Using an information-processing approach, the current innovative study examines a model for the prediction of organizational learning mechanisms (OLMs), linking school principals’ cognitive complexity and OLMs through the mediating effect of an innovative climate. The model was examined for three levels of principals’ cognitive complexity (high, intermediate, and low). Study participants were 131 principals and 1,279 teachers from 131 elementary schools in Israel. Results indicated that principals’ cognitive complexity promotes organizational learning mechanisms through a climate for innovation. The model with a high level of cognitive complexity showed a better fit to the data than those with intermediate (average) and low levels of cognitive complexity.
ArgyrisC. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. Jossey-Bass.
3.
BagdasarovZ. (2009). Developing and validating a measure of cognitive complexity [PhD Thesis]. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
4.
BalkarB. (2015). Defining an empowering school culture (ESC): Teacher perceptions. Issues in Educational Research, 25(3), 205–225.
5.
BawuroF. A.DanjumaI.WajigaH. (2018). Factors influencing innovative behaviour of teachers in secondary schools in the north east of Nigeria. Path of Science, 4(3), 1007–1017.
6.
BersonY.Da’asR.WaldmanD. A. (2015). How do leaders and their teams bring about organizational learning and outcomes?Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 79–108.
7.
BieriJ. (1955). Cognitive complexity-simplicity and predictive behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 263–268.
8.
BieriJ.AdkinsA. L.BriarS.LeamanR. L.MillerH.TripodiT. (1966). Clinical and social judgement: The discrimination of behavioral information. Wiley.
9.
BlieseP. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In KleinK. J.KozlowskiS. W. J. (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). Jossey-Bass.
10.
BlieseP. D.MaltarichM. A.HendricksJ. L.HofmannD. A.AdlerA. B. (2019). Improving the measurement of group-level constructs by optimizing between-group differentiation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(2), 293–302.
11.
BowlerM. C.BowlerJ. L.PhillipsB. C. (2009). The Big-5±2? The impact of cognitive complexity on the factor structure of the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 979–984.
12.
ByrneB. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
CarraherS. M.MulveyP.ScarpelloV.AshR. (2004). Pay satisfaction, cognitive complexity, and global solutions: Is a single structure appropriate for everyone?The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 18–33.
14.
ChengS. L.ChangH. C. (2010). Cognitive complexity implications for research on sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 63, 67–70.
15.
ChenS. C.HsiaoH. C.ChangJ. C.ShenC. H.ChouC. M. (2010). School organizational innovative indicators for technical universities and institutes. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (CIER), 3(7), 43–50.
16.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.
17.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.
18.
ContuA.WillmottH. (2003). Re-embedding situatedness: The importance of power relations in learning theory. Organization Science, 14(3), 283–296.
19.
CummingsT. G.WorleyC. G. (2008). Organization development and change (9th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
20.
Da’asR. (2019). Teachers’ skill flexibility: Examining the impact of principals’ skills and teachers’ participation in decision making during educational reform. The International Journal of Educational Management, 33(2), 287–299.
21.
Da’asR.SchechterC.QadachM. (2020a). School leaders’ cognitive complexity: Impact on the Big 5 model and teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of School Leadership, 30(5), 398–423.
22.
Da’asR.SchechterC.QadachM. (2020b). From principal cognitive complexity to teacher intent to leave: Exploring the mediating role of school absorptive capacity and teacher commitment. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 227–245.
23.
Da’asR. (2021). School principals’ skills and teacher absenteeism during Israeli educational reform: Exploring the mediating role of participation in decision-making, trust and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Change, 22, 53–84.
EdmondsonA. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
26.
FidanT.OztürkI. (2015). The relationship of the creativity of public and private school teachers to their intrinsic motivation and the school climate for innovation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 905–914.
27.
FiedlerF. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw Hill.
28.
GreenG. C. (2004). The impact of cognitive complexity on project leadership performance. Information and Software Technology, 46, 165–172.
29.
GröschlS.GabaldónP.HahnT. (2019). The co-evolution of leaders’ cognitive complexity and corporate sustainability: The case of the CEO of Puma. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(3), 741–762.
30.
HahnT.PreussL.PinkseJ.FiggeF. (2014). Cognitive frames in corporate sustainability: Managerial sensemaking with paradoxical and business case frames. Academy of Management Review, 39, 463–487.
31.
HaleC. L.DeliaJ. G. (1976). Cognitive complexity and social perspective-taking. Communication Monographs, 43, 195–203.
32.
HallingerP.WangW. C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer.
33.
HarterJ. K.SchmidtF. L.HayesT. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.
34.
HockertsK. (2015). A cognitive perspective on the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 24, 102–122.
35.
HuberG. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
36.
HunsakerP. L. (2007). Using social simulations to assess and train potential leaders to make effective decisions in turbulent environments. Career Development International, 12, 341–360.
37.
IgartuaJ. J.HayesA. F. (2021). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: Concepts, computations, and some common confusions. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 24, e49.
38.
IsaksenS. G.EkvallG. (2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climates. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88.
39.
JamesL. R.DemareeR. G.WolfG. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
40.
JungD. I.ChowC.WuA. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4–5), 525–544.
41.
KellyG. A. (1991). The psychology of personal constructs. Routledge.
42.
KnappM. S.FeldmanS. B. (2012). Managing the intersection of internal and external accountability. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 666–694.
43.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.
44.
KruseS. D. (2003). Remembering as organizational memory. Journal of Educational Administration, 41(4), 332–347.
45.
KunduA.RoyD. D. (2016). Innovative work behaviour of school teachers: Role of belief for innovation and personality patterns. Journal of Organization and Human Behaviour, 5(1), 9–16.
46.
KurlandH.PeretzH.Hertz-LazarowitzR. (2010). Leadership style and organizational learning: The mediate effect of school vision. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(1), 7–30.
47.
LeeF.PetersonC. (1997). Content analysis of archival data. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 959–969.
48.
LipshitzR.PopperM. (2000). Organizational learning in a hospital. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(3), 345–361.
49.
LouisK. S.MurphyJ. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader’s role. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 103–126.
50.
LouisK. S.RobinsonV. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50, 629–665.
51.
Masry-HerzallahA.Da’asR. (2021). Cultural values, school innovative climate and organizational affective commitment: A study of Israeli teachers. The International Journal of Educational Management, 35(2), 496–512.
52.
McCharenB.SongJ.MartensJ. (2011). School innovation: The mutual impacts of organizational learning and creativity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(6), 676–694.
53.
McRoyI.GibbsP. (2009). Leading change in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 687–704.
54.
MitchellT. R. (1970). Leader complexity and leadership style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 166–174.
55.
MoonH. K.ChoiB. K. (2014). How an organization’s ethical climate contributes to customer satisfaction and financial performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(1), 85–106.
56.
MulfordB.SilinsH. (2011). Revised models and conceptualisation of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. The International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 61–82.
57.
MurphyJ.NeumerskiC. M.GoldringE.GrissomJ.PorterA. (2016). Bottling fog? The quest for instructional management. Cambridge Journal of Education, 46(4), 455–471.
58.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012). Mplus version 7 user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
59.
NewmanA.RoundH.WangS.MountM. (2020). Innovation climate: A systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 73–109.
60.
NewmanD. A.SinH. P. (2020). Within-group agreement (rWG): Two theoretical parameters and their estimators. Organizational Research Methods, 23(1), 30–64.
61.
NirA. E.HameiriL. (2014). School principals’ leadership style and school outcomes: The mediating effect of powerbase utilization. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(2), 210–227.
62.
NonakaI.ToyamaR. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.
63.
ParjanenS. (2012). Experiencing creativity in the organization: From individual creativity to collective creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 7, 109–128.
64.
ParzefallM.SeeckH.LeppänenA. (2008). Employee innovativeness in organizations: A review of the antecedents. Finnish Journal of Business Economics, 2(8), 165–182.
65.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PaineJ. B.BachrachD. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563.
66.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
67.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233.
68.
QadachM.SchechterC.Da’asR. (2020). From principals to teachers to students: Exploring an integrative model for predicting students’ achievements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56, 736–778.
69.
RonquilloJ. C. (2011). The climate for innovation in public and nonprofit organizations [PhD thesis]. University of Georgia.
70.
SalehS. D.WangC. K. (1993). The management of innovation: Strategy, structure and organizational climate. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 40(1), 14–21.
71.
SchechterC. (2008). Organizational learning mechanisms: The meaning, measure, and implications for school improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 155–186.
72.
SchechterC.AtarchiL. (2014). The meaning and measure of organizational learning mechanisms in secondary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 577–609.
73.
SchechterC.QadachM. (2012). Toward an organizational model of change in elementary schools: The contribution of organizational learning mechanisms. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 116–153.
74.
SchechterC.ShakedH. (2017). Leaving fingerprints: Principals’ considerations while implementing education reforms. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(3), 242–260.
75.
SchroderH.DriverM.StreufertS. (1967). Human information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations. Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
76.
ScottS. G.BruceR. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607.
77.
SengeP. M.DowM.NeathG. (2006). Learning together: New partnerships for new times. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 420–430.
78.
SubramanianA.NilakantaS. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: Exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631–647.
79.
SuedfeldP. (2010). The complexity construct in political psychology: Personological and cognitive approaches. Retrieved February, 2010 from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA523334.pdf
80.
WestM. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology, 51(3), 355–387.
81.
WongE. M.OrmistonM. E.TetlockP. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1207–1228.
82.
WoznyjH. M.BanksG. C.DunnA. M.BerkaG.WoehrD. (2020). Re-introducing cognitive complexity: A meta-analysis and agenda for future research. Human Performance, 33(1), 1–33.
