School leader trust and collective teacher innovativeness: on individual and organisational ambidexterity’s mediating role

References

• Adams, C. M., & Miskell, R. C. (2016). Teacher trust in district administration: A promising line of inquiry. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(4), 675–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16652202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ainley, J., & Carstens, R. (2018). Teaching and learning international survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual framework (OECD education working papers no. 187). OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/799337c2-en
   Google Scholar
• Akar, S. G. M. (2019). Does it matter being innovative: Teachers’ technology acceptance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(6), 3415–3432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09933-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3%3C235::AID-JOB837%3E3.0.CO;2-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, K., & Liljenberg, M. (2020). ‘Tell us what, but not how’ – understanding intra-organisational trust among principals and LEA officials in a decentralised school system. School Leadership & Management, 40(5), 465–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1832980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1287orsc.1080.0406.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arar, K. (2020). School leadership for refugees’ education: Social justice leadership for immigrant, migrants and refugees. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021770
   Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010371972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augier, M. (2004). James March on education, leadership, and Don Quixote: Introduction and interview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.13500521
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Augier, M. (2018). March, James G. (Born 1928). In M. Augier, & D. J. Teece (Eds.), The Palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management (pp. 960–967). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_642
   Google Scholar
• Beus, J. M., Jarrett, S. M., Bergman, M. E., & Payne, S. C. (2012). Perceptual equivalence of psychological climates within groups: When agreement indices do not agree. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85(3), 454–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02049.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingham, A. J., & Burch, P. (2019). Reimagining complexity: Exploring organizational ambidexterity as a lens for policy research. Policy Futures in Education, 17(3), 402–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318813269
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blase, J., & Björk, L. (2009). The micropolitics of educational change and reform: Cracking open the black box. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 237–258). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6_14
   Google Scholar
• 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, 113(8), 1645–1667. http://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000668
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bormann, I., Niedlich, S., & Würbel, I. (2021). Trust in educational settings—What it is and why it matters. European Perspectives. European Education, 53(3-4), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2022.2080564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brix, J. (2019). Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-02-2019-0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brower, H. H., Lester, S. W., Korsgaard, M. A., & Dineen, B. R. (2009). A closer look at trust between managers and subordinates: Understanding the effects of both trusting and being trusted on subordinate outcomes. Journal of Management, 35(2), 327–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307312511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader–member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(2), 227–250. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00040-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Busco, C., Riccaboni, A., & Scapens, R. W. (2006). Trust for accounting and accounting for trust. Management Accounting Research, 17, 11–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2005.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Buske, R. (2018). The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers’ innovativeness – Analyzing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance-based partial least square modeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(2), 262–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1427606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyukgoze, H., Caliskan, O., & Gümüs, S. (2022). Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221130879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byun, G., Dai, Y., Lee, S., & Kang, S. (2017). Leader trust, competence, LMX, and member performance: A moderated mediation framework. Psychological Reports, 120(6), 1137–1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117716465
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796. http://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Escorcia-Caballero, J. P. (2020). Linking organizational trust and performance through ambidexterity. Personnel Review, 49(4), 956–973. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-07-2018-0239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chams-Anturi, O., Moreno-Luzon, M. D., & Romano, P. (2022). The role of formalization and organizational trust as antecedents of ambidexterity: An investigation on the organic agro-food industry. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 25(3), 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/2340944420966331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandler, G. N., Keller, C., & Lyon, D. W. (2000). Unraveling the determinants and consequences of an innovative-supportive organizational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225870002500106
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. K., Spillane, J. P., & Peurach, D. J. (2018). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Zapata, C. P., & Wild, R. (2011). Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 999–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cosner, S. (2009). Building organizational capacity through trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 248–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human Relations, 53(12), 1575–1591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da’as, R. A. (2021). The missing link: Principals’ ambidexterity and teacher creativity. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da’as, R. A. (2022). Principals’ attentional scope and teacher creativity: The role of principals’ ambidexterity and knowledge sharing. International Journal of Leadership in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2027525
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693–716. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.42.5.693
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, G., & Hartog, D. N. D. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557–588. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480610682299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Distel, A. P. (2019). Unveiling the microfoundations of absorptive capacity: A study of Coleman’s Bathtub model. Journal of Management, 45(5), 2014–2044. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631774196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311415280
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (pp. 167–188). North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/3094828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0564
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernst, C., & Yip, J. (2009). Boundary-spanning leadership: Tactics to bridge social identity groups in organizations. In T. Pittinsky (Ed.), Crossing the divide: Intergroup leadership in a world of difference (pp. 87–99). Harvard Business Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 324–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2020). Microfoundations for institutional theory? Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 65, 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X2019000065B031
   Google Scholar
• Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575–632. http://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1007651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, P., Harriott, T., Healy, G., Arenge, G., & Wilson, E. (2022). Pressures and influences on school leaders navigating policy development during the COVID-19 pandemic. British Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 201–227. http://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3760
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fullan, M. (2016). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fulmer, C. A., & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1167–1230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312439327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., Birkinshaw, J., McDaniel Sumpter, D., & Ambos, T. (2019). The hierarchical erosion effect: A new perspective on perceptual differences and business performance. Journal of Management Studies, 56(8), 1713–1747. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. B., Cooper, C. D., & Conger, J. A. (2009). Do you see what we see? The complex effects of perceptual distance between leaders and teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013073
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021, February). How principals affect students and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. Wallace Foundation. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/How-Principals-Affect-Students-and-Schools.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699
   Google Scholar
• Hallinger, P. (2016). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Handford, V., & Leithwood, K. (2013). Why teachers trust school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304706
   Google Scholar
• Hargreaves, D. H. (2001). A capital theory of school effectiveness and improvement. British Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920120071489
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., & Chapman, C. (2013). Effective leadership for school improvement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203754849
   Google Scholar
• Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1811479
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Havermans, L. A., Den Hartog, D. N., Keegan, A., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2015). Exploring the role of leadership in enabling contextual ambidexterity. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 179–200. http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21764
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. http://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmieleski, K. M., Carr, J. C., & Baron, R. A. (2015). Integrating discovery and creation perspectives of entrepreneurial action: The relative roles of founding CEO human capital, social capital, and psychological capital in contexts of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(4), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoy, A. W., Hoy, W. K., & Kurz, N. M. (2008). Teacher’s academic optimism: The development and test of a new construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(4), 821–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2007.08.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00597.x
   Google Scholar
• Jalonen, H. (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4(1), 1–47. http://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v4i1.1039
   Google Scholar
• Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5–18. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kauppila, O. P., & Tempelaar, M. P. (2016). The social-cognitive underpinnings of employees’ ambidextrous behavior and the supportive role of group managers’ leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 1019–1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern, B. D., & Graber, K. C. (2018). Understanding teacher change: A national survey of US physical educators. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 89(1), 80–90. http://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2017.1411579
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, E. D., & Schwanenberg, J. (2022). Ready to lead school improvement? Perceived professional development needs of principals in Germany. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220933901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kovačević, J., & Hallinger, P. (2019). Leading school change and improvement: A bibliometric analysis of the knowledge base (1960–2017). Journal of Educational Administration, 57(6), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2019-0018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1287/ORSC.9.3.255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladegard, G., & Gjerde, S. (2014). Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 631–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2014.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lance, C. E., Dawson, B., Birkelbach, D., & Hoffman, B. J. (2010). Method effects, measurement error, and substantive conclusions. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LEAQUA.2014.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416521003691287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020a). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leithwood, K., Sun, J., & Schumacker, R. (2020b). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The four paths model”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19878772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, V., Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2016). The divergent effects of transformational leadership on individual and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 41(1), 66–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115573792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Zhao, H., & Henderson, D. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. http://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Q. (2022). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Q., She, Z., & Yang, B. (2018). Promoting innovative performance in multidisciplinary teams: The roles of paradoxical leadership and team perspective taking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linder, S., & Foss, N. J. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational goals: A review and new directions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12154
   Google Scholar
• Loeb, C., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Hasson, H., & Tafvelin, S. (2022). Congruence rules! increased self-efficacy after occupational health interventions—if leaders and teams agree on the participative safety climate. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), http://doi.org/10.16993/sjwop.153
   Google Scholar
• Louis, K. (2007). Trust and Improvement in schools. Journal of Educational Change, 8(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-9015-5
   Google Scholar
• Louis, K. S., & Murphy, J. F. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: The leader’s role. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2016-0077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Maclean, M., Harvey, C., Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2021). The role of innovation narratives in accomplishing organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 19(4), 693–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127019897234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnani, G., & Zucchella, A. (2018). Uncertainty in entrepreneurship and management studies: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 13(3), 98–133. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v13n3p98
   Google Scholar
• Manz, C. C., Bastien, D. T., Hostager, T. J., & Shapiro, G. L. (1989). Leadership and innovation: A longitudinal process view. In A. H. Van de Ven H, L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The Minnesota studies (pp. 613–636). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cut-off values for fit index and dangers of overgeneralizing Hu & Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGeown, V. (1980). Dimensions of teacher innovativeness. British Educational Research Journal, 6, 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192800060204
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J., Chang, Y. Y., Cholakova, M., & Jansen, J. J. (2019). A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. Journal of Management, 45(7), 3009–3034. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318776775
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moolenaar, N. M., & Sleegers, P. J. (2010). Social networks, trust, and innovation. How social relationships support trust and innovative climates in Dutch Schools. In A. Daily (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 97–114). Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), 705–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00158-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Nee, V., Holm, H. J., & Opper, S. (2018). Learning to trust: From relational exchange to generalized trust in China. Organization Science, 29(5), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nemanich, L. A., & Vera, D. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, A., Round, H., Wang, S., & Mount, M. L. (2020). Innovation climate: A systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 93(1), 73–109. http://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen, D., Pietsch, M. & Gümüs, S. (2021). Collective teacher innovativeness in 48 countries: Effects of teacher autonomy, collaborative culture, and professional learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Reilly IIIC. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 technical report. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS_2018_Technical_Report.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly IIIC. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly IIIC. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Lead and disrupt: How to solve the innovator’s dilemma. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Shea, C. (2021). How relationships impact teacher job satisfaction. International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 5(2), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.51383/ijonmes.2021.114
   Google Scholar
• Papachroni, A., & Heracleous, L. (2020). Ambidexterity as practice: Individual ambidexterity through paradoxical practices. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(2), 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320913048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314553101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2016). In pursuit of ambidexterity: Managerial reactions to innovation–efficiency tensions. Human Relations, 69(9), 1791–1822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715625343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P. & Cramer, C. (2022a). Innovating teaching and instruction in turbulent times: The dynamics of principals’ exploration and exploitation activities. Journal of Educational Change. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103463
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., & Cramer, C. (2022b). Principals between exploitation and exploration: Results of a nationwide study on ambidexterity of school leaders. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Risse, T., & Börzel, T. A. (2015). Dysfunctional institutions, social trust and governance in areas of limited statehood. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, 67. Collaborative Research Center (SFB) 700. http://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-21967
   Google Scholar
• Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamon, S. D., & Robinson, S. L. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 593–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankowska, A. (2013). Relationships between organizational trust, knowledge transfer, knowledge creation, and firm’s innovativeness. The Learning Organization, 20(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696471311288546
   Google Scholar
• Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwabsky, N., Erdogan, U., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2019). Predicting school innovation: The role of collective efficacy and academic press mediated by faculty trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 246–262. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2019-0029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serva, M. A., Fuller, M. A., & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 625–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, D., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2020). The effect of estimation methods on SEM fit indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(3), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419885164
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, W. K., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). Both/and leadership. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 62–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spreitzer, G. M., & Mishra, A. K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control: Trust and its substitutes’ effects on managers’ involving employees in decision making. Group & Organization Management, 24(2), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199242003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stoll, L., & Kools, M. (2017). The school as a learning organization: A review revisiting and extending a timely concept. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 2(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-09-2016-0022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strober, M. (2011). Interdisciplinary conversations: Challenging habits of thought. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suh, Y. (2015). The performance of maximum likelihood and weighted least square mean and variance adjusted estimators in testing differential item functioning with nonnormal trait distributions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(4), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tafvelin, S., von Thiele Schwarz, U., & Hasson, H. (2017). In agreement? Leader-team perceptual distance in organizational learning affects work performance. Journal of Business Research, 75, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarba, S. Y., Jansen, J. J., Mom, T. J., Raisch, S., & Lawton, T. C. (2020). A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Planning, 53(6), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2020.102048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terhart, E. (2019). Critical overview of teacher education in Germany. In G. W. Noblit (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education (pp. 1–22). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.377
   Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools – The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in high-performing schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2012-0024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of Educational Research, 70, 547–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulowitzki, P. (2015). The development of educational leadership and teaching professions in Germany. ECPS - Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 11, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2015-011-tulo
   Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organization: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M. L., Smith, W. K., & Binns, A. (2011). The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 74–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M., & Scanlan, T. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.2307/255842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatraman, M. P., & Price, L. L. (1990). Differentiating between cognitive and sensory innovativeness: Concepts, measurement, and implication. Journal of Business Research, 20(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(90)90008-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C. L., & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech Firms. British Journal of Management, 25(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, N., & Lynn, P. (2021). Refreshment sampling for longitudinal surveys. In: P. Lynn (Eds.), Advances in Longitudinal Survey Methodology (pp. 1–25). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119376965.ch1
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. (2006). From nuts and bolts to toolkits: Theorizing with mechanisms. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605280237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zacher, H., & Rosing, K. (2015). Ambidextrous leadership and team innovation. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-11-2012-0141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar