This proposal focuses on principals’ capability to successfully initiate and implement innovation and change within the context of their schools. It draws on findings from 20 years of research from Australian case studies that focus on successful school leadership as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and follows ISSPP methodology protocols.  Twenty years of research have produced many key findings that show how successful principals lead and manage their schools. In this proposal we will focus on one key finding- strategies for leading innovation and change.

The OECD (2019) defines innovation in education as a significant change in selected educational practice. Innovation and change are interrelated concepts (Barsh, et al., 2008). Innovation is the idea, vision, strategy that prompts change while change is the action of brings that innovation to life. Both innovation and change are essential for organizations to adapt and thrive.

Overall principals struggle to implement change effectively.  McKinsey surveys show that up to 70% of change programs fail in some way (Bucy et al., 2021). An underlying difficulty is that change is a process and not an event. Sometimes the process is non-linear.  Human factors that are barriers include lack of buy-in, resistance to change, poor communication, lack of commitment, unclear goals, inadequate planning and resources, poor collaborative culture, and external factors beyond the leader’s control (Fullan, 2005; Hallinger, 2010; Hall and Horde, 2006, Wise. 2015).

The literature includes various strategies to promote change: skills in communicating a clear and compelling vision (Erickson, 2015); morale purpose (Fullan, 2001); engagement and empowerment (Moss Kanter, 2015); providing resources, time and space, (DuFour & Marzano, 2009); building capacity (Seashore-Lewis, 2009); systematic planning for change (Kotter, 2007); addressing individual concerns (Hall, & Hord, 2006), and  monitoring and evaluating the innovation through data and evidence.

For our study we have explored different types of innovation as a guide to categorization of our case studies. This was to evaluate the kinds of strategies used by principals depending on the kind of change. Porter (1985) identified continuous (incremental) and discontinuous (radical) innovation as typologies.  Tushman and Anderson (1986) referred to incremental and breakthrough innovation. Henderson and Clark (1990) defined four types of innovation as incremental, radical, architectural and disruptive.  Christensen et al. (2018) showed the difference between sustaining and disruptive innovation. McKinsey initiated the 3-Horizons framework which outlined three growth patterns, each building on the other: core innovation, adjacent innovation (seeking opportunities for growth) and transformational innovation (Coley, 2009). Dodgson et al. (2008) conceived four types of innovation as proactive, active, reactive, and passive.  Kalback (2012) distinguished four types of innovation based on levels of technology progress and market impact. These were incremental, disruptive, breakthrough and game changer. Satell (2015) categorized four types of innovation as basic research, disruptive, breakthrough and sustaining innovation. Each of these previous frameworks influenced our classification of innovation. We identified three categories: incremental, transformational, and disruptive. We based this on the framework of Mayo and Nohria [2005) who identified three archetypes of leadership: (1) entrepreneurs, who were ahead of their time and were not constrained by their environment and often able to overcome almost impossible barriers and challenges to find or do something new; (2) managers, who were skilled at understanding and exploiting their context and grew their business accordingly; (3) leaders, who confronted change and saw potential in their business that others failed to see. Entrepreneurs create new businesses, managers grow and optimize them, and leaders transform them at critical inflection points. The entrepreneurs closely align with the disruptive leaders, the leaders with the transformative leaders, and the managers with the incremental leaders. 

The research question was to identify the principals’ capability to successfully initiate and implement innovation and change based on the context and type of change in their schools. The Australian research covered over 20 years of research. It included cases Australian case studies that focus on successful school leadership as part of the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP) and follows ISSPP methodology protocols. Schools and principals chosen for this study had to be able to show that the school had been successful during the period of the current principal and that the principal was acknowledged as being successful. Whenever possible, selection was based on evidence of student achievement beyond expectations on state/national tests, principals' exemplary reputations in the community and/or school system, and other indicators of success that were site-specific (such as favourable school review reports). For this research proposal we draw on eighteen Victorian multiple perspective case studies of successful primary, secondary and special school principals. At each school, data collected included interviews with the principal, senior teachers, teachers, students, parents and school council members and document analysis. The case studies cover government, Catholic and independent schools. The research focused on successful school leadership rather than effective schools. Successful school leadership includes a wide range of student and school outcomes rather than a narrow range of student academic achievements. We explored the eighteen principals’ capacity to initiate and implement change by classifying our case studies into three levels of innovation. Principals were identified as either using incremental, transformational, or disruptive practices to lead innovation. Principals that attempted to consolidate school improvement through incremental change and embedding the change into teaching and learning were categorised as ‘incremental’. Leaders in the schools in the ‘transformational’ change category used leadership practices that were mildly disruptive. The change was strategic and focused on individual, professional, organisational, and community capacity building strategies. School improvement interventions were centred on school and community needs and priorities. They were able to build professional development and appraisal; set priorities based on data about performance; and communicate purpose, process and performance. Schools in the disruptive category witnessed a dynamic change. Principals in this category transformed almost every aspect of the school. Six schools had principals who illustrated incremental innovative practices, three schools demonstrated transformational practices, and five schools where leadership practices were disruptive.

The research findings demonstrated that successful principals demonstrated a range of leadership styles, key behaviours and strategic interventions that helped them initiate and implement innovation and change for school improvement. The case study principals in were able to understand and effectively work within a complex set of contextual layers that encompassed their work environment. We found that our successful principals were less constrained by context and able to work within and across constraints. All the principals were able to lead change by innovating for school improvement. We identified seven disruptive practices that characterise these principals’ relentless orientation to change. We found that leaders in the disruptive category challenged the status quo and existing patterns; changed the direction of the school; transformed all aspects of the school including philosophy, policies, structures, processes and roles; took a long-term perspective but were keen to get short-term results; challenged current pedagogical practices and championed a preferred model; influenced change of behaviour, values and assumptions, and shifted the organisational culture; and, were prepared to change staff to suit school directions. Leaders in the transformation category used many of these seven practices but not all the practices. They were strategic in their approach and focused on capacity building. Leaders in the incremental category used some of these practices. An important outcome is that all these principals were successful. There was no best approach to initiating and implementing change. Context was certainly a major factor in determining the approach and change strategy. In challenging circumstances more disruptive practices appeared to work well. However, there was circumstances that ensured that the principal work more incrementally toward improvement. Another factor was that successful principals bring their own leadership style, qualities and dispositions that help determine their success. The findings are supportive of the conference theme on innovation and hope.

Barsh, J. Capozzi, M. M Davidson, J. (2008) Leadership and Innovation McKinsey Quarterly Jan 2008. Bucy, M, Schaninger, Van Akin, K., Weddle, B. (2021)) Losing from day one, McKinsey Quarterly Christensen, C.M., McDonald, R., Altman, E.J. and Palmer, J.E. (2018), Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Management. Studies, 55: 1043-1078. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349 Coley, S. (2009) Enduring Ideas: The three horizons of growth, McKinsey Quarterly Dec AUTHORS (2017) Rebuilding schools through disruptive innovation and leadership. In Proceedings of the University Colleges of Educational Administration Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 15–19 November 2017 DuFour, R., & Marzano, R.J. (2009). High-leverage strategies for principal leadership. Educational Leadership, 66(5), 62-67 Erickson III, L T, (2015) Principals' Experiences Initiating, Implementing, and Sustaining Change Within Their School, Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 1495. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/1495 Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Fullan. M (Ed.), (2009) The challenge of school change (pp. 235-254). Arlington Heights, Illinois: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes (2nd Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. Hallinger, P. (2010). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leaders. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-352. Henderson, R & Clark, K. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure to Established Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393549 Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96-103 Mayo, A.; Nohria, N. (2005) Zeitgeist Leadership. Harvard. Business. Review. 83, 45–60. Moss Kanter, R (2016) Principals as Innovators: Identifying Fundamental Skill for Leadership for Change in Public Schools, Public Education Leadership Project at Harvard University OECD (2019) (Measuring innovation in education OECD) Porter, M. E. (1985)The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. NY: Free Press, (Republished with a new introduction, 1998.) Seashore, K. R. (2009). Leadership and change in schools: Personal reflections over the last 30 years. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 129-140 Tushman, Michael, and Philip Anderson. (1986) Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(3) 439–465. Wise, D (2015) Emerging Challenges Facing School Principals, Education Leadership Review, (16(2) National Council of Professors of Educational Administration