Collective readiness to innovate at schools serving students from marginalized communities: Can leadership make a difference? Open Access

Research on learning and improvement processes at schools serving students from marginalized communities (SSMC) points to the relevance of a positive mindset, teacher empowerment, and collective agency among educators (e.g. Klein, 2018a; Klein and Bremm, 2019; Michalak, 2009; Potter et al., 2002; Zumpe, 2024). One relevant factor of improving SSMC appears to be that educators are willing and able to assume responsibility for the learning of their students, reflecting on and adapting their practice as needed, and changing practices in the light of new understandings. Such a mindset is described in the concept of teacher readiness to innovate, or teacher innovativeness (McGeown, 1980), two terms that we will use interchangeably throughout this manuscript.

Research underscores that students in SSMC (i.e. students from families with a lower formal education and socioeconomic status, or from families with an immigration history) have significantly lower chances at academic success, at well-being, and a positive view of their future (e. g. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developmen (OECD, 2019). Thus, SSMC often face the dual task of improving academic outcomes while also building and sustaining a school culture that empowers teachers to drive positive change and that promotes innovation and shared responsibility among educators.

Studies of SSMC often do not depict these schools as learning and flourishing systems, but rather “tend to describe educators caught in destructive tendencies—deflecting responsibility for problems, expressing pessimism, and becoming embroiled in divisive conflict […]. As a result, […], much existing research offers evidence of defensiveness, helplessness, and fragmentation” (Zumpe, 2024, p. 489).

While the educational opportunities of these students are affected by their families’ educational resources and decisions, structures of institutionalized education – such as the expectation that parents support their children’s homework – are relevant for the extent to which these factors are decisive for their educational opportunities (Baez, 2006; Gomolla and Radtke, 2009). The beliefs of teachers about students from marginalized communities, as well as their professional knowledge and abilities, translate into their interaction with the students and their educational practice (Khalifa, 2018; Palardy, 2008).

Such a situation poses a particular challenge for the leadership practice of principals and other school leaders.

Leadership practices that can change teacher readiness to innovate particularly at SSMC have so far mainly been studied in qualitative studies. As Klein (2018a) notes in her overview of the literature, these studies show that school leaders can effectively drive change and improvement at SSMC by establishing a clear vision, adopting participative and shared leadership practices that actively involve teachers in decision-making, promoting professional learning, and building trust among staff. To date, however, only few studies have assessed how leadership practices are associated with collective teacher innovativeness (CTI) (for an exception, see Buyukhoze et al., 2022), whereby these studies do not focus on SSMC.

This study aims to deepen our understanding of the factors that foster an innovative organizational culture in schools serving marginalized communities (SSMC), with a particular focus on leadership practices recognized as pivotal for school development (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006; Muijs et al., 2010). In addition, our goal is to assess the extent to which organizational factors related to a school’s vision and culture mediate the link between leadership practices and collective teacher readiness to innovate (CTRI). Using quantitative data, we examine how these leadership practices influence CTRI within SSMC. Our analysis draws on survey data from over 50 general and vocational secondary schools in marginalized communities across Germany, all of which participated in a large, government-initiated school development project.

In particular, we aim to analyze the relationship between different leadership practices and CTRI at SSMC. Additionally, we will examine how specific organizational factors related to a school’s vision namely, staff consensus on school objectives – and culture – specifically, interpersonal trust among colleagues – mediate the relationship between leadership practices and CTRI.

In the next section, we will first provide a brief overview of our specific research context.

Then, we will discuss the key concept of this study, that is CTRI. Following this, we will review existing literature on the link between leadership and CTRI, along with the potential mediating effects that staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues play in this relationship. Finally, we will focus on the importance of CTRI in SSMC and outline the unique challenges faced by SSMC in fostering collective readiness to innovate CRTI.

Educational equity in Germany faces significant challenges, with students’ educational opportunities often closely tied to their socioeconomic, cultural and linguistic backgrounds. For instance, the latest Programme for International Student Assessment study demonstrated once again that students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds in Germany scored lower on average in reading, mathematics, and science compared to their more privileged peers (OECD, 2023). Moreover, the early tracking system, which places students in different educational paths after grade four (in some states after grade 6) disproportionately affects students from lower-income or immigrant families. For instance, research shows that students from low-SES families must demonstrate significantly higher achievement than their more privileged peers to receive teacher recommendations for higher-track schools (Stubbe et al., 2012).

Education research and policy, however, have only focused on schools serving marginalized communities since the 2010s. While several large-scale projects are currently underway to support these schools, a significant knowledge gap persists regarding the most effective strategies for their improvement.

SSMC in Germany generally serve students from families with fewer social, cultural, or economic resources compared to those from more privileged backgrounds (Bourdieu, 2021). The schools are often located in urban regions “where the phenomenon of residential segregation is particularly pronounced, and where processes of exclusion and reduced participation are especially evident for residents” (Fölker et al., 2015, p. 9, translated from German). The communities that SSMC serve tend to have an above-average proportion of social welfare recipients, higher unemployment rates, lower educational attainment, a greater risk of poverty, and limited social mobility compared to other areas ^[1].

Research on SSMC highlights the unique and layered challenges faced by educators, referred to here as “adversities,” which are influenced by both external and internal factors (Zumpe, 2024). External factors commonly include structural disadvantages stemming from socioeconomic inequalities, limited funding for schools, and higher proportions of students with diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds who may require additional support. For instance, SSMC in Germany often operate in economically under-resourced areas with limited access to high-quality educational materials and infrastructure, which impacts the capacity for consistent school improvement efforts (OECD, 2019).

In addition to external adversities, educators also contend with internal factors within the school environment, such as low expectations, entrenched negative beliefs about the potential for student success, and externalizing responsibility for student learning in the face of seemingly unsolvable tasks (Nelson and Guerra, 2013; Racherbäumer, 2017). These internal factors may perpetuate a school culture of “learned helplessness,” where teachers, having repeatedly encountered unmet expectations or “failure” in previous improvement efforts, may feel discouraged from pursuing innovative practices (Potter et al., 2002; Zumpe, 2024). Due to these compounded adversities, educators may feel they have limited control over improving student learning, which may reduce their CRTI. In the following section, we will provide a detailed outline of the specific challenges related to cultivating a culture of teacher readiness to innovate in SSMC.

In pedagogical practice, each person, situation, and problem is unique. Educators need to be flexible and creative in addressing each specific case in order to truly help and provide the appropriate support. As a result, teachers enjoy a significant amount of autonomy in their practice, change must be cultivated by teachers to suit their specific contexts, and can hardly be mandated top-down, despite the hierarchical nature of institutionalized education (Meyer and Rowan, 1978; Mintzberg, 1979). We therefore define teacher readiness to innovate as the readiness to assume responsibility for change, to critically reflect on one’s own practice, and to change said practice and find alternative ways where this is needed.

The concept of teacher innovativeness was first discussed by McGeown (1980) and has its roots in organizational psychology. It can be compared to organizational concepts of attitudes towards change, or readiness to change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Transferred to the school context, it describes the “beliefs, feelings, and intentions” (ibid., p. 503) of teachers – not their competences or abilities – towards change. In focusing on these cognitive processes, our understanding of teacher readiness to innovate differs from innovative work behavior, in which the actions of teachers in the context of innovations are described (Kundu and Roy, 2023; Thurlings et al., 2015). Moreover, our definition deviates to some degree from other approaches of teacher innovativeness that often include both cognitions and behaviors.

Klusemann (2003) describes conditional factors of readiness to innovate, including the fear that a situation might get worse by changing it, the hope that a situation might improve by changing it, the perceived scope of control, incentives for improvement, the perceived need for action, the incentive for change itself, the perceived own abilities and the perceived need for change. Drawing on these factors, Klusemann (2003) develops a typology with five ideal types that differ in their assessment of their own abilities and their own scope for control, the perceived pressure to act and the fears and hopes associated with the change.

In the context of school improvement, teacher readiness to innovate can be studied as individual or CTRI. Generally, change readiness or attitudes towards change are most often studied at the individual level (Bouckenooghe, 2010). CTRI, however, refers to the group level and addresses the shared readiness of the teaching staff to assume responsibility for, reflect upon, and change practices. By describing collective attitudes, CTRI can be defined as a facet of organizational culture (e.g. Masry-Herzallah and Da’as, 2021). As such, it can be understood as a pattern of shared beliefs, assumptions, and interpretations of educators in schools that is an outcome of negotiation processes which are shaped by the experiences that educators make, the individual beliefs they bring to the negotiation, their interpretation of systemic conditions, and organizational structures within the school (Helsper, 2008). Buske (2014), for instance, defines CTRI as the shared beliefs within a group, including individual commitment to school improvement, the existence of common goals, and the shared perception of a need for improvement. It can therefore be argued that measuring CTRI through individual innovativeness falls short, as CTRI is more than just the sum of innovativeness beliefs of the group members (Buske, 2018). Strengthening this argument, research indicates that individual innovativeness and CTRI at a school are not tightly correlated (Buske and Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, 2009).

At SSMC, CTRI is structurally “at risk”. As outlined above, educators in SSMC often work in environments characterized by limited resources, diverse student needs, and systemic barriers that can impede school improvement efforts. Consequently, their ability to collectively adopt innovative practices is critical not only for addressing immediate classroom challenges but also for cultivating an equitable school culture that can adapt to external pressures. School improvement at SSMC presupposes the ability of educators to look beyond external contingency factors, accept their own role in the reproduction of inequity, reflect on their own practices, and change them. CTRI therefore is a crucial prerequisite for the success of SSMC, and at the same time it is much more difficult for SSMC to develop CTRI when educators have repeatedly experienced adversity and “failure” (Hemmings, 2012) despite their ambitions for their students. These experiences can evoke helplessness and defensiveness (Zumpe, 2024), so that less successful SSMC are often defined by a pessimistic view of what the school can achieve, and an inability to critically reflect on practice (Potter et al., 2002). This pessimistic view can manifest in specific views of the students and of the responsibility and perceived impact that teachers can have. Studies for instance by Richter and Pfaff (2014) and by Racherbäumer (2017) point out that there are three different ways that educators reconstruct their own role in the context of adversity:

1. Educators who focus on exposing students’ potentials and who make efforts to help students feel recognized, appreciated, and empowered;

2. Educators with a pedagogical ethos of “caring”, which, however, leads to a situation in which students are pathologized as victims of their circumstances that educators feel responsible compensating for, whereas the academic expectations of institutionalized education are seen as unfair and therefore academic learning is not focused;

3. Educators with deficit thinking that manifests in a distinction of students as “not educable”, a rejection of responsibility, and a reduction of academic learning, and possibly other pedagogically unethical behavior.

There are parallels between these empirically described types and the conditional factors for readiness to innovate described by Klusemann (2003). Whereas the first type presumably has a positive view of their own control and hope for an improved situation, the other two types probably see a need for change but perceive their own control with regard to the academic learning of the students as very low and therefore have little hope of improving the situation by changing their own practice.

Drawing on her improvement work with urban schools in the United States, Hemmings (2012) points out that to be able to overcome pessimism rooted in experiences of “failure”, SSMC must find a vision aimed at the success of their students, build structures that enable them to work towards these goals, and address challenges in the culture and morale of the school.

Especially in the context of organizational change, positive attitudes of people in an organization towards change are of crucial importance. Various studies indicate that teachers’ readiness to reflect upon and change practices is related to their practice (Blömeke et al., 2021) and is also a key factor for school improvement (Porras and Robertson, 1987; Feldhoff, 2011). At the same time, school improvement research shows that attitudes towards change, and especially resistance to change, are rather stable in schools (Dolph, 2017).

In a longitudinal study of change in non-educational organizations, however, Henricks et al. (2020) were able to show that attitudes towards change can actually be influenced through leadership, and more specifically transformational leadership. The transformational leadership approach was first developed by Bass (1990), who pointed out that transformational leaders “broaden and elevate the interests of their employees, […] generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and […] stir their employees to look beyond their own self-interest for the good of the group” (p. 21). Bass and Avolio (1994) argue that leaders can facilitate a change in the attitudes and orientations of the members of their organization through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Leithwood et al. (2006) have translated this general approach into specific leadership practices at schools that are organized in the dimensions Setting Directions, Helping People, and Restructuring the Organization (Leithwood et al., 2006).

Overall, there is limited empirical evidence on the relationship between leadership and CTRI at SSMC. Although prior studies using quantitative data on CTRI at schools show that it is associated with leadership practices, these studies do not focus on school contexts that are characterized by multiple adversities and in which CTRI is structurally “at risk”. There are, however, several qualitative studies that describe the leadership practices of principals at successful SSMC. In the following, we outline the findings of existing empirical studies on this topic in more detail.

Several studies show that CTRI is, in fact, related to leadership; these studies address different facets of leadership that can be roughly related to characteristics of transformational leadership, however without directly referring to the concept. In some studies, for instance, goal-oriented leadership (GL) was positively related to CTRI (Feldhoff, 2011; Feldhoff and Rolff, 2009). Several qualitative studies specifically point to the importance of the dimension Setting Directions (Leithwood et al., 2006). These studies reveal that leaders at successful SSMC were usually characterized by a strong equity belief that manifested in a clear and explicit vision for their school, which in turn was held up and implemented through their leadership (e.g. Harris, 2002; Jacobson, 2011; Muijs et al., 2010). A vision is an explicitly formulated, overall goal shared by the school community that provides a “roadmap” and deeper meaning for smaller or bigger school improvement projects and can thus increase self-efficacy and motivation (Hemmings, 2012). This is connected to leadership practices that encourage people in the school to rethink their own norms, values, and attributions (Jacobson et al., 2007; Klar and Brewer, 2013) and creates a community among educators that is characterized by shared values and norms (Giles et al., 2005). In this context, intellectual stimulation (IS) helps to “encourage teachers to question their own beliefs, assumptions, and values and enhance teachers’ ability to solve individual, group, and organizational problems” (Geijsel et al., 2009). For instance, leaders at successful SSMCs effectively motivated their teachers to reassess their teaching methods and explore new strategies to support their students (Klein, 2018b; Geijsel et al., 2009). Although quantitative evidence on the direct link between IS and CTRI is limited, some studies have documented associations between this leadership practice and teamwork processes (Geijsel et al., 2009), suggesting that similar associations might also exist for CTRI.

These findings directly inform our expectation that both GL and IS will directly contribute to fostering CTRI among teachers in SSMC.

To ensure that teachers can work towards the equity goals and expectations that the school has agreed upon, research indicates that schools require supportive structures to foster teachers’ professional learning and to enable systematic, collaborative, and evidence-based practices. In this context, several qualitative studies highlight working structures and processes that align with the dimensions of Helping People and Restructuring the Organization (Leithwood et al., 2006). The focus here is, for example, on creating collaborative structures (Day, 2005; Jacobson et al., 2005; Racherbäumer et al., 2013), enabling participation (López-Yáñez and Sánchez-Moreno, 2013; Racherbäumer et al., 2013) and systematically supporting teachers in inquiry-based professional learning (Cosner, 2011; Klein, 2018b). Several studies also suggest that individual teacher readiness to innovate and CTRI are related to teacher autonomy and distribution of leadership (Buske, 2018; Buyukgoze et al., 2022; Hsieh et al., 2024; Lin, 2022). Apparently, the influence of leadership on CTRI works by creating a goal-oriented context that is open to innovation, and at the same time providing room for teachers to set impulses and implement their own ideas.

Based on these findings, we expect that both shared decision-making and systematic planning of professional development (PD) will be positively associated with CTRI.

Linked to this, the existing qualitative studies indicate that leadership can shape a positive school culture that does not lower the standards for learning in the face of adversity but is characterized by high expectations for both students and teachers (Ahumada et al., 2016; Klein, 2016; Michalak, 2009; Ylimaki et al., 2007). A particular relevance regarding the design of goal-oriented structures seems to lie in the structures that allow teachers to focus on teaching by providing a safe learning environment for everyone and keep teachers from focusing on discipline issues. For instance, some studies report the particular importance of principals being visible in the school to create internal accountability for both students and teachers (Jacobson et al., 2007; Klein, 2016). A quantitative study by Klein and Bronnert-Härle (2022) also points out that teacher deficit thinking at SSMC was lower when teachers felt that leadership provided a safe learning environment.

These findings finally lead us to expect that providing a safe learning and working environment will be positively associated with CTRI.

Staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues as mediating factors.

While the studies outlined above describe leadership practices that are observable in schools, including successful SSMC, they do not clarify how these practices contribute to developing CTRI. Research on factors that enhance innovative behavior in educational organizations suggests that the relationship between CTRI and leadership may be mediated by other organizational characteristics, particularly those related to a school’s vision and culture. However, most of this research focuses on innovative behavior rather than innovativeness as defined in this paper, and most studies do not test mediating pathways.

For example, Thurlings et al. (2015) summarize that various organizational factors are associated with teachers’ innovative behavior. These include elements that support the school’s vision, such as creating transparency around specific goals (Messmann and Mulder, 2011), as well as cultural and interpersonal factors like support from colleagues, engaging in conversations with colleagues, and opportunities for self-expression (Chang et al., 2011; Schussler et al., 2007; Binnewies and Gromer, 2012). The extent to which these results can be transferred to collective teacher beliefs about change, however, is unclear.

Building on these findings and given that transformational leadership leverages social interactions to support goal achievement (Moolenaar et al., 2010), staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues may serve as key organizational conditions that enable specific leadership practices to exert influence.

First, leaders who establish clear, shared objectives are more likely to foster a collaborative environment in which teachers align their efforts toward common goals. As Leithwood and Sun (2012, p. 400) highlight, leaders who develop a shared vision „also build consensus among staff about the importance of common purpose and more specific goals, motivate staff with these challenging, but achievable goals, and communicate optimism about achieving these goals.” Thus, staff consensus refers to the shared understanding and commitment among teachers to these goals. In their meta-analysis, Leithwood and Sun (2012) demonstrate that transformational leadership is positively associated with teacher goal consensus and a shared mission.

Nevertheless, there is limited evidence on the interplay between GL, staff consensus on school objectives, and CTRI. We therefore hypothesize that GL affects CTRI through the establishment of consensus among teachers regarding school goals.

Second, in strengthening school culture, leaders engaged in transformative actions „promote an atmosphere of caring and trust among staff, build a cohesive school culture around a common set of values, and promote beliefs that reflect the school vision” (Leithwood and Sun, 2012, p. 400 f.). Again, their meta-analysis shows that transformational leadership is positively associated with trust, peer cohesion, and sense of community. Other studies suggest that teachers who are more closely connected through networks of work-related and personal advice tend to perceive their school climate as more supportive of innovation (Moolenaar et al., 2011). In a similar vein, Moolenaar and Sleegers (2010) report in their study that feelings of trust among co-workers were positively associated with a collective climate of innovation. Since building trust among colleagues might be particularly relevant in SSMC, where teachers may face high stress and feel isolated, we expect that a safe learning environment fosters interpersonal trust, which in turn positively impacts CTRI. All our research hypotheses are summarized in the following chapter.

The study was guided by the following research questions:

To address our research questions, we distinguish between five key aspects of leadership behavior, encompassing elements of transformational leadership: (1) GL, (2) IS, (3) fostering shared decision-making, (4) systematic planning of PD, and (5) providing a safe learning and working environment. These leadership practices were selected based on their theoretical and empirical significance for promoting school improvement in SSMC outlined above (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2006).

GL, for instance, helps establish a clear vision that can unify educators around shared objectives, fostering a sense of purpose and direction. IS encourages teachers to reflect critically on their practices and explore new approaches, which appears essential for innovation in challenging environments. By providing room for educators to set impulses and implement their own ideas, shared decision-making is argued to promote an environment open to innovation. Systematic planning of PD ensures that teachers have the necessary skills and knowledge to implement innovative practices, while providing a safe learning and working environment builds trust and supports open collaboration among staff.

As outlined in the review of existing studies and drawing on Hemmings (2012), we conceptualize leadership as multifaceted, encompassing not only the strategic direction of the school but also the structural and relational foundations that facilitate and sustain change (Leithwood et al., 2006; Day et al., 2009). We therefore chose a three-dimensional categorization of the five leadership practices (vision, structure, culture). The first two leadership practices reflect creating a vision in terms of an overall goal shared by the school community as well as enhancing „teachers’ ability to solve individual, group, and organizational problems” (Geijsel et al., 2009). The third and fourth aspect each reflect building structures to support the professional learning of teachers, while the fifth aspect relates to the school culture by creating a safe learning environment for everyone in school. By organizing leadership practices in this way, we aim to capture the distinct yet complementary roles that each dimension plays in fostering CTRI.

Regarding mediating organizational factors, we draw on the empirical research on innovative teacher behavior and focus on two key elements of educational practice in schools that might be essential for CTRI at SSMC: (1) a unified consensus among staff about the school’s objectives and (2) strong interpersonal trust among colleagues. Besides affecting CTRI, we assume that these organizational elements are intrinsically connected to the measured leadership practices.

Figure 1 presents our conceptual and statistical model, which visually outlines the variables used and their presumed relationships with CTRI.

Based on our conceptual model, we derive the following research hypotheses:

We use data from two standardized online surveys conducted among teachers and other pedagogical professionals in over 50 general and vocational secondary schools serving marginalized communities ^[2].

These schools participated in a large government-initiated school improvement project in Germany that aims at supporting SSMC through the provision of additional resources and the implementation of instructional concepts and strategies designed to enhance students’ academic performance, as well as their linguistic and social competence. The research reported here was funded by the Ministry of Education in North Rhine Westfalia.

Participation in the survey was voluntary and the survey was completed individually within a time frame of about nine weeks in 2020. Both surveys covered the initial learning and working conditions at the participating schools at the beginning of the project, including leadership practices as perceived by the educators as well as the staff’s collective willingness to innovate. The schools were situated in both small and larger cities. Although all the schools were identified as schools serving marginalized communities based on the state’s categorization, the number of students from socioeconomically disadvantaged families (measured by their exemption from co-paying their learning materials) and the number of German language learners per school varied. In the first cohort of schools (N = 35), the data were collected between February and April 2020 with a total of N = 912 respondents (overall response rate: 27.1%), and in the second cohort (N = 25), between October and December 2020, with a total of N = 391 respondents (overall response rate: 17.4%). For our analyses, only educators from schools with at least three participants were included (n = 1,300).

Table 1 provides an overview of the study variables.

The educators responded to six items designed to assess the staff’s shared commitment to ongoing development and transformation in educational practices (example item: “Our school is committed to genuine renewal and development.”). The response scale ranged from 1 – does not apply at all to 5 – applies fully. The items were adapted from Quellenberg (2009) and showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.84).

Educators’ perceptions of the following five leadership practices were measured at the individual schools using a German adaptation of the Nature of School Leadership Survey (Leithwood et al., 2006; see Klein and Bronnert-Härle 2020): (1) GL, (2) IS, (3) shared decision-making, (4) systematic planning of PD, and (5) providing a safe learning and working environment. All items were identical in metric (1 – do not agree at all; 5 – fully agree). To confirm the one-dimensional factor structure of each leadership scale, we ran a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the SEM-tool in Stata 17.0. The CFA indicated that the one-factorial structure generally fits well or acceptably, as evidenced by comparative fit index (CFI) values ranging from 0.94 to 0.99, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) values from 0.90 to 0.97, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values from 0.01 to 0.04, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) values from 0.05 to 0.07. However, there were two exceptions: IS and systematic planning of PD, which demonstrated less than optimal fit, with RMSEA values of 0.16 and 0.12, respectively. Cronbach’s α for the five leadership scales ranged from 0.86 to 0.95, indicating good internal consistency.

Staff consensus on school objectives: The educators responded to three questions designed to measure the extent to which the school staff agreed on the importance of the school’s mission statement, their commitment to the school’s goals and mission, and their unified understanding of the school’s objectives. The response scale ranged from 1 – do not agree at all to 5 – agree fully. The scale was translated and adapted from Leithwood et al. (2006) and showed strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.91.

Interpersonal trust among colleagues: This scale, adapted from Kassebaum (2004), consisted of nine items that assessed the extent to which educators felt they could depend on their colleagues’ promises, rely on their support during times of need, and trust in their honesty and sincerity (1 – do not agree at all; 5 – fully agree). Cronbach’s α was 0.92, demonstrating good internal consistency.

To account for potentially confounding effects, we additionally controlled for school type (0 = general secondary school, 1 = vocational secondary school), project cohort (1 = first cohort, 2 = second cohort), educators’ gender (0 = female, 1 = male), educators’ function in school (0 = teacher, 1 = other educator), and years of professional experience. Previous research indicates that female educators generally perceive a higher collective willingness to innovate compared to their male counterparts (Buyukhoze et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2021). Years of experience has yielded inconclusive evidence, with some studies indicating that teachers with more experience tend to exhibit lower levels of innovative behavior (Thurlings et al., 2015), while others document positive associations between total years of experience and CTI (Buyukhoze et al., 2022).

Based on our conceptual and statistical model, we employed regression analysis with indirect effects using MPlus Version 8.0 (Muthén and Muthén, 2017). The implemented full information maximum likelihood estimation was applied, using all available data points for each participant by borrowing of information from the observed portion of the data (Pritikin et al., 2018; Enders and Bandalos, 2001). Given the hierarchical data structure, with educators nested within schools, we employed a two-level regression model with random intercepts (Snijders and Bosker, 2012). This approach allowed us to examine how the five leadership practices were associated with CTRI at SSMC, while also testing for potential mediating effects. Since we were mainly interested in individual-level fixed effects (that is, regression coefficients), we only included random intercepts at the school level to account for differences in baseline CTRI between schools. An intra-class-correlation (ICC) of 0.044 indicated that 4.4% of the total variance of the dependent variable is attributable to the school-level.

To examine potential mediating effects, we specified indirect pathways from the leadership practices through the respective mediating variables to the outcome variable. We used Mplus to calculate indirect effects at the within-school level, along with its standard error (SE) and significance level. Indirect effects represent the influence of an independent variable on a dependent variable through a mediating variable and are quantified as the product of the relevant path coefficients (e.g. Verma and Verma, 2024). Separate indirect effects were calculated for each hypothesized mediation path, with each representing the unique contribution of one mediating pathway from the predictor to the outcome.

The direct and indirect effects of teacher-reported leadership practices and organizational factors on CTRI were tested while controlling for school type (school level), project cohort (school level), teachers’ gender (individual level), educators’ function in school (individual level), and total years of experience (individual level).

We applied maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) thus enhancing the robustness of parameter estimates and standard errors against non-normality and unequal cluster size. The skewness and kurtosis values for the central study variables suggested non-normality in GL and the two mediators, with all values exceeding the typical cut-off thresholds for both skewness and kurtosis (Chou and Bentler, 1995).

To evaluate the model fit, we relied on the following indices: RMSEA, CFI, TLI, and SRMR. While the CFI and TLI are preferably close to or higher than 0.95 (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Iacobucci, 2010), SRMR values below 0.08 indicate an acceptable model. Finally, an RMSEA value lower than 0.08 can be considered acceptable (Browne and Cudeck, 1993).

Due to missing data on the exogenous variables, 501 cases were excluded from the analysis in Mplus, resulting in a final sample of 799 respondents. The excluded cases did not significantly differ from the remaining sample on the primary dependent variable (t = −1.780(982), p = 0.076) or on socio-demographic and school-related control variables. However, the excluded group contained a significantly lower proportion of male respondents (M_excluded = 0.25, standard deviation (SD) = 0.43 vs. M_sample = 0.36, SD = 0.48; t = 3.010(939), p = 0.003) and reported fewer years of total experience (M_excluded = 12.31, SD = 9.66 vs. M_sample = 13.89, SD = 9.49; t = 2.204(995), p = 0.028). Cluster sizes did not substantially vary between the two groups.

Our final analysis sample included 53 schools (average cluster size: 15.1, min: 4, max: 76), comprising 41 general secondary schools and 12 vocational secondary schools. The average staff size was 90.9 (SD = 35.4). The majority of respondents were regular teachers (n = 717, 92.3%, compared to n = 1,154, 92.0% in the full sample), with 7.7% representing other pedagogical roles (e.g. school social workers, n = 60). In the full sample, 8.0% were in other pedagogical positions (n = 101), with 45 respondents missing position data. Within the analysis sample, 64.3% of respondents were female, slightly lower than the 66.7% in the full sample. On average, respondents had 13.9 years of professional experience (SD = 9.5), compared to 13.5 years (SD = 9.5) in the full sample, and had been working at their current school for an average of 9.2 years (SD = 8.2), compared to 8.8 years (SD = 8.0) in the full sample.

To provide an overview of the interrelations between the study variables, Table 2 displays the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations of the five leadership scales, the two mediator variables and the dependent variable.

The data indicate that the educators generally assessed the CTRI at their schools to be rather high. The variable means moreover revealed that educators, on average, expressed strong agreement with all leadership practices at their schools, particularly emphasizing goal-orientation. Additionally, they rated staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues as notably high.

Furthermore, all leadership practices were positively and statistically significantly correlated with CTRI, with correlations ranging from r = 0.428 for IS (p < 0.001) to r = 0.538 for GL (p < 0.001). In addition, the five leadership scales showed positive and statistically significant correlations with each other, as was to be expected. These ranged from r = 0.573 between systematic planning of PD and providing a safe learning and working environment (p < 0.001) to r = 0.765 between GL and shared decision-making (p < 0.001).

A unified consensus among staff about the school’s objectives (r = 0.581, p < 0.001) and interpersonal trust among colleagues (r = 0.338, p < 0.001) were both positively associated with CTRI. Furthermore, both variables showed positive and statistically significant associations with all five leadership practices, whereby correlations were systematically higher for perceived consensus on the school’s objectives. Thus, concerning our first research hypothesis (H1), the descriptive results indicate that all five leadership practices are directly and positively associated with CTRI.

Along with the control variables, our regression model included teacher-reported leadership practices as the key independent variables, staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues as mediating variables, and CTRI as the dependent variable. Table 3 presents the unstandardized regression coefficients for both direct and indirect effects, along with their corresponding standard errors. These relationships are visually represented in our conceptual model depicted in Figure 2.

The fit indices indicated that our statistical model showed an acceptable fit to the data (RMSEA: 0.057, CFI: 0.878, TLI: 0.828, SRMR_within: 0.059, see Hu and Bentler (1999).

The regression results demonstrate that educators’ perceptions of GL (b = 0.133, SE = 0.04, p = 0.003) and systematic planning of PD (b = 0.112, SE = 0.04, p = 0.002) were positively and statistically significantly associated with CTRI. IS, shared decision-making and providing a safe learning and working environment, however, did not show statistically significant relationships with CTRI. Thus, our first hypothesis (H1) can only be partly corroborated.

As for the question of how further organizational factors related to a school’s vision (staff consensus on school objectives) and culture (interpersonal trust among colleagues) are related to leadership practices and CTRI, we find that both variables were positively and statistically significantly associated with CTRI, whereby the effect was somewhat larger for staff consensus on school objectives (b = 0.274, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), compared to interpersonal trust among colleagues (b = 0.123, SE = 0.04, p < 0.001). Furthermore, while staff consensus on school objectives was positively associated with GL (b = 0.483, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001), interpersonal trust among colleagues was positively related to leadership providing a safe learning and working environment (b = 0.234, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001).

The analysis of indirect effects revealed that the two organizational variables (partially) mediated the hypothesized relationships: GL was associated with CTRI through staff consensus on school objectives (b = 0.132, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001). Specifically, when a school’s leadership strongly emphasized goals, it fostered greater agreement among staff members regarding the school’s objectives. This, in turn, was associated with higher levels of CTRI as perceived by individual educators. The same applied to the role of interpersonal trust among colleagues in the context of school leadership providing a safe learning and working environment, although to a lesser extent: A stronger agreement among educators that their school leaders created a secure environment was associated with higher perceived levels of interpersonal trust among colleagues, which, in turn, was linked to greater CTRI (b = 0.029, SE = 0.01, p = 0.002). Thus, our second and third research hypothesis (H2) can be largely corroborated based on our conceptual model. As for the effects of the control variables, years of teaching experience were positively associated with CTRI. Thus, with more experience, teachers were more likely to perceive their school culture as innovative.

Our study shed light on the complex relationship between different leadership practices and CTRI, which we measured as educators’ perceptions to what extent the school staff is open for innovation and change. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze direct and indirect effects of various leadership practices at SSMC on collective teacher beliefs about change mediated by further factors of school organizational climate. Below, we discuss the key insights and implications from the results.

Adding to the few existing studies on the correlates of CTRI, especially at SSMC, the results from multi-level regression analysis including indirect effects point to two main findings: First, while all leadership dimensions showed positive and statistically significant correlations with CTRI, only GL and systematic planning of PD appeared to be directly related to CTRI. These findings suggest that when school leadership sets clear goals and systematically plans for teacher development, it enhances teachers’ openness to and preparedness for innovation. This aligns with previous research that highlights the importance of structured guidance and clarity of purpose in fostering a positive attitude toward change among educators (Cosner, 2011; Klein, 2018b) and in internalizing school goals (Geijsel et al., 2009). However, the lack of significant associations between CTRI and other leadership practices, such as IS, shared decision-making, and providing a safe learning environment, warrants further consideration. Prior research has, for example, demonstrated that IS plays an important role for changed teacher practices, experimentation and reflective practice through indirect pathways (Geijsel et al., 2009). Lam et al. (2010) observed furthermore that fostering teachers’ competence and collegiality was associated with a greater motivation to adopt educational innovations and project-based learning. However, it is important to note that Lam et al. examined innovative behavior, rather than perceptions of CTRI.

Although our research provides some insights into the relative importance of leadership practices for CTRI, more research is needed that focuses more in depth on how leadership practices and organizational factors in schools are interrelated at schools in disadvantaged locations. For example, in SSMC, goal alignment and systematic planning may be perceived as more immediately impactful than broader practices like IS or shared decision-making. It may be that in these contexts, teachers value leadership that emphasizes achievable objectives and tangible professional growth, as this may directly address the unique challenges they face. Consequently, our first hypothesis (H1), which assumed that all five leadership practices would enhance CTRI, is only partially supported, suggesting that specific leadership actions may be more influential than others in encouraging a CRTI.

We should also point out that the influence of GL on innovativeness may be especially pronounced in the German context, where such leadership is often less emphasized in schools compared to other countries (e.g. Klein et al., 2022); therefore, when GL is implemented, it could have a stronger impact on fostering innovation.

The study also highlights the mediating role of consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues in the relationship between leadership practices and CTRI. Our findings show that GL is indirectly linked to higher CTRI through fostering a stronger consensus on school objectives. This result underscores the importance of clear, goal-focused leadership in creating a unified vision within the school. When educators feel aligned with the school’s goals, it may reinforce their collective belief in the potential for change, supporting our second hypothesis (H2). This aligns with previous research emphasizing how a unified vision can enhance collective efficacy and readiness for change by aligning staff members’ efforts toward a common objective.

Similarly, interpersonal trust among colleagues was shown to mediate the relationship between leadership practices focused on creating a safe learning and working environment and CTRI. Although this indirect effect was smaller, it still suggests that a school environment perceived as safe and supportive fosters trust among staff, which in turn enhances their CRTI. Trust among educators may facilitate open communication, mutual support, and a willingness to engage in risk-taking, which are crucial in adopting and implementing new ideas (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006) – especially in an environment where “failure” seems to be more likely. These findings support our third hypothesis (H3) and align with broader organizational theories and empirical findings that emphasize the importance of trust in change readiness, particularly in contexts where innovation requires collaboration and shared commitment (Moolenaar and Sleegers, 2010; Giles and Hargreaves, 2006).

To sum up, our results stress the importance of GL practices as well as working structures and processes, especially structures to support the professional learning of educators and to enable them to act in a systematic, collaborative, and evidence-based way.

With the particularly strong association between GL, staff consensus, and CTRI in our model, our data can quantitatively validate a central finding from qualitative research on successful SSMCs. The qualitative studies had shown that school leaders at successful SSMCs placed a particular focus on phrasing a clear vision and worked towards systematically anchoring this vision among their staff (e.g. Harris, 2002; Hemmings, 2012; Jacobson, 2011; Muijs et al., 2010). Our data show a systematic association between this practice and the collective willingness to work towards change among educators. However, it remains unclear in our data whether – as in the qualitative studies – the vision must necessarily be geared towards justice, or whether the element of a unifying vision is sufficient.

Furthermore, our results indicate that staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues may be key variables for the interplay between leadership practices and further organizational factors in SSMC. Incorporating qualitative data from teachers and school leaders would further enrich the analysis of these relationships and validate our findings, which is an important direction for future research.

In addition, some interconnections likely exist between teachers’ CRTI (CTRI) and the innovative behavior of leaders: Leadership that models an openness to innovation and change has a positive impact on CTRI (Buddeberg and Gebauer, 2013; Buske, 2018; Dedering and Pietsch, 2023). Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that the influence is reciprocal: while leadership affects CTRI, the level of CTRI perceived by school leaders also shapes their leadership practices. Studies indicate that leaders who perceive a higher level of CTRI within their school tend to view their own influence on the pedagogical practice of their school more positively and set more ambitious goals for their school (Klein et al., 2023, 2024).

Despite these insights, our study has limitations. First, our sample may not be fully representative of SSMC, as participation in the study was voluntary and schools needed to apply to be part of the project. This self-selection may bias results toward more innovative schools, given that schools with a higher inherent openness to change may have been more likely to participate. The generally positive CTRI ratings in our sample support this assumption, and it is unclear whether similar associations would emerge in schools with lower CTRI. In this context, there might also be non-response bias, which could affect the generalizability of our findings. In this study, non-response bias could mean that our sample may not fully represent the views or experiences of all educators at SSMC, particularly if certain groups of teachers—such as those who are overburdened or disengaged—were less likely to respond to the survey. On the other hand, teachers with higher motivation or more favorable attitudes toward leadership and innovation may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing our sample. Although we employed strategies to mitigate this, such as making the survey accessible online and conducting follow-ups, these biases may still influence the generalizability of our findings. Future research could further address this issue by employing random or stratified sampling techniques or incentivizing participation to capture a broader range of perspectives.

Second, the cross-sectional design restricts causal interpretations, and the reliance on self-reported data of teachers may introduce biases, such as social desirability bias or shared method variance. Future studies could incorporate multiple perspectives, such as those of principals, and employ longitudinal designs to better understand causal mechanisms and examine whether the observed relationships persist over time. Additionally, examining other contextual factors, such as resource availability or community support, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence innovation readiness in schools serving marginalized populations.

Third, our study relied on collective perceptions rather than directly observed innovative behaviors. While teacher beliefs are associated with their behavior, they do not predict it with certainty. Thus, our data does not provide any indication as to how leadership affects innovative behavior at SSMC. Drawing on the theory of planned behavior (Aizen, 1991) and summarizing literature on innovative teacher behavior, we can assume that innovative behavior will also be affected by teachers’ perceptions of control and their practical ability to be innovative (Lee et al., 2010). While this is also likely a highly relevant aspect, especially at SSMC, which often have a history of perceived “failing” (e.g. Hemmings, 2012), our data do not provide any information about the association between CTRI, perceived control, and the actual innovative behavior.

Fourth, our scale validation for certain leadership constructs – specifically IS and Systematic Planning of PD – yielded RMSEA values above recommended thresholds (Hu and Bentler, 1999), suggesting that these scales may not fully represent their intended constructs. Although this potential measurement error is unlikely to negate the robustness of the overall findings, future studies would benefit from testing revised versions of these measures across different school contexts to improve validity.

Lastly, leadership may exert distinct impacts in smaller schools where interactions might be more personal, compared to larger schools with more complex structures. To account for this potential variability, we controlled for cluster size in our regression model in additional analyses, yet our results remained largely unchanged. This finding is consistent with Nguyen et al., (2021) who found no significant correlation between school size and teacher collective innovativeness at the within-school level.

Despite these limitations, our study offers valuable insights for educational leaders and policymakers seeking to cultivate innovative school environments. The following implications for educational leaders in SSMC and policymakers can be derived: First, emphasizing goal alignment and systematic planning of PD could be particularly beneficial in strengthening collective readiness for change. School leaders might prioritize maintaining a clear vision and setting clear, actionable goals while providing structured support for teachers’ professional growth.

Secondly, the mediation effects observed through staff consensus on school objectives and interpersonal trust among colleagues underscore the importance of cultivating a supportive school culture which fosters an environment in which educators feel valued and trusted. For leaders, this could mean actively working to build consensus on school objectives and prioritizing a secure, collegial environment that enhances trust. Furthermore, this study illustrates the benefits of aligning leadership practices with the school’s strategic objectives to enhance a climate of collective innovativeness. It highlights the significant roles of organizational vision and cultural factors in enhancing educational innovation, providing insights that could guide future school improvement efforts. By providing time resources and fostering informal organizational structures, school leaders can cultivate an innovative school climate where teachers trust, support one another, and collaborate toward change and innovation (Moolenaar and Sleegers, 2010). Thus, by fostering GL, systematic PD, and a cohesive, trust-based environment, school leaders can effectively enhance their staff’s openness to change, which is essential for driving positive educational outcomes in challenging contexts.

The research presented in this paper was conducted as part of the project “Talent Schools,” carried out jointly by the University of Duisburg-Essen and the University of Siegen under the supervision of Professor Isabell van Ackeren-Mindl, Professor Kathrin Racherbäumer, Professor Nina Bremm and Professor Esther Dominique Klein.

Funding: The research was funded by the Ministry of Education in North Rhine Westfalia.