The Influence of Principal Leadership

on School Innovativeness

Dhanalakshmi Anand

Master thesis
Master of Science in Assessment, Measurement and Evaluation

Centre for Educational Measurement

Faculty of Educational Sciences
University of Oslo

Autumn, 2021
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to show how principal leadership style affects school

innovativeness. We intended to evaluate: 1) As department heads are the direct instructional

leaders in schools, innovativeness is more probable with their indirect contribution. 2) Direct

instructional leadership can improve with indirect approaches. This study is based on the

principal questionnaires from The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018).

Dataset: TCGINTT3 is used to answer the research question. The dataset is further trimmed to

have the only data from Norway and only the variables needed for this study.

A scheme via SEM (Structural Equations Modelling) is elaborated to examine the

leadership process that is hypothesized to be related to a school's innovation. Structural equation

modelling is a detailed statistical approach to test hypotheses about the relationship between

latent and observed variables. The correlation among the latent variables is also measured to

detect any dependency and to avoid autocorrelation errors. In addition to the variables, school

weightage (SCHWGT) is used for the analysis to eliminate biased estimates for the population.

Finally, to measure the model's fitness as a validation step, some empirical tests have

been performed. The model was built using the software M-Plus (version 7.3). Findings of the

relationship between school leadership and organization innovativeness outcomes provide a

confused and inconsistent picture. However, this study's findings highlight that the ability to

"quickly do things in a new way" was strongly associated with schools' innovativeness. Thus, the

link between indirect instructional leadership and innovation becomes necessarily more evident.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 3

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the constant support, guidance, and

assistance of my Supervisors Trude Nilsen and co supervisor Sigrid Blömeke. Their levels of

patience, knowledge, and ingenuity is something I will always keep aspiring to.

Thanks to Ronny Scherer who have inspired and supported my work throughout the

whole process.

Thanks to my friends for being fantastic colleagues throughout the whole Master

program. I am grateful to have you among my friends.

I am thankful to my parents who has always been giving me love and support and

keeping me encouraging and motivated.

My sincere thanks to my sisters, who always remind me of what is vital in life and are

always helpful of my journey.

Finally, I am grateful to my husband Anand and my kids Aaratrika and Aarthikha. I am

endlessly thankful for the unconditional love and support they gave me throughout the entire

thesis process and every day.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 4

Introduction

As per the OECD (The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development)

guidelines, innovation is defined as "the implementation of a new or significantly improved

products (good or services) or process, a new marketing method, or a new organizational method

in business practices, workplace organization or external relations" (OECD, 2005, p. 46). In

other words, an organization is considered innovative if it can improve its product, processes, or

practices by implementing new techniques compared to the traditional methods used in the

organization.

When it comes to school innovation, innovation can refer to the usage of new pedagogic

practices for better learning outcomes for students. As a consequence, an innovative school can

have higher performance compared to non-innovative schools. Furthermore, school innovation is

highly linked to the school resources such as teachers, classrooms, books, syllabus, assessment

forms, training programs, etc. The principal, who is the leader of the school, controls these

resources.

In the literature, there are several studies that have been conducted to understand the

impact of principal's leadership styles on school innovation. Daniëls et al.(2019) present the

overview of four main leadership theories in education settings: instructional, situational,

transformational, and distributed.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 5

Figure 1. Types of Leadership

Instructional leadership is considered a top-down approach where principals act as hands-

on leaders working with teachers to improve teaching and learning. In contrast with instructional

leadership, the transformational style is perceived as a shared leadership model which focuses on

collaborative practices to improve student achievement (Sun and Leithwod, 2012). Distributed

leadership style focuses on task distribution and distributed influence processes to improve

innovation in teaching and learning. In situational leadership, an employee should be treated as

per the dynamics of the situation. The relationship between the school context and leadership is

discussed in Hallinger (2011).

The report, Rektor - en forskningsöversikt 2000–2010 [Overview of research on school

principals] indicates that research on instructional leadership style is limited in the volume and

received little attention in Norway and Sweden (Johansson & Bredeson, 2011). In this thesis, I

contribute to filling this gap in the literature by investigating the impact of the principal’s

instructional leadership style on the school innovativeness with the help of Teaching and

Learning International Survey (TALIS) data.

TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey) data from the OECD (The

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) helps answer how the principal
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 6

leadership style impacts innovativeness by asking teachers and school principals about their

learning and working atmospheres and offers a barometer of the profession every five years.

Principal leadership

Leadership in education is very important; a person with leadership qualities strives to

create a transformation in the educational system. In a school, it is the principal, who strives to

build a progressive transformation in the educational system. Principal as a leader is considered

as an important factor responsible for the school’s innovativeness and creativity (Yılmaz, E,

2010). Principal work does not only involve working with management but also involves

improving the school performances. The principal demonstrates different types of leadership

style to improve the educational system.

Thus, different styles of leadership have an effect on the innovativeness of an

organization. Recently, there are three types of leadership style used in education research on

instructional leadership, transformational leadership and distributed leadership (Bush & Glover,

2014; Gumus et. al., 2018).

Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership that motivates people and

organizations to achieve long term goals (Burns, 1979).

Distributed leadership is extended leadership inside and throughout the organization and

there is a high level of involvement in the exercise of leadership (Spillane et al., 2001).

Instructional leadership is defined as a leadership style performed by the principal in

order to encourage student learning. Instructional leadership is more involved in the

administration side; it is the actions taken by the principal to instructional characteristics to bring

successful organizational achievements (Hallinger and Heck, 1998).

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 7

The leader must take accountability for the achievements and non-achievements of the

school. The principal as a leader is continuously looking to develop the school and makes

developments irrespective of how challenging it might be. Leadership describes how effective

any school is, a school with no good leader will possibly not succeed.

The achievement of any organization is very much valued upon the leader of an

organization. Efficient leadership style provided by the principal will lead to the success of an

organization. Principal leadership is necessary in a school to endorse success. However, also the

readiness of the people to accept and follow a person, contributes to make a person a leader.

They see the person as a support in achieving their own wishes and aspirations. Leadership style

can be described as the type of link that is used by an individual in order to prepare people to

work collectively to achieve a common aim or goal (Harris et al.,2007).

The principal is respected as the instructional leader of the school. Principals as

instructional leaders are instruments used in an organization for the success of the organization.

It determines the objectives of an organization and ways of accomplishing them. Therefore,

Principal instructional leadership in an organization has been viewed as inspiration, and the

principal is the leader encouraging others in the direction of achievement of the organization

goals.

In the initial period of 1980s, the Instructional leadership model became apparent in the

investigation on the effectual schools (Hallinger, P., 2005). Compared to the primitive models,

this model concentrated on the behaviour on how the leadership style enhanced learning

consequences (Stewart, 2006). The Instructional leadership style should include leadership

qualities and also involve organization tasks. In many cases, the instructional leadership is a

major element of efficient schools (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000). There are not enough evidence
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 8

in recent times to show that a growth in leadership quality is connected to school performance.

(Bush and Glover, 2004). Therefore, evidence based on the instructional leadership is very

limited. In this analysis, I describe that principal instructional leadership influences school

innovativeness.

Direct instructional leadership

The styles of instructional leadership should include both leadership qualities and

organizational tasks that could possibly be done by one person or with the help of another

person. When seen from one side, leadership is very essential in setting a path, which mainly

focuses on student learning and through creating goals from the organization side and create an

environment, which helps to achieve the goals. (Robinson et al., 2009). Proper organization and

encouragement are two typical strategies that are associated with the leadership behaviour.

(Cardno, 2012). The other side, the important purposes of instructional leadership involves

management tasks that includes collaborating, active planning, supervising, progressing and

evaluating (Drucker, 1955; Hallinger, 2005). The direct instructional leadership is done by the

heads of department. The particulars of the prospectus in the subject are attended by the direct

instructional leaders and so they are the direct instructional leaders for their department. (Siskin,

1991).

Recently there has been a lot of importance placed on the necessity for principals to be

direct instructional leaders. The Principal instructional leadership remains direct when focusing

on the improvement of teaching and working on the development plan of the school. Direct

instructional leadership is concentrated on the quality of the teaching teacher learning, teacher

practice, as well as the professional development plan of the school curriculum (Bendikson,

Robinson, & Hattie 2012).

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 9

In this study, based on the questionnaires selected from TALIS, the direct instructional

leadership activities are categorized as four components, all together linking the relationship of

direct instructional leadership activities to organizational development. The first dimension,

cooperating, is about collaborating with the teachers in resolving the classroom problems, and

involves direct finding of the needs for learning and development. The second dimension,

curriculum, is the beginning keyword for the word instruction, have been familiar with the

school’s strategy, departmental planning and establishing educational goals. The third dimension,

teacher evaluation, includes directly monitoring the performance of the teacher, and is based on

the observation giving constructive feedback involving professional discussions with teachers,

and understanding the importance of direct instructional leader’s capability in the teaching area.

The fourth dimension, evaluation of learning, happens through direct monitoring of the class and

observing the instruction in the classroom.

There is a diverse view about principals in schools regarding their direct involvement in

instructional development. Not many experts support this point of view, but few support this

view. The view on the direct involvement of principals in instructional development and student

achievement was supported by Gillat and Sulzer-Azaroff (1994). They believed that when the

principal behaves more like a teacher by setting goals, observing classrooms and providing

feedback, student achievement is expected to improve. As of this point of view, the principal is a

great instructional leader who must actively and directly participate in classrooms and work with

students and teachers.

Another study (Bendikson, Robinson, & Hattie 2012) found that in successful schools,

where direct instructional leadership was implemented, promising quality teaching was more

common than in the other schools. But in schools where student outcomes is in need of
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 10

improvement, a similar extent of leadership will perhaps not be found. In that case, the principal

should take a direct instructional leadership role. These results propose that the kind of effective

principal instructional leadership is reliant on the developing phase of the school. School’s

progress and different style of leadership is necessary at several phases of improvement

(Hallinger & Murphy, 1987).

Indirect instructional leadership

Principal instructional leadership becomes indirect when concentrating on creating a

situation for best possible teaching and learning.

The indirect instructional leadership creates an atmosphere to enhance learning. Indirect

instructional leadership could be the most excellent predictor of school performance (Bendikson,

Robinson, & Hattie 2012). When supporting school plans, procedures, resources, and

administration as well as high quality education and staff learning, indirect instructional

leadership promotes an environment for quality education and staff learning (Kleine-Kracht,

1993).

In this study, based on the questionnaires selected from TALIS, the indirect instructional

leadership is categorized as two components all together linking the relationship of Indirect

instructional leadership activities to organizational development, promoting trust and

collaboration, and supporting good instructional practices.

When principals concentrate on activities that are only related to teaching and avoid the

administration performances, they follow a low-level instructional leadership that is very

“narrow” (Murphy 1988). There is a misperception that the responsibilities of the principal is

smaller when there is a narrow understanding about the instructional leadership (Zhao 2018).
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 11

Then this could also lead to an assumption that responsibilities really do not need to have an

important influence on student accomplishment (Wiseman and Goesling 2000).

Nevertheless, much of the literature about instructional leadership place emphasis on the

role of principals in indirectly encouraging a learning climate favourable to student learning and

supporting teachers. My evaluation of instructional leadership describes this indirect role as

setting a goal for school mission, promoting, and collaborating, and maintaining good

instructional practices.

Principals can indirectly have an effect on teaching-learning practice. Bellibas (2015)

considers that principals can provide a favorable environment, provide chances for professional

growth, and inspire development even without directly involving the instructional method.

The majority of the demonstration specifies that school principals play an important role

in the school efficiency and student accomplishment indirectly by means of actions they take on

to control school and classroom environments (Kleine-Kracht, 1993).

Innovation in school practices

Innovation in general means something new. Innovation is used to signify any shift, no

matter how little. Innovation is not only characterized by introducing or executing new ideas or

practices. The description or meaning of innovation can be described as a process that includes

several activities to discover innovative ways to do things. It must not be mistaken for inventing,

because this can be described as the act of making, creating, or delivering something.

Nevertheless, new innovations can be associated with inventiveness. There is little research on

what innovation will bring about to the organization.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 12

Researches promoted the earlier findings, which emphasize that school principals who

concentrate on teacher involvement and certified teaching are the main actors for school

development (Çoban & Atasoy, 2020).

Previous research considered that the acceptance of innovation stimulates an organization

and directs to better organizational performance. The advancement of new technology has

created innovative practices in education, business and in government. To maintain the speed

with the globalization, the educational leaders have adopted innovative practices developing

from the beginning of new skills in the school management (Akpan, 2016).

The significance of innovation to success is accepted (Fernandes Rodrigues Alves et al.,

2018). But on the other side, knowing the significance of innovation is a bit more

confrontational, particularly in the academic sector (Birkinshaw et al., 2008).

In schooling, organizational innovativeness generally concentrates on creating a learning

organization in order to accept the innovative practices and methods and adapt to the

environmental changes rapidly. In the educational area, this term is believed as adaptation of

schools to innovative practices and methods. In order to do this, school principals must act as

instructional leaders and they must build an image for their schools. Furthermore, Gumuş, et al.

stated that the principals in the school build an encouraging, cooperative atmosphere for the

teachers. Therefore, to find a clear knowledge of the meaning of innovation, it becomes essential

to know it ahead of transforming technology. In the modern period, educational organizations are

encountering the task of doing extra with a small amount of resources as they attempt to meet up

the difficult and ever-changing needs of the people (Akpan, 2016). Modern and innovative

methods are now being applied in educational management and in teaching. Innovation in school

management and teaching, motivate innovative practices in schools (Akpan, 2016). In order for
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 13

the school administrator to be successful in the delivering of his/her administrative roles, the

person requires to be familiarized with the use of innovations in school management (Akpan,

2016). According to (Uchendu, 2015) innovation is a practice in which brand-new procedures or

methods are placed or introduced into the process of an organization to substitute older or

ineffectual ones.

Relations between leadership and innovativeness

A helpful school leader and accessibility of technical equipment were the appropriate

antecedents of innovativeness (Nilsen, Trude; Scherer, Ronny & Blömeke, Sigrid (2021)). There

is a number of aspects, frequently connected to political deviations to the education system.

Similarly, the development of school-based administration in several countries over the recent

decades, which has added more impact to the school and so a larger role for the school

administrator, as controls and responsibilities have been transferred from national level or local

towards the school. Unavoidably this has led to an evolution in the significance of the principal

and in his/her specific responsibility, and consequently to a larger attention in leadership as a

important aspect in development and school effectiveness, a report that performed to be validated

by study in school effectiveness (Teddlie and Reynolds, 2000). According to McGregor (1978)

leadership is one of the most important determining factors of achievement of every organization

project or society. Leadership according to Ukeje and Okorie (1990), creates the variation

amongst accomplishment and disappointment, amongst success and failure, amongst

improvement and non-improvement of every organization project or society.

In broad, instructional leaders come up with an active contributing part in the student’s

achievement and school leadership. Findings of “turn around” institutes and involvements into
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 14

learning and teaching consistently trust school and leadership with significant concern for

institutes and teaching efficacy (Edmonds, 1979).

Instructional leaders are the ones who in several circumstances start the course of school

development by executing a specific plan which promotes a teaching tactic (Muijs et al., 2004).

The model that occurred was that, whilst direct instructional leadership may perhaps be the better

analyst of improvement, indirect instructional leadership may possibly be the best analyst of

performance. In general, it is important to discover if principals’ instructional leadership can

describe the variance across schools and its diverse dimensions influence organizational

innovativeness and how principals’ instructional leadership.

Research Questions

The objective of this study is to show, how principal leadership style affects school

innovativeness. A principal leadership style might affect school innovativeness. Innovation in

school practices reflects school innovativeness. The research evidently states the question

“To what extent are the leadership styles of principals’ and innovation of school practices

related?”. In order to answer this question, it is hypothesised that:

1) As department heads are the direct instructional leaders in schools, innovativeness is

more probable with their indirect contribution.

2) Direct Instructional leadership can be improved with indirect approaches,

For example: providing feedback to teachers based on indirect observations.

I highlighted the fact that Direct leadership wasn’t as efficient as Indirect instructional

leadership. In Norwegian education, very little study has been done on the restructuring of

leadership teams, on one side from being an instructional leader, it is expected that the principal

will turn out to be someone who attempts and discovers innovative ideas for the organization
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 15

(Abrahamsen, Aas, and Hellekjær 2015). Innovativeness is assumed to be more associated with

the ability to change quickly ways to do things.

The specified model aims to answer the following question: "How does Principal's

leadership affect school innovativeness?".

Methodology

Sample and data

The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) is conducted

internationally, that provides a prospect for principals and teachers to deliver input into the

policy development and education analysis. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) conducts TALIS survey. Norway, along with more than 40 other

countries, is taking part in the survey. A Cross-country evaluation of the data may allow

countries to recognize, whether other countries encounter the same kind of problems, and learn

from the other policy methods. Teachers and school principals will deliver information about the

problems like the professional growth they have established; their beliefs and teaching practices;

the evaluation of teachers’ work and the response and appreciation they obtain for their work;

and numerous other management, school leadership and workplace related problems. Principals

from 161 schools from Norway responded to the survey conducted by the TALIS during 2018.

Table 1 shows the distribution of responses with type of school, gender and total experience as

principal (range). This analysis makes use of anonymized data, which is accessible from the

International large-scale assessment gathered by OECD, hence data protection obligations and

authorization from the research committee is not essential.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 16

Table 1

Responses by Category

School Type Gender Total Experience as Principal Number of Response

Public Female 0 to 9 52
10 to 14 14
15 to 19 7
20 + 4
Female Total 77
Male 0 to 9 47
10 to 14 13
15 to 19 4
20 + 6
Male Total 70
Public Total 147
Private Female 0 to 9 7
10 to 14 1
Female Total 8
Male 0 to 9 5
15 to 19 1
Male Total 6
Private Total 14
Grand Total 161
To identify this model, the following latent variables have been defined:

DILA: This variable stands for Direct Instructional Leadership Activities, and was built

from 2 observed variables: TC3G22C, TC3G22B.

IILA: This variable stands for Indirect Instructional Leadership Activities, and was built

from 3 observed variables: TC3G22F, TC3G22E, TC3G22D.

To measure the school's innovativeness, the latent variable INNOV, defined as the

"Innovation in school practice" and built with 4 observed variables (TC3G28A, TC3G28B,

TC3G28C, TC3G28D), was used, as the dependent variable.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 17

Figure 2. The model structure for the SEM specification.

Measures

Three latent were constructed using three sets of observed variables: Direct Instructional

Leadership Activities (DILA) constructed using 2 items of the principal’s questionnaire; Indirect

Instructional Leadership Activities (IILA), based on 3 items; and Innovation in school practices

(INNOV) based on 4 items. The Table 2 provides more details about each construct. The

responses were in 4-points likert scale corresponding to the values «Strongly disagree»,

«Disagree», «Agree», «Strongly agree».

Table 2

Items/questions selected from TALIS 2018 for this research

Item Id Item Description

Direct Instructional Leadership Activities (DILA):
TC3G22C Providing feedback to teachers based on principal’s observations
TC3G22B Observing instruction in the classroom
Indirect Instructional Leadership Activities (IILA):
Taking actions to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning
TC3G22F outcomes
Taking actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their
TC3G22E teaching skills
Taking actions to support cooperation among teachers to develop new teaching
TC3G22D practices
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 18

Item Id Item Description

Innovation in School Practices (INNOV):
TC3G28A The school quickly identifies the need to do things differently
TC3G28B This school quickly responds to changes when needed
TC3G28C This school readily accepts new ideas
TC3G28D This school makes assistance readily available for the development of new ideas
Note: Principal questionnaire, TALIS 2018.

Method of analyses

This study used principal questionnaires from TALIS 2018 (Dataset: TCGINTT3) to

answer the research question. The dataset is further trimmed to have the only data from Norway

and only the variables needed for this study. In addition to the variables from Table 2, school

weightage (SCHWGT) is used for the analysis. The school weight is used in this model in

accordance Rutkowski et. al's (2013), to eliminate biased estimates to the population. The

sample, which is attained here might not replicate the population, however, the school weight

will allow the analysis to replicate the population characteristics more accurately.

To examine the leadership process, that is hypothesizes to be related to school's

innovation, a scheme via SEM (Structural Equations Modelling) was elaborated. As represented

by linear structural relations (LISREL), in structural equation modelling we differentiate between

variance-based techniques and covariance-based techniques, (Jöreskog, 1970), out of which the

partial least squares (PLS) path modelling (Wold, 1975) is the utmost outstanding representative.

Structural equation modelling is a detailed statistical approach to testing hypothesis among the

relationship between a latent and observed variables (Hoyle, 1995).

The SEM framework in this study focus most on the structural model rather than the

measurement model. The hypotheses about the relationships between the latent and the observed

variables are assessed using the directions of the structural paths. The correlation among the

latent variables are also measured in order to detect any dependency, and to avoid autocorrelation
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 19

errors. Jarvis et al. (2003) projected four theoretical decision rules, which has been used to

identify the model specification. The primary rule is that the researcher should study the

theoretical path of causality between each latent variable and corresponding observed variables.

In the second rule the researcher should analyse the interchangeability of the observed variables,

when there is a removal of an item, the nature of the underlying contracts should or should not

change. Finally, the third and fourth evaluation rules refer to the presence of covariation among

the observed variables and the construct indicators. Finally, to measure the fitness of the model

as a validation step, some experimental analysis have been performed.

The model was built using the software M-Plus (version 7.3). The standardized parameter

estimates were used. The squares represent the observed variables and the arrow pointing the

observed variable are for the error terms. Ovals are used to indicate the latent variables.

Results

Item Response Distribution

The answers’ rates by item also show a normal repartition among the distributions. For

items TC3G22F (67%), TC3G22E (49%), TC3G22D (54%), TC3G28A (79.5%), TC3G28B

(79.5%), TC3G28C (62.7%) and TC3G28D (72%), the rate of “Agree” was higher than for the

other items (Figure 3). As a reminder, these items are related to IILA and INNOV.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 20

Figure 3. Answers’ rate by item

Item-Item Correlations, and Measurement Models

In the initial model, the item-item correlation was computed without residual correlation,

even though the covariance coefficients were high, the model fit was not so good. Hence the

modification indices were used to identify the item that can be correlated. Modification indices

gives information on how to improve the model based on the data.

Covariance between TC3G22C and TC3G22D was allowed, based on MPlus suggestion,

items TC3G22C and TC3G22D theoretically resembles each other, and it is proved that they

measure more of the same construct.

In the final model item-item correlation was computed with residual correlation allowing

the covariance between TC3G22C and TC3G22D, which shows good relationship between the

observed variables, with covariance coefficients higher than 0.9 (Table 6 in Appendix III).
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 21

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and correlations with confidence intervals

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. TC3G22B 1.9 0.6

2. TC3G22C 2 0.7 .67**

[.57, .74]

3. TC3G22D 2.7 0.7 .26** .46**

[.10, .39] [.33, .57]

4. TC3G22E 2.5 0.6 .16* .23** .51**

[.01, .31] [.08, .38] [.39, .62]

5. TC3G22F 2.8 0.6 .27** .19* .38** .57**

[.12, .41] [.03, .33] [.24, .51] [.45, .66]

6. TC3G28A 2.9 0.4 0.06 0.05 0.11 .18* .18*

[-.10, .21] [-.10, .21] [-.04, .26] [.02, .33] [.03, .33]

7. TC3G28B 3 0.5 0.11 0.13 0.13 .26** .19* .49**

[-.05, .26] [-.03, .28] [-.02, .28] [.11, .40] [.03, .33] [.37, .60]

8. TC3G28C 2.8 0.6 0.11 0.12 .21** .20* .21** .31** .46**
[-.05, .26] [-.04, .27] [.06, .36] [.05, .34] [.06, .36] [.16, .44] [.33, .58]

9. TC3G28D 2.9 0.5 .16* 0.16 .31** .25** .23** .28** .41** .68**
[.00, .31] [-.00, .30] [.16, .44] [.10, .39] [.08, .37] [.13, .41] [.27, .53] [.59, .76]

Note. M and SD are used to represent mean and standard deviation, respectively. Values in square brackets indicate the 95%

confidence interval for each correlation. The confidence interval is a plausible range of population correlations that could have

caused the sample correlation (Cumming, 2014). * indicates p < .05. ** indicates p < .01.

It is obvious that these items are strongly associated with each other, which would not

induce a bias into our analysis. At the same time, model fit is improved, see Table 4. Hence, the

successive model was used for our analysis.

The good goodness-of-fit test statistics show a good fit of the model (Table 4).

Table 4

Goodness-of-fit

Initial model Final model

(without residual correlation) (with residual correlation)
RMSEA 0.86 0.055
CFI 0.898 0.960
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 22

In the final model, goodness-of-fit test statistics show a good fit. Root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.055, which indicates a good fit. The Comparative Fit Index

(CFI) is0.96 which again reflects a good fit.

Instructional leadership would have an effect on school innovativeness and to check this

effect we need to look at the estimates (Table 5). The estimates 0.858, 0.735, 0.716, 0.844, 0.636,

0.383, 0.772, 0.747 and 0.485 are the factor loadings. These factors show how well the questions

really measure the constructs and as long as they are above 0.6. School leadership has higher

factor loadings. TC3G28A of school innovativeness has very low factor loadings with the value

of 0.383. The question TC3G28A does not measure school innovativeness as well as the other

three questions.

Table 5

Standardized model result, factor loadings

Estimates
DILA BY
TC3G22B 0.858
TC3G22C 0.735
IILA BY
TC3G22F 0.716
TC3G22E 0.844
TC3G22D 0.636
INNOV BY
TC3G28A 0.383
TC3G28B 0.772
TC3G28C 0.747
TC3G28D 0.485

Structural Model

Factorial analysis performed on the TALIS data underlines a three-factors relationship,

and as shown in the matrix of covariances, the dependency between the items is high. The first

factor (DILA) is significantly associated with the two items used for its construct. The second

factor (IILA) is also significantly associated with the three factors used for its construct. The

dependent latent (INNOV) is associated to all the items used for its construct (Table 3).
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 23

The relationships and the results of the SEM are summarized in Figure 4. Results show

that Direct Instructional Leadership Activity - DILA affected negatively School Innovativeness -

INNOV (-0.046), whereas Indirect Instructional Leadership Activity - IILA affected positively

School Innovativeness - INNOV (0.337). DILA was more connected with questions related to

“Providing feedback to teachers based on Principals’ observations” and “Observing instructions

in the classroom” than with “working on a professional development plan for the school”. IILA

was connected with all the items forming its construct framework. INNOV was more connected

with the following items “The school quickly identifies the way to do things differently”, “This

school makes assistance readily available for the development of new ideas.”. However, the path

to INNOV had opposite directions with DILA and IILA. Indeed, statistically significant positive

relationship between scores on IILA and INNOV was found, and there was a negative

relationship between scores on DILA and INNOV.

In Table 3 the assessment of discriminant validity was acceptable. In Figure 4 are described

the estimated indicator weighs magnitude connecting the observed variables to the corresponding

latent variables and all the results for evaluating the importance of these weighs (empirically

convergent validity).
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 24

Figure 4. Structural equation model to formalize the schools’ innovativeness regarding

Principals’ direct leadership (DILA) and Principals’ indirect leadership (IILA).

Discussion

Summary

IILA was connected with all the items forming its construct framework. INNOV was

more connected with item “The school quickly identifies the way to do things differently”, “This

school makes assistance readily available for the development of new ideas.” DILA was more

connected with questions related to “Providing feedback to teachers based on Principals’

observations” and “Observing instructions in the classroom”. However, while IILA had a

positive relation to INNOV, DILA had a negative relation to INNOV in the path model.

Discussion

This study analysed the complex relationships between Principals’ leadership and

schools’ innovativeness. School principals must act as instructional leaders and they must build
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 25

image for their schools, in order to create an innovative area of learning, must create a

supportive, collaborative environment for their teachers (Mestry, Koopasammy-Moonsammy &

Schmidt, 2013). However, this present study didn’t find enough evidence to link positively direct

instructional leadership with schools’ innovativeness. If any link would exist, this study shows

that it would be negative. Indeed, results showed that principals’ direct instructional leadership

may not be a good approach to achieve schools’ innovativeness in Norwegian schools.

Relationship between IILA and INNOV was positive. Moreover, IILA was more

connected with items related to “Providing feedback to teachers based on Principals’

observations” and “Observing instructions in the classroom”. Principal instructional leadership

becomes indirect when concentrating on creating a situation for best possible teaching and

learning. According to our study, the more indirect the Principal instructional leadership is, the

more innovative the school will be. Robust instructional leadership has been commonly accepted

as the essential factor in school development and plays an important role in improving school

effectiveness (Allen et al. 2015). However, direct instructional leadership may not be the better

way to achieve this goal. These findings are in line with other findings which found that, whilst

direct instructional leadership may perhaps be the better analyst of improvement, indirect

instructional leadership may possibly be the best analyst of performance.”

In order for the school administrator to be successful in the delivering of his/her

administrative roles, the person is required to be familiarized with the use of innovations in

school management. There are several studies on school innovativeness (e.g. Uchendu, 2015)

that defines innovation as a method where effective or new curriculums are introduced into the

procedure of an organization to change ineffective or old curricula. Findings of the relationship

between school leadership and organization innovativeness outcomes provide a confused and
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 26

inconsistent picture. However, this study findings highlight the fact that the ability to “quickly do

things in a new way” was strongly associated with schools’ innovativeness. Thus, the link

between indirect instructional leadership and innovation becomes necessarily clearer.

Limitations

The largest limitation of the study is the cross-sectional design of the data as this does not

allow for causal inferences. More robust inferences could have been drawn based on a

longitudinal design.

The covariance matrix shows a good relationship between the items used for the

construct, which allows us to avoid multicollinearity bias in our study. However, more tests of

biases detection would be better at evaluating the risk of errors. The sample representativeness is

a common limitation to observational studies based on large surveys. As these surveys respond to

a global need of information, random samples are often hard to select, particularly when the

survey covers multiple countries, as TALIS 2018. Another limitation is related to the analysis

core. We haven’t been able to define exogenous and endogenous variables. The fact is that

theoretically direct instructional and indirect instructional leadership are supposed to influence

schools’ innovativeness, separately. They exist independently of the measures and the indicators.

Because of that specific case, linear regression was used to estimate the model, but no further

analysis was performed. For example, we didn’t measure how each item is represented with

respect of each latent variable. This analysis, so-called “cross loading latent/observed variables”

allows to verify the appropriate classification of each item with the appropriate latent variable.

In addition, the fact that the DILA and INNOV were more connected to some items than

to others may be a limitation for the study results. Theoretically, DILA is a good predictor of

school’s innovativeness, even if IILA is known as a better one, based on the theoretical cadre.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 27

Therefore, this study may have not captured all the complex associations among the observed

variables and the latent variables.

Implications, contributions, future research

Muijs et al., 2004 states that in many circumstances, when instructional leaders apply a

particular inventiveness encouraging teaching, they start the process of school development. This

study shows that indirect instructional leadership may be the best approach to use, with a focus

on “Providing feedback to teachers based on Principals’ observations” and “Observing

instructions in the classroom”. This strategy may improve the quality and the effectiveness of the

school. It may boost the ability of the school to quickly do things differently, particularly by

integrating the new technology tools and techniques in the learning process. Such findings bring

more evidence that schools benefit more from a strategy where the instructional leadership is not

only done by the heads of the schools’ departments (direct), but by the teachers, through the

indirect instructional leadership of the principals. Future researches need to do further

investigations on the impact of direct instructional leadership on schools’ innovativeness,

compared with indirect instructional leadership.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 28

Reference

Abrahamsen, H., Aas, M., & Hellekjær, G. (2015). How do principals make sense of school leadership in

Norwegian reorganised leadership teams? School Leadership & Management, 35, 1–17.

[Link]

Akpan, C. (2016). INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION, PLANNING AND RESEARCH (IJEAPR), 8, 45–53.

Allen, N., Grigsby, B., & Peters, M. L. (2015). Does leadership matter? Examining the relationship among

transformational leadership, school climate, and student achievement. International Journal of

Educational Leadership Preparation, 10(2), 1-22.

Bellibas, M. S. (2015). Principals' and Teachers' Perceptions of Efforts by Principals to Improve Teaching

and Learning in Turkish Middle Schools. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 15(6), 1471-

1485.

Bendikson, L., Robinson, V., & Hattie, J. (2012). Principal instructional leadership and secondary school

performance. Set: Research Information for Teachers.

[Link]

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G. and Mol, M.J. (2008), “Management innovation”, Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 825-845, available at: [Link]

Blömeke, S., Nilsen, T., & Scherer, R. (2021). School innovativeness is associated with enhanced teacher

collaboration, innovative classroom practices, and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational

Psychology.

Burns, J.M. (1979), Leadership, Harper & Row, New York, NY

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2004). Leadership development evidence and beliefs. 26.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 29

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School Leadership Models: What Do We Know? School Leadership &

Management, 34(5), 553–571. [Link]

Cardno, C. (2012). Managing Effective Relationships in Education.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal’s Leadership as a Critical Factor for School Performance: Evidence from

Multi‐Levels of Primary Schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 299–317.

[Link]

Çoban, Ö., & Atasoy, R. (2020). Relationship between distributed leadership, teacher collaboration and

organizational innovativeness. [Link]

Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Dochy, F. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in

educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125.

[Link]

Drucker, P. (1955) The practice of Management. London: Heinemann.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective Schools for the Urban Poor. Educational Leadership, 37.

Fernandes Rodrigues Alves, M., Vasconcelos Ribeiro Galina, S., & Dobelin, S. (2018). Literature on

organizational innovation: Past and future. Innovation & Management Review, 15(1), 2–19.

[Link]

Gillat, A., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1994). Promoting principals’ managerial involvement in instructional

improvement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27. [Link]

Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., & Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership

models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration &

Leadership, 46(1), 25–48. [Link]

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional Leadership and the School Principal: A Passing Fancy that Refuses to

Fade Away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239.

[Link]
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 30

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of

Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. [Link]

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980‐

1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

[Link]

Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield (Ed.),

Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues and controversies (pp. 179-203). Boston, MA: Allyn

& Bacon.

Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and

organizational change: Reviewing the evidence. Journal of Educational Change, 8(4), 337–347.

[Link]

Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues.

In Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. (pp. 1–15). Sage

Publications, Inc.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and

Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of

Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. [Link]

Johansson, O., & Bredeson, P. V. (2011). Framtida forskningsperspektiv på rektor: Vilken forskning

saknas? In Olof Johansson (Ed.), Rektor: En forskningsöversikt 2000-2010 (Vol. 1–4:2011, pp. 61–

74). Vetenskapsrådet; DiVA. [Link]

Jöreskog, K. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structure. Biometrika, 57, 239–251.

[Link]

Kleine-Kracht, S. P. (1993). Indirect Instructional Leadership: An Administrator’s Choice. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 187–212. [Link]

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 31

McGregor, B. J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.

Mestry, R., Moonsammy-Koopasammy, I., & Schmidt, M. (2013). The instructional leadership role of

primary school principals. Education as Change, 17(sup1), S49–S64.

[Link]

Muijs, D., Harris, A. and Crawford, M. (2004), “The role of assistant heads: a review of research”, paper

presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and School Improvement,

Rotterdam, 5 January.

Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, Measurement, and Conceptual Problems in the Study of

Instructional Leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117–139.

[Link]

OECD (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development: Statistical Office of the European Communities, Paris.

OECD (2018). TALIS Technical report. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD (2018). TALIS user guide for the international database. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What

Works and Why Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES).

Rutkowski, L., von Davier, M., & Rutkowski, D. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of international large-scale

assessment: Background, technical issues, and methods of data analysis. CRC Press.

Siskin, L. S. (1991). Departments as Different Worlds: Subject Subcultures in Secondary Schools.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 134–160.

[Link]

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating School Leadership Practice: A

Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.

[Link]
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 32

Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational Leadership: An Evolving Concept Examined through the Works of

Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy,

54, Article 54. [Link]

Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012). Transformational School Leadership Effects on Student Achievement.

Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418–451.

[Link]

Teddlie, C. and Reynolds, D. (Eds) (2000) The International Handbook of School Effectiveness Research,

Falmer Press, London.

Uchendu, C. C. (2015) Change Management in Education. In C. P. Akpan, J. E.

Okon and V. O. Ebuara (eds.) Fundamentals of Educational Management (pp20-48).

Calabar: University of Calabar Press.

Ukeje, B. O. and Okorie, N. C. (1990). Leadership in educational organizations. Port Harcourt: Pan Unique

Publishing Company.

Walker(汪雅量), A. (2021). Hallinger, P., &amp; Walker, A. (2011). School leadership in Asia Pacific:

Identifying challenges and formulating a research agenda. School Leadership &amp;

Management, 31(4), 299-303.

[Link]

Asia_Pacific_identifying_challenges_and_formulating_a_research_agenda_School_Leadership_a

nd_Management_31_4_299_303

Wiseman, A. W., & Goesling, B. (2000). Principal’s behaviors, curricular centralization and student

achievement: An examination of cause and coincidence. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania

State University.

Wold, H. O. A. (1975). Soft Modelling by Latent Variables: The Non-Linear Iterative Partial Least Squares

(NIPALS) Approach. Journal of Applied Probability, 12, 117–142.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 33

Yilmaz, E. (2010). The analysis of organizational creativity in schools regarding principals’ ethical

leadership characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3949–3953.

[Link]

Zhao (2018). Understanding principal's instructional leadership: A theoretical and empirical analysis in

China. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.

THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 34

Appendix I: GDPR documents & Ethical approval

NOTIFICATION FORM (ENGLISH TRANSLATION) - NSD

Which personal data will be processed?

Name
No

National ID number or other personal identification number

No

Date of birth
No

Address or telephone number

No

Email address, IP address or other online identifier

No

Photographs or video recordings of person

No

Audio recordings of persons

No

GPS data or other geolocation data

No

Demographic data that can identify a natural person

No

Genetic data
No

Biometric data
No

Other data that can identify a natural person

No

Will special categories of personal data or personal data relating to criminal convictions and
offences be processed?

Racial or ethnic origin

No
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 35

Political opinions
No

Religious beliefs
No

Philosophical beliefs
No

Trade Union Membership

No

Health data
No

Sex life or sexual orientation

No

Criminal convictions and offences

No

Project Information
Register new project

Title
The influence of principal leadership on school innovativeness

Project description
The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of principal leadership style on school innovativeness.
A principal leadership style might affect school innovativeness. Innovation in school practices reflects
school innovativeness.

Subject area
Other subject areas

Will the collected personal data be used for other purposes, in addition to the purpose of this
project?
No personal data collected.

External funding
No

Type of project
• Student project, Master’s thesis

Responsibility for data processing

Data controller
University of Oslo (UIO)
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 36

Project leader (research assistant/ supervisor or research fellow/phD candidate)

Name : Prof. Dr. Trude Nilsen
Position : Department of Teacher Education and School Research (ILS)
Email address : [Link]@[Link]
Telephone number : -

Will the responsibility for processing personal data be shared with other institutions (joint data
controllers)?
No

Joint data controllers

Not applicable

Whose personal data will be processed.

Describe the sample
No personal data collected; I am working with data available in TALIS 2018.

Recruitment or selection of the sample

Not applicable

Age
Not applicable

Will you include adults (18 år +) who do not have the capacity to consent?
No

Types of personal data

No personal data collected.

Methods /data sources

Select and/or describe the method(s) for collecting personal data and/or the source(s) of data:
Other

Information
Will you inform the sample about processing their personal data?
Not applicable

How?
Not applicable

Explain why the sample will not be informed about the processing of their personal data.
Not applicable

Third persons
No

Documentation
Total number of data subjects in the project
(Data subjects: persons whose personal data you will be processing)
• 100-999 (sample size)
• No personal data collected.
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 37

How can data subjects get access to their personal data or how they can have their personal data
corrected or deleted?
Not applicable

Other approvals
Will you obtain any of the following approvals or permits for the project?
Not applicable

Processing
Where will be the personal data be processed?
No personal data collected

Upload guidelines/approval for processing personal data on private devices

Not applicable

Who will be processing/have access to the collected personal data?

No personal data collected

Which others will have access to the collected personal data?

No personal data collected

Will the collected personal data be made available to a third party or international organisation
outside the EEA?.
No personal data collected

Information Security
Not applicable

Duration of project
25-09-2020 to 16-12-2021

Will personal data be stored beyond the end of project period?

No, all collected data will be deleted (No personal data collected)

For what purpose(s) will the collected personal data be stored?

Research (No personal data collected)

Where will the collected personal data be stored?

No personal data collected

Additional information
Will the data subjects be identifiable (directly or indirectly) in the thesis/publications for the
project?
No

Other attachments
Not applicable
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 38

Appendix II: Data Management & Analysis Code

TITLE: How Principal’s leadership affects school innovativeness? - TALIS 2018

DATA: FILE IS Principal_Q_NOR.dat;

VARIABLE:

NAMES ARE
IDCNTRY CNTRY IDSCHOOL SCHWGT
TC3G22A TC3G22B TC3G22C TC3G22D TC3G22E
TC3G22F TC3G22G TC3G22H TC3G22I TC3G22J TC3G22K
TC3G28A TC3G28B TC3G28C TC3G28D;

USEVARIABLES ARE
TC3G22B TC3G22C
TC3G22D TC3G22E TC3G22F
TC3G28A TC3G28B TC3G28C TC3G28D;

MISSING ARE ALL (-99);

WEIGHT IS SCHWGT;

ANALYSIS:

ESTIMATOR = MLR;
PROCESSORS = 4 (STARTS);
H1ITERATIONS = 100000;

MODEL:
! Measurement models
DILA by
TC3G22B*
TC3G22C;
IILA by
TC3G22F*
TC3G22E
TC3G22D;
Innov by
TC3G28A*
TC3G28B
TC3G28C
TC3G28D;

DILA-Innov@1;

! Model modifications
TC3G22D WITH TC3G22C;

! Structural model
Innov on DILA;
Innov on IILA;

OUTPUT:
STDYX;
MOD(all);
THE INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP ON SCHOOL INNOVATIVENESS 39

Appendix III: Supplemental Material

Table 6

Covariances matrix of the observed variables

TC3G22B TC3G22C TC3G22D TC3G22E TC3G22F TC3G28A TC3G28B TC3G28C TC3G28D

TC3G22B 0.994
TC3G22C 0.988 0.988
TC3G22D 0.994 0.988 0.994
TC3G22E 0.994 0.988 0.994 0.994
TC3G22F 0.994 0.988 0.994 0.994 0.994
TC3G28A 0.988 0.981 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.994
TC3G28B 0.988 0.981 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.994 0.994
TC3G28C 0.988 0.981 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.994 0.994 0.994
TC3G28D 0.988 0.981 0.988 0.988 0.988 0.994 0.994 0.994 0.994