School leaders are central to strategically navigating schools' digitalisation. On the one hand, they are crucial actors in the design of internal school structures, processes, and the provision of digital technologies (Dexter, 2008). On the other hand, they are essential boundary spanners, who build bridges between actors outside and within the school (Benoliel & Schechter, 2017). However, to date, only a handful of studies have provided evidence-based practices for educational technology leaders on engaging stakeholders and building productive relationships when leading technological innovation and change in schools (Dexter & Richardson, 2020).

Significant conditions for implementing digital media and technology in schools unfold under transformational leadership (TL) and effective knowledge management (KM) (Afshari et al., 2010; Schmitz et al., 2023). Furthermore, digital transformation requires a shift in leaders mindsets (Kane, 2019). Especially, innovation development benefits from leaders with an Open Innovation Mindset (OIM OIM), a dynamic capability crucial for open innovation processes in organisations (Engelsberger et al., 2022; Henry Chesbrough & Marcel Bogers, 2013). Against this background our study was guided by the following research hypotheses to contribute to the field of school development and leadership with a special focus on successfully implementing digital innovation in schools:

H1: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM are crucial antecedents of transformational leadership.

H2: Transformational leadership positively impacts the implementation of digital innovations in schools.

H3: Transformational leadership positively impacts knowledge transfer practices in schools.

H4: Knowledge transfer practices positively impact the implementation of digital innovation in schools.

H5: Transformational leadership indirectly impacts the implementation of digital innovation in schools mediated by knowledge transfer practices.

H6: The dynamic capabilities of the OIM indirectly effect the implementation of digital innovation through transformational leadership and knowledge transfer practices in schools.

The context of this study is Germany, a nation comprising 16 federal states that are fully responsible for their individual school system. The database of our study is drawn from the third wave of the Leadership in German Schools (LineS) study (Aug.-Nov. 2021). Data was collected between August and November 2021 across Germany. The longitudinal study surveyed a random sample of school leader representative of Germany in each measurement wave (Pietsch et al., 2022). Thus, 411 school leaders were identified randomly, leading to a nationally representative sample for general schools in Germany. Of the questionnaires' 35-item blocks, we used a selection of items and scales based on the study's aim. The dependent variable of the model is digital innovation, measured in a multi-step procedure based on the items of the European Innovation Survey (CIS; (Behrens et al., 2017). The variable open innovation mindset (OIM) consists of four dynamic capabilities: openness, creativity, positive attitude toward knowledge sensing and seizing (KSS), and risk and failure tolerance (R&F), measured by one scale based on Engelsberger et al. (2022). Transformational leadership (TL), was measured by four items based on the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1995), indicating idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. To measure knowledge management, we used six items of the scale knowledge transfer practices (KTP) based on Donate and Sánchez de Pablo (2015). We used structural equation modeling (SEM) to examine the hypothesized relationship between TL and digital innovation with respect to the expected mediating role of KTP and school leaders’ OIM as an antecedent of transformational leadership. Because we estimated an indirect path model, a model that includes mediator variables, we further tested the robustness of the mediation effects by applying a bootstrapped mediation analysis that provides 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals with 2,000 bootstrap replications (Hayes, 2018). Data analysis was performed in Mplus version 8.3 (Muthen & Muthen, 2017) using the diagonally weighted least squares estimator (WLSMV) to ensure the assumption of a normal latent distribution of the categorically and ordinally observed data (Li, 2016).

School leaders' OIM is an antecedent to their TL behavior as all three facets of the OIM positively impact TL (O&C-G: β = 0.369, SE = 0.098, p < 0.000; KSS: β = 0.204, SE = 0.091, p < 0.025; R&F: β = 0.301, SE = 0.119, p < 0.011). Furthermore, TL significantly affects KTP (β = 0.448, SE = 0.069, p < 0.000), and KTP positively impacts digital innovation (β = 0.209, SE = 0.070, p < 0.003). The analysis revealed a positively significant direct effect from TL on KTP (r=.448, p<0.001) and a positively significant direct effect from KTP on digital innovation (r=.209, p<0.001). Even though we could not find a direct relationship between TL and digital innovation (β = -0.076, SE = 0.070, p < 0.280), we found that TL significantly indirectly impacts digital innovation, mediated by KTP (β =0.103 [CI: 0.032 - 0.198]). The study's findings contribute to educational leadership research and provide practical implications for designing systematic professionalisation of school leaders and the implementation of digital innovation in schools. Leading the development of digital innovation in schools requires school leaders with an OIM, who lead in a transformational way and establish an innovative and collaborative culture through knowledge transfer practices. However, implementing and developing successful digital innovation in schools relies predominantly on the mindsets of organisational stakeholders. Whereas school leaders are central in leading and facilitating school change processes, their mindsets are fundamental to digital innovation and should be addressed in professionalisation and training.

Afshari, M, Bakar, K. A., Luan, W. S., Afshari, M [Marjan], Fooi, F. S., & Samah, B. A. (2010). Computer Use by Secondary School Principals. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology - TOJET, 9(3), 8-25 Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). PsycTESTS Dataset. Behrens, V., Berger, M., Hud, M., Hünermund, P., Iferd, Y., Peters, B., Rammer, C., & Schubert, T. (2017). Innovation activities of firms in Germany - Results of the German CIS 2012 and 2014: Background report on the surveys of the Mannheim Innovation Panel Conducted in the Years 2013 to 2016. Benoliel, P. & Schechter, C. (2017). Promoting the school learning processes: principals as learning boundary spanners. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(7), 878–894. Dexter, S. (2008). Leadership for IT in Schools. In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education (Vol. 20, pp. 543–554). Springer US. Dexter, S., & Richardson, J. W. (2020). What does technology integration research tell us about the leadership of technology? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(1), 17–36. Donate, M. J., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370. Engelsberger, A., Halvorsen, B., Cavanagh, J., & Bartram, T. (2022). Human resources management and open innovation: the role of open innovation mindset. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60(1), 194–215. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2 ed.). Methodology in the social sciences: 2018: 1. The Guilford Press. Chesbrough, H. & Bogers, M. (2013). Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. Kane, G. (2019). The Technology Fallacy. Research-Technology Management, 62(6), 44–49. Li, C.‑H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. (2017). Mplus user's guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (8ª ed.). Muthén & Muthén. Schmitz, M.‑L., Antonietti, C., Consoli, T., Cattaneo, A., Gonon, P., & Petko, D. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education, 204, 104880.