due to invalid addresses, resulting in a target population of 2400 teachers from the sample target

population. Three hundred responses were received, for a return rate of 12.5 percent.

Instruments

The primary purpose of this research was to examine structural relations of four research constructs

to measure direct and indirect impacts to practices of school innovation and change. Questions for

each construct were sourced from previously validated instruments. All quantitative questionnaire

items were measured with a five-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly

agree).

First, to measure the level of supportive learning culture, the dimensions of learning organiza-

tion questionnaires (DLOQ) was used (Watkins and Marsick, 1993; Watkins et al., 1997; Yang

et al., 2004). This instrument includes seven dimensions of the learning culture to support contin-

uous and collaborative organizational learning process. The abbreviated 21-item version was used,

which has been validated as more effective for research purposes (Yang et al., 2004). One sample

item is: In my educational institution, teams/groups revise their thinking as a result of discussions

or information collected.

Second, to evaluate the level of school job autonomy, a work-related job autonomy scale with

three items was used (Breaugh, 1985), specifically to focus on workplace job-related autonomy of

teachers. These scales measured the levels of work autonomy for work process, practice and gen-

eral opportunities in the workplace. Initially this scale has nine items in three categories, which

include work method, scheduling and criteria. Based on the experiences of the researchers in the

areas of school administration, the items were combined and reworded to better fit a school context

while keeping the original concepts and intended meaning of the scales. One of the sample items

included is: My job in my institution permits me to use my personal initiative or judgment in car-

rying out the work.

Third, six items were used to measure the level of team/group creativity (Zhou and George,

2001). These measures were developed by Scott and Bruce in 1994, and modified and shortened

by Zhou and George in 2001 based on an analysis of the scale’s internal consistency. We used an

abbreviated version of the creativity inventory of Zhou and George based on previous research

(Yoon et al., in press). One of the sample questions is: In my educational institution, faculty/staff

suggest new ways of performing work-related tasks.

Fourth, to measure innovative knowledge creation practices, 10 items were used to evaluate five

phrases of knowledge conversion processes—knowledge sharing, conceptualization, justification,

prototyping and leveraging (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). This measurement was developed by

Song (2008) and validated through several studies (Song, 2008a, 2008b). One of the sample items

includes: In my educational institution, faculty/staff from different department collaborate to

implement new ideas and projects.

The final component of our research framework concerned the relationship of knowledge cre-

ation to organizational innovation and change. We judged that perceptual data collected from a

survey instrument was not able to adequately measure this relationship, but we consider the




relationship to be strongly theoretically supported based on the results of our integrated and com-

prehensive literature review (Torraco, 2005).

Data Analysis Strategies

In this section, overall data analysis strategies are discussed. Quantitative data responses were ana-

lysed with SPSS 16.0 and LISREL 8.80 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001). A total of 277 cases were

used for data analysis based on data screening procedures.

First, overall reliability and validity were checked. Tests of the instrument items’ reliability and

validity of the measurement construct are required prior to any further analyses to increase statis-

tical acceptability of the proposed measurement model (Thompson, 2004; Thompson and Daniel,

1996). Item internal consistency estimates and general zero-order item correlation coefficient esti-

mates were considered for item reliability. In addition, overall confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

was used to ensure the validity issue of proposed measurement model (Hair et al., 2006; Kline,

2005; Thompson, 2004). These item-related reliability and construct-related validity issues were

examined to ensure overall quality of data analysis results.

Second, to measure the complex influential relations between the variables, structural equation

modeling (SEM) was conducted. A SEM approach is considered the most appropriate approach to

measure two types of hypotheses: (1) testing the proposed structured framework fit to collected

data in a certain context; and (2) measuring the hypothesized cause-and-effect relationship (Hair

et al., 2006: 720). Consistent with the established rationale for using a SEM approach for this type

of research (Kline, 2005), the proposed structural framework was developed based on commonly

accepted theoretical practice, and all the influencing relationships among the proposed variables

were supported in the comprehensive literature review. In accordance with standard SEM prac-

tices, path coefficient estimates and structural model fit indices were the primary considerations

(Bentler, 1990; Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Byrne, 1998; Joreskog and Sorbom, 2001) used for eval-

uating the model.

Results

Table 1 shows basic descriptive summary statistics of the responses and the Cronbach’s alpha esti-

mates of the research construct items. Following the first item in the data analysis strategy, item

internal consistency and measurement model construct validity were ensured through the use of

scale reliability, zero-order correlation coefficient estimates and confirmatory factor analysis

(CFA). According to reliability results (see Table 1); all items for each research construct were

found to be statistically reliable based on the a coefficient estimates (a ranges from 0.73 to 0.91).

In addition, zero order correlation analysis showed statically acceptable correlation coefficient

estimates at a p-value of less than 0.001, which is a higher than moderate level coefficient, among

the research constructs (r ranges from 0.31 to 0.75). The highest correlation coefficients estimate

was the relation between supportive learning culture and knowledge creation (r¼ 0.75) and knowl-

edge creation practice and departmental creativity (r¼ 0.75). All the statistically acceptable levels

of correlations supported acceptable reliability among the research constructs.

Secondly, CFA was conducted. All employed measures were validated in the literature and

developed based on the theoretical foundation, thus providing statistical evidence for running CFA

without the process of exploratory factor analysis. Table 2 presents CFA results with multiple

model-fit to data indices, which include general chi-square estimate, goodness of fit (GFI),




comparative fit index (CFI) and non-normed fit index (NNFI), as well as two error variance

indicators of root mean square residual (RMR) and root mean square error approximation

(RMSEA).

According to multiple indicators of model-fit to data, all the model fit indices showed statisti-

cally acceptable psychometric properties of each latent variable with sub-observed variables.

Approximately 98 percent of variances and covariances of the research model constructs were

explained by collected data sets (CFI ¼ 0.97). Furthermore, low magnitudes of error chance indi-

cators supported research model construct validity (RMR ¼ 0.04 and RMSEA ¼ 0.08). The

general chi-square estimate [w2 (277) ¼ 523.96; w2 / df ¼ 2.91; p <.001] was not considered as

an indicator of model fit because of its sensitivity to sample size (Hair et al., 2006), which is fairly

large (n ¼ 277) in this case.

In summary, statistically acceptable estimates of the observed item consistency and most of the

moderate level of coefficients of the inter-construct correlations confirmed the proposed research

measurement item and construct reliability (Hair et al., 2006; Thompson, 2004); and low magni-

tude of residual and error terms and goodness of the fit between the measurement model and

collected data provides statistical evidences of construct validity of the research measurement

model (Byrne, 1994; Kline, 2005)

To examine the complex structural associations among the proposed research variables,

LISREL 8.80 was used to perform structural equation modeling (SEM). Standardized path coeffi-

cient (SPC) estimates between all research constructs in the proposed structural model (see

Figure 1) were measured to examine direct and indirect influential relations (t-value > |1.96|).

In conducting the SEM analysis, first, measurement model fit to data was examined. Except for

the chi-square estimate [w2 (277)¼ 532.97; w2 / df¼ 2.91; p <.001], all other fit indexes (CFI¼.97;

GFI ¼.84; and NNFI ¼.97) and error term estimators (RMSEA¼.08; and RMR ¼.04) were found

to statistically acceptable. In addition, SPC estimates among the proposed constructs showed sta-

tically acceptable coefficients except for the direct path from school job autonomy to departmental

Table 1. Results of descriptive analysis and scale reliability estimates

Construct M SD Item a Coefficient

Supportive learning culture 3.61 .74 7 .86School job autonomy 4.21 .80 3 .93Departmental creativity 3.78 .71 6 .91Knowledge creation practices 3.49 .71 10 .93

Sharing knowledge 3.73 .74 2 .76Creating concepts 3.25 .83 2 .73Justifying concepts 3.39 .89 2 .74Building prototypes 3.51 .82 2 .76Leveraging knowledge 3.58 .84 2 .87

Note. n ¼ 277

Table 2. Model-fit estimates for proposed research model

Model fit indices w2 df w2/df GFI CF1 NNF1 RMR RMSEA

Resarch model 532.96 183 2.91 .84 .97 .97 .04 .08




creativity and knowledge creation practices (t-value < |1.96|). Supportive school learning culture

had the strongest direct impact on the departmental creativity (SPC ¼ 0.74) followed by knowl-

edge creation practices (SPC ¼ 0.57) and school job autonomy (SPC ¼ 0.38). Regarding the path

decomposition, the indirect effect of supportive learning culture on the knowledge creation

through the departmental creativity was 0.27, and other indirect effects of supportive learning cul-

ture on the departmental creativity and knowledge creation practice through the level of school job

autonomy were statistically weak.

Following accepted practice for this type of multivariate analysis, assumptions regarding auto

(serial) correlation and multicollinearity issues among the research constructs were examined.

According to the Durbin–Watson value (1.882), and VIF values of research constructs—supportive

learning culture, school job autonomy and departmental creativity—on the dependent variable of

the research framework—knowledge creation practices—(1.92, 1.87, and 1.15, respectively), no

violation of serial correlation was detected (Kutner et al., 2004). Furthermore, based on the values

of tolerance (0.52, 0.53; and 0.87) of the independent constructs and R2 estimate [DR2¼ 0.66; F (3,

273) ¼ 197.93, p < 0.001], no issues regarding multicollinearity (tolerance value should be greater

than 1� R2) among the research constructs were found (Leech et al., 2005).

As previously discussed, we did not collect empirical data regarding the relationship between

knowledge creation and school innovation expressed in the research framework. However, our

integrative literature review (Torraco, 2005) showed strong theoretical support for a positive rela-

tionship between these two constructs. Knowledge creation practices in a supportive learning cul-

ture has a positive impact on school innovation and change in terms of process innovation and

Figure 2. Structural relations among the proposed research constructs and factor loadings




continuous quality improvement (Marks and Louis, 1997; Mulford, 1998; Silins et al., 2002). From

the perspective of innovation and organizational change processes, one of the very first steps is for

the group members to generate creative ideas that serve as the seed for change (Zhou and George,

2001). The learning organization environment supports this dynamic organizational collaboration

and creative thinking process, which sets the cornerstone for continued foundational changes in

both the organizational system and work process (Garvin, 1993, 2000; Senge, 1990; Watkins and

Marsick, 1993).

Conclusion

The primary purposes of this research were to empirically identify the complex associations among

several components of school environment, creativity and knowledge-related practices and to pro-

vide scholarly evidence based on a review of the literature to explain the relationship between

knowledge creation and innovation practices in learning-supportive school climate. Discussions

of the results, research implications, limitations and further research recommendations follow.

Discussion of the Results

The apparent relationship between a supportive learning culture and knowledge creation is consis-

tent with many findings related to the important role of the school leader in establishing a positive

and supportive culture in a school (Deal and Bolman, 2003; Deal and Peterson, 1999). The rela-

tionship between knowledge creation and departmental creativity appears to indicate that the sup-

portive learning culture has a statistically significant impact on shaping organizational knowledge

creation. However, job autonomy does not appear to impact either departmental creativity or

knowledge creation practice. The results do indicate that a supportive learning culture is a major

influence on all three variables of knowledge creation, departmental creativity and job autonomy.

The results appear to indicate the important role of leadership in influencing knowledge cre-

ation in schools. Strong school leadership would enable teachers to trust and be secure enough

to take risks to innovate and to communicate more freely with other teachers. The lack of effect

of job autonomy on departmental creativity and knowledge creation could be caused by the nature

of the organizational structure and the task-related work process of teachers and administrators in

school environment. Typically, schools are organized into departments such as mathematics, sci-

ence, language arts and so on. Inherently, teachers are expected to operate within a team structure.

Job autonomy without connection with a department is not rewarded by peers or leaders in school

settings.

Research has shown that teachers prefer to have control over the activities that take place in

their classroom (Byrne, 1994; Schwab and Iwanicki, 1982; Sutton, 1984). Therefore, it is surpris-

ing that classroom autonomy did not impact the other variables. The teachers in the study were

career and technical education teachers who are required to base their curriculum upon industry

standards. Perhaps the demands of this structure of standards could provide a viable explanation

for the lack of connection between job autonomy and departmental creativity. Current federal and

statutory accountability policies may constrain teachers’ classroom autonomy more than the indi-

vidual school policies and practices. Prior to the current accountability environment, changing

schools may have been a feasible strategy to improve classroom autonomy, which may account

for the previously reported relation between classroom autonomy and job dissatisfaction and turn-

over. This new environment of ‘accountability’ is illustrative of the pressures (the ‘new standards-




based atmosphere’) that may be counter to teacher autonomy and innovation. Accountability may

have a chilling effect on innovation and encouragement of innovation that strays from state stan-

dards and in the case of career and technical teachers, industry standards. According to Ingersoll

(2003), teachers have relatively little control or input into major decisions regarding instruction in

schools in the USA. The proliferation of federal and state laws and policy regulating instruction has

only exacerbated the feeling of loss of control and teacher-led decision making in schools. The

results are not generalizable to a broader population since the sample is restricted to a single state

and as a result of the low return rate of the survey. Caution is needed to generalize to academic

instructors since career and technical teachers not only teach in a classroom but also a laboratory

setting. They also have not only state standards for curriculum content, but also national industry

standards (where applicable) and expectations from business and industry advisory councils who

have direct input into the curriculum content taught in career and technical education.

Implications for Practice

To encourage a school culture and climate that promotes individuals who are bonded together by a

set of shared ideas and ideals, school leaders must strengthen their efforts towards improving con-

nections, coherence, capacity, commitment and collaboration among their members (Horne, 1992;

McRoy and Gibbs, 2009; Sergiovanni, 2001; Smyth and van der Vegt, 1993). School leaders, who

desire to improve a school’s culture, must foster an atmosphere that helps teachers know where

they fit in and how they can work as a community to support teaching and learning. Creating a

school culture requires instructional leaders to develop a shared vision that is clearly communi-

cated to faculty and staff. Additionally, leaders must create a climate that encourages shared

authority and responsibility if they are to build a positive school culture.

Implications for practice include more intentional development of school leaders who under-

stand organizational learning culture and understand the ways in which supportive organizational

learning-related culture impacts teacher autonomy, creativity and knowledge creation. The cre-

ation of new knowledge is critical to school improvement. Professional development that supports

creation of a shared vision for the school as well as incorporating successful practices within the

building and in research literature is critical in disseminating and creating knowledge.

Implications for School Innovation and Change

School leaders having the skills to communicate and to build a shared vision within the school is

necessary to create the foundation for creating and sharing new knowledge. Administrator training

and education programs must assure these skills are included in the education program, developed

and evaluated. In addition, a culture of continuous learning for both students and teachers is nec-

essary to create a learning organization that constructs new knowledge, innovates and shares with

the entire organization. Again, the administrator must understand and possess skills to facilitate

this process within the school. According to Crowther et al. (2001), professional learning in which

the emerging strategic direction translated into pedagogical revitalization processes occurred when

professional development opportunities for both teachers and school leaders were connected very

clearly to the mission and vision of the school.

Opportunities to explore the dynamics of relationships between educational leadership and

school achievement are rare. As Hallinger and Heck (1996) indicated, leadership research has for

the most part fallen victim to a ‘black box’ mindset. Emphasis has been placed on empirical testing




of presumed relationships between administrator behavior and school effects, revealing little, if

anything, about how leadership actually works in the reform process. Numerous studies (Crowther

et al., 2001; Hallenger and Heck, 1996; Limerick et al., 1998, cited in Crowther et al., 2001) found

a complex picture in which leadership, school innovation and school outcomes are interrelated.

A sense of shared purpose is also a noticeable aspect of a learning organization. This common-

ality appears to have its origins in a shared commitment to values, such as the integrity of teaching

or the need for social justice. The net effect of the shared purpose is an alignment between the

school’s stated vision and teachers’ preferred approaches to teaching. This alignment appears to

ease the way for structural and curricular change (Crowther et al., 2001).

This study’s literature review provided evidence that the relationships between supportive

learning culture, knowledge creation processes and innovation are applicable to the broad human

resource development domain of organizational change and development. Our research has exam-

ined these relationships in the specific organizational context of the school setting. These relation-

ships exist in many types of organizations, but there are aspects of these relationships that reflect

the unique nature of education as compared to business or industry. In the next section, we discuss

the limitations of the study and outline further research to examine innovations specific to school

settings.

Limitations and Future Research Recommendations

Several limitations need to be acknowledged regarding this research, which include collected sam-

ple diversity, the sample size, the scope of the research and analysis strategies. First, all collected

data sets were collected in one of the central region states in the USA. This issue—a single region

school system’s uniqueness and traditional characteristics of the samples—could limit the general-

ization issue of the research results.

Second, as mentioned in the introduction section, environmental and practice related factors

were considered instead of policy-related issues. However, the influences of federal and state edu-

cation laws and policy should be considered together in terms of complex structural factors of

school innovation.

Most states in the USA have established policies and legislation to establish required curricu-

lum, academic testing, teacher and administrator certification and licensure, and program accred-

itation. Additionally, processes to validate and accredit the content of administrator and teacher

preparation programs in universities have legislative or policy requirements. Through these official

tools and strategies, states control the ‘boxes’ or standard requirements in which teachers must

teach content to students to meet required standards of learning. These policies may limit much

of the professional judgment of teachers and also both the size and the overall quality of the admin-

istrator candidate pool and are the subject of much criticism and controversy.

With the implementation of No Child Left Behind (US Department of Education, 2002) at the

federal level and in career and technical education the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Edu-

cation Improvement Act 2006, an additional set of laws and policies related to classroom instruc-

tion, curriculum, testing and program funding has placed even more standards and restrictions on

public schools. Some view this new standards-based atmosphere as antithetical to innovation rather

than the intended assuring standards of quality.

In addition, the teachers in the study were career and technical education teachers and findings

may not be generalizable to other teachers although these teachers held teaching assignments in

differing school levels, sizes, locations and settings. Furthermore, a fairly low response rate is




another of the limitations, which needs to be improved for future research, possibly through mul-

tiple rounds of data collection and a snowball sampling process.

This research was analyzed with perception-based survey type data sets. In order to capture

more realistic phenomenon and dynamic relations in the school system, more qualitative research

would be recommended, which include longitudinal observation and intensive behavior-oriented

interviews. Comparative research among several states’ school systems would also be recom-

mended to determine if there are any regional social or political effects on the structural relation-

ships of the school innovation process

Finally, the relationship between learning-based knowledge creation practices and innovative

processes and changes in school systems—which were theoretically proposed in this research—

need to be empirically examined through longitudinal quantitative research approaches to capture

the daily phenomenon of more dynamic and interactive work process and activities of teachers and

administrators in school system.

References

Abernathy WJ and Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review 80(7): 40–47.

Abernathy WJ and Utterback JM (1982) Patterns of industrial innovation. In: Tushman ML and Moore WL

(eds) Readings in the Management of Innovation. Boston, MA: Pitman, 97–108.

Argyris C and Schon D (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Argyris C and Schon D (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Vol. 1. Boston,

MA: Addison-Wesley.

Banbury, CM and Mitchell W (1995) The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market

share and business survival. Strategic Management Journal 16(Summer): 161–182.

Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 238–246.

Bentler PM and Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance struc-

tures. Psychological Bulletin 88(3): 588–606.

Bonner M, Koch T and Langmeyer D (2004) Organizational theory applied to school reform. School Psychol-

ogy International 25(4): 455–471.

Breaugh JA (1985) The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations 38(6): 551–570.

Byrne B (1994) Burnout: testing for the validity, replication, and invariance of causal structure across elemen-

tary, intermediate, and secondary teachers. American Educational Research Journal 31(3): 645–673.

Byrne BM (1998) Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMMPLIS: Basic Concepts,

Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Calantone RJ, Cavusgil ST and Zhao Y (2002) Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm

performance. Industrial Marketing Management 31(6): 515–524.

Carl D Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §2301 et seq. (2006)

Retrieved 23 January 2010 from Lexis/Nexis Congressional database.

Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation.

Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.

Collinson V and Cook TF (2001) ‘I don’t have enough time’: teachers’ interpretations of time as a key to

learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration 39(3): 266–281.

Conner M and Clawson JG (eds) (2004) Creating a Learning Culture: Strategy, Technology, and Practice.

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Connolly M and James C (2006) Collaboration for school improvement. Educational Management Adminis-

tration & Leadership 34(1): 69–87.




Crossman A and Harris P (2006) Job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Educational Management

Administration & Leadership 34(1): 29–46.

Crowther F, McMaster J and Hann L (2001) School Innovation: Pathway to the Knowledge Society. Chapter

6—Leadership. Available at: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/publications_resources/

school_innovation/chapter_6.htm (accessed 24 January 2010).

Cummings TG and Worley CG (2008) Organization Development and Change, 9th edn. Mason, OH: South-

Western Cengage Learning.

Deal TE and Bolman LG (2003) Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership, 3rd edn. San

Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Deal TE and Peterson KD (1999) Shaping school culture: The heart of leadership. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass.

Evers CW (1990) Schooling, organizational learning and efficiency in the growth of knowledge. In: Chapman

J (ed) School-based Decision-making and Management. London: Falmer, 132–149.

Frese M and Fay D (2001) Personal initiative (PI): a concept for work in the 21st century. In: Staw BM and

Sutton RM (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 133–188.

Fried Y and Ferris GR (1987) The validity of the job characteristics model: a review and meta-analysis.

Personnel Psychology 40(2): 287–322.

Fried Y, Hollenbeck JR, Slowik LH, Tiegs RB and Ben-David HA (1999) Changes in job decision lati-

tude: the influence of personality and interpersonal satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior 54(2):

233–243.

Garvin DA (1993) Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review 71(4): 78–91.

Garvin DA (2000) Learning in Action: A Guide to Putting the Learning Organization to Work. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School Press.

Gilley JW and Maycunich A (2000) Beyond the Learning Organization: Creating a Culture of Continuous

Growth and Development Through State-of-the-Art Human Resource Practices. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Gilley JW and Maycunich A (2000a) Organizational Learning, Performance and Change: An Introduction to

Strategic Human Resource Development. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Goh S, Cousins JB and Elliott C (2006) Organizational learning capacity, evaluative inquiry and readiness for

change in schools: views and perceptions of educators. Journal of Educational Change 7(4): 289–318.

Hackman J. and Oldham G (1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology

60(2): 159–170.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE and Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Hallinger P and Heck R (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical

research, 1980–1995. Education Administration Quarterly 32 (1): 5–45.

Hargreaves DH (1999) The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies 47(2): 122–

144.

Harris A (2008) Leading innovation and change: knowledge creation by schools for schools. European Jour-

nal of Education 43(2): 219–228.

Hart PM, Wearing AJ and Conn M (1995) Conventional wisdom is a poor predictor of the relationship

between discipline policy, student misbehaviour and teacher stress. British Journal of Educational

Psychology 65(1): 27–48.

Horne, S (1992) Organisation and change within educational systems: some implications of a loose-coupling

model. Educational Management & Administration 20(2): 88–98.

Hurley R. and Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration

and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing 62(3): 42–54.




Ichijo K (2007) Enabling knowledge-based competence of a corporation. In: Ichijo K and Nonaka I (eds)

Knowledge Creation and Management: New Challenges for Managers. New York: Oxford University

Press, 83–96.

Ichijo K and Nonaka I (2007) Knowledge as competitive advantage in the age of increasing globalization. In:

Ichijo K and Nonaka I (eds) Knowledge Creation and Management: New Challenges for Managers. New

York: Oxford University Press, 3–31.

Ingersoll RM (2003) Who Controls Teachers’ Work? Power and Accountability in America’s Schools.

Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

Joreskog K and Sorbom D (2001) LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, 2nd edn. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific

Software International.

Kline RB (2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd edn. New York: The Guilford

Press.

Kutner, MH Nachtsheim CJ and Neter J (2004) Applied Linear Regression Models. Columbus, OH:

McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Kotter JP and Cohen DS (2002) The Heart of Change: Real Life Stories of How People Change their Orga-

nizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kruse SD (1995) Community as foundation for professionalism: Case studies of middle school teachers.

Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Leech NL, Barrett KC and Morgan GA (2005) SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leithwood K, Leonard L and Sharratt L (1998) Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly 34(2): 243–276.

Leithwood K and Louis KS (eds) (1998) Organizational Learning in Schools. Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.

Leonard D (1998) Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston,

MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Locke EA and Latham GP (1990) A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Marks HM, Louis KS and Printy SM (2000) The capacity for organizational learning: implications for

pedagogical quality and student achievement. In: Leithwood K and Louis KS (eds) Understanding

Schools as Intelligent Systems. Greenwood, CT: JAI.

Marks HM and Louis KS (1997) Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of

teacher empowerment for teachers’ instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational

Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(3): 245–275.

Marks HM and Louis KS (1999) Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational learning. Educa-

tional Administration Quarterly 35(5): 707–750.

McRoy I and Gibbs P (2009) Leading change in higher education. Educational Management and Admin-

istration 37(5): 687–704.

Morgeson FP and Campion MA (2003) Work design. In: Borman W and Kilmoski R (eds) Handbook of

Psychology: Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 423–452.

Morgeson FP, Johnson MD, Campion MA, Medsker GJ and Mumford TV (2006) Understanding reactions to

job redesign: a quasi-experimental investigation of the moderating effects of organizational context on

perceptions of performance behavior. Personnel Psychology 59(2): 333–363.

Mulford WR (1998) Organizational learning and educational change. In: Hargreaves A, Liebermann A, Fullan M

and Hopkins D (eds) International Handbook of International Change. London: Kluwer Academic, 616–636.

Newmann F and Wehlage T (1996) Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.




Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the

Dynamic of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka I and Toyama R (2003) The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creating as a synthesiz-

ing process. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 1(1): 2–10.

Oldham GR and Cummings A (1996) Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Academy

of Management Journal 36(3): 607–634.

Parker SK, Williams HM and Turner N (2006) Modeling the antecedents of proactive work behavior at work.

Journal of Applied Psychology 91(3): 636–652.

Paulus PB, Nakui T and Putman VL (2006) Group brainstorming and teamwork: some rules for the road to

innovation. In: Thompson L and Choi HS (eds) Creativity and Innovation in Organizational Team. New

York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 69–86.

Rosenholtz SJ and Simpson C (1990) Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment.

Sociology of Education 63(4): 241–257.

Sagie A, Zaidman N, Hamburger YA, Te’eni D and Schwartz DG (2002) An empirical assessment of the

loose-tight leadership model: quantitative and qualitative analyses. Journal of Organizational Behavior

23(3): 303–320.

Schwab R and Iwanicki E (1982) Perceived role conflict, role ambiguity, and teacher burnout. Educational

Administration Quarterly 18(1): 60–74.

Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:

Doubleday.

Sergiovanni TJ (2001) Leadership: What’s in it for Schools? London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Silins H and Mulford W (2002) Leadership and school results. In: Leithwood K and Hallinger P (eds) Second

International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration.) Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Press, 561–612.

Silins HC, Mulford WR and Zarins S (2002) Organizational learning and school change. Educational Admin-

istration Quarterly 38(5): 613–642.

Smyth LF and van der Vegt R (1993) Innovation in schools: some dilemmas of implementation. Educational

Management & Administration 21(2): 115–122.

Somech A and Bogler R (2002) Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional

commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(4): 555–577.

Song JH (2008) The determinants of organizational performance: the mutual impacts of dimensions of

learning organization and dynamic knowledge creation practices. Unpublished PhD dissertation, The

Pennsylvania State University.

Song JH (2008a) The effect of learning organization culture on the practices of human knowledge-creation:

an empirical study in Korea. International Journal of Training and Development 12(4): 265–281.

Song JH (2008b) The key to organizational performance improvement: a perspective of organizational knowl-

edge creation. Performance Improvement Quarterly 21(2): 87–102.

Song JH and Chermack TJ (2008) A theoretical approach to the organizational knowledge formation process:

integrating the concepts of individual learning and learning organization culture. Human Resource Devel-

opment Review 7(4): 424–442.

Southern Regional Education Board (2007) High Schools that Work: An Enhanced Design to Get All Students

to Standards. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.

Starnaman SM and Miller KI (1992) A test of a causal model of communication and burnout in the teaching

profession. Communication Education 41(1): 40–53.

Sutton RI (1984) Job stress among primary and secondary schoolteachers: its relationship to ill-being. Work

and Occupations 11(1): 7–28.




Taylor JE (2006) The struggle to survive: examining the sustainability of schools’ comprehensive school

reform efforts. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 11(3&4): 331–352.

Thompson B (2004) Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applica-

tions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Thompson B and Daniel LG (1996) Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of score: a historical

overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56(2): 197–208.

Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Human Resource

Development Review 4(3): 356–367.

Troyer L, Mueller CW and Osinsky PI (2000) Who’s the boss? A role-theoretic analysis of customer work.

Work and Occupations 27(3): 406–427.

Tubin D (2009) Planning an innovative school: how to reduce the likelihood of regression toward the mean.

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(3): 404–421.

US Department of Education (2002) No Child Left Behind: A Desktop Reference. Washington, DC: Office of

Elementary and Secondary Education.

Van Dick R and Wagner U (2001) Stress and strain in teaching: a structural equation approach. British

Journal of Educational Psychology 71(2): 243–259.

Watkins KE and Marsick VJ (1993) Sculpting the Learning Organization: Lessons in the Art and Science of

Systemic Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Watkins KE and Marsick VJ (1996) In Action: Creating the Learning Organization. Alexandria, VA:

American Society for Training and Development.

Watkins KE., Yang B and Marsick VJ (1997) Measuring dimensions of the learning organization. Paper pre-

sented at the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference, Atlanta, GA.

West MA, Sacramento CA and Fay D (2006) Creativity and innovation implementation in work group: the

paradoxical role of demands. In: Thompson L and Choi HS (eds) Creativity and Innovation in Organiza-

tional Teams. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 137–159.

Yang B, Watkins K and Marsick V (2004) The construct of the learning organization: dimensions, measure-

ment, and validation. Human Resource Development Quarterly 15(1): 31–55.

Yoon SW, Song JH, Lim DH and Joo BK (in press) Structural determinants of team performance: the mutual

influences of learning culture, creativity, and knowledge. Human Resource Development International.

Zhou J and George JM (2001) When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of

voice. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 682–696.

Biographical Notes

Belinda McCharen, EdD, is Associate Professor and Francis Tuttle Endowed Chair for Occupa-

tional Education Studies in the College of Education, Occupational Education Department of

Oklahoma State University, USA.

JiHoon Song, PhD, is Assistant Professor in the College of Education, Occupational Education

Department of Oklahoma State University, USA.

Jon Martens is a doctoral student in Occupational Education at Oklahoma State University, USA.




Documents

School Innovation: The Mutual Impacts of Organizational Learning and Creativity