Knowledge influencers: leaders influencing knowledge creation and mobilization
| Pages | 332-357 |
| Date | 29 April 2014 |
| Published date | 29 April 2014 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0013 |
| Author | Steven Reid |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy |
Knowledge influencers: leaders
influencing knowledge creation
and mobilization
Steven Reid
York Region District School Board, Newmarket,
Canada and University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of leaders on knowledge creation
and mobilization.
Design/methodology/approach – This mixed methods study included three high-performing
districts based on provincial assessment results and socio-economic factors. Interviews and q uestionnaires
were used to gather data from 53 participants including: 11 principals, 11 teacher leaders, 26 teachers,
and five system leaders.
Findings – The findings of the study emphasized the impo rtance of leaders supporting knowledge
creation and mobilization processes through practices such as engaging school-based knowledge
influencers and fostering cultures of trust and risk taking. The author defined knowledge influencers
as leaders, formal or informal, who have access to knowledge creating groups at the local and system
level. These leaders influenced knowledge mobilization at different levels of the district.
Research limitations/implications – A research limitation of this study was present based on the
sole use of high-perfor ming districts and schools. Participation was determined via comparisons of
provincial assessment results (Ontario, Canada) and socio-economic status (SES) factors. Although
causal effects are cautioned, districts and schools from various SES communities (high, medium, low)
were chosen to support broad generalizations and associations.
Practical implications – This study provided pragmatic considerations and recommendations for
system and school leaders, those charged with increasing student achievement (e.g. use of knowledge
influencers and an expanded array of data use while creating knowledge).
Originality/value – A knowledge creation model was developed by the author based on a synthesis
of the findings. The model and study will be of interest to those wishing to further implement or study
the creation and mobilization of knowledge within organizations.
Keywords Principals, Teams, Knowledge, Leadership, Education, Creation, Mobilization,
Teacher learning, Influencer, Superintendent
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This study examined how leaders influence the creation and mobilization of knowledge
across schools and districts. Ultimately, the leaders’ role is meant to p ositively affect
student achievement, the core purpose of educational institutions. The leaders’ direct
impact on the system can be actualized through the promotion of environments that
encourage data analyses, dialogue, trust, reflection, an d adult learning. Leithwood et al.
(2010) found that the attention afforded to student achievement can be classified as
relentless in high-performing schools. As adults come together to create knowledge ,
their mission includes the positive impact on student learning. A foundational premise
of this study embraced a belief that effective leadership supports evidence-based
decision-making processes, thereby, positively influencing instructional practices
and the learning opportunities for all students. As teams participate in knowledge
creation processes and transform data into knowledge, the resultant evidence suppo rts
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Received 26 January 2013
Revised 9 June 2013
27 July 2013
7 September 2013
Accepted 30 September2013
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 52 No. 3, 2014
pp. 332-357
rEmeraldGroup PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0013
332
JEA
52,3
informed decision making. For the purposes of this study, knowledge creation was
considered a social process on the part of educators and school/system leaders
(Argyris and Scho
¨n, 1996; Katz et al., 2009; Wenger, 2000; Wenger et al., 2002).
These individuals collectively connected their context and understandings to the
various data, resulting in information about students and environmental factors.
Knowledge was created as teachers synthesized information by drawing on their
beliefs and understandings, and prepared for action (Ackoff, 1989; Breiter and Light,
2006; Nonaka et al., 2000). As the teams created and shared knowledge with others
at different levels of the organization, knowledge was amplified and mobilized
as knowledge moved through individuals, groups, divisions, and organizations.
A process of organizational learning occurred when the new knowledge of individuals
became part of the practices of the organization (Hedberg, 1981; Fiol and Lyles, 1985;
Robinson, 1995).
The concept of knowledge creation has unquestionably found an audience in the
world of business (Nonaka, 1991). When reviewing the success of Japanese companies,
Nonaka (1994) alleged that organizational knowledge creation required the
amplification of knowledge created by individuals by mobilizing the knowledge
throughout the organization. For example, the importance of Japanese middle
managers was emphasized as they played a mediation role between the senior
managers’ vision of the organization and the realities of those working on the front line
or ground floor. When considering an educational district, the principal also embodies
a vital leadership position by promoting knowledge creation within the p arameters
of the district as set out by system leaders and the specific context of the school.
In spite of the importance of organizational knowledge, Fullan (2001) admitted that
organizations rarely invest in “knowledge sharing and creation,” finding it extremely
difficult to orchestrate (p. 79). Similarly, Edge (2005) asserted there is a reluctance
of public sector organizations to investigate knowledge management frameworks.
These sentiments have been shared by several researchers, indicating further research
is required in understanding how organizations create and mobilize knowledge
(Hargreaves, 1999; Nonaka and Toyama, 2003). In doing so, corresponding knowledge
creation and mobilization theories and models can be developed (Harg reaves, 1999).
With this in mind, this study analyzed how leaders influence the creation and
mobilization of knowledge in order to support effective instructional practices
and ultimately foster student achievement.
The knowledge creation and mobilization literature
A broad range of theories established the knowledge creation and mobilization
framework for this study. However, the framework is not meant to be exhaustive.
The researcher selected theories that informed the investigation of the leaders’
influence on knowledge creation and mobilization: information and knowledge theory,
organizational learning theory, and organizational knowledge creation theory.
Information and knowledge theory
Conceptualizations of knowledge creation and mobilization processes are essentially
founded on the beliefs of what encompasses knowledge and how knowledg e is
acquired. Ackoff (1989), Drucker (1989), and Breiter and Light (2006) outlined the
processes involved in transforming data into knowledge. These processes required
individuals to determine which data to analyze and ultimately use to make decisions,
thus the creation of actionable knowledge occurred. The process of paying attention to
333
Knowledge
creation and
mobilization
To continue reading
Request your trial