Event Information
This study is grounded in institutional theory (Scott, 2013; Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) and complexity theory (Marion, 1999), examining how leaders navigate competing institutional logics while responding to disruptive contexts. It also draws on institutional entrepreneurship to understand how leaders act as change agents under pressure, enabling innovation to emerge despite systemic constraints.
This qualitative study used a phenomenological design to capture the lived experiences of K–12 school leaders navigating disruption. Participants (n = 12) were selected through purposive sampling to represent diverse school contexts and leadership roles. Semi-structured interviews explored leaders’ perceptions of institutional pressures, strategies for balancing compliance and innovation, and reflections on equity and access. Data were transcribed, coded inductively, and analyzed through iterative cycles to surface emergent themes, supported by memoing and peer debriefing to ensure credibility and trustworthiness.
Findings reveal that leaders experienced three primary institutional pressures: policy compliance, accountability demands, and community expectations. In response, they engaged in adaptive strategies that both constrained and enabled innovation. Leaders described moments when disruption created “cracks” in established systems, opening opportunities for new practices such as technology-rich collaboration, cross-school networks, and student-centered approaches. The results suggest that disruption can act as a catalyst for institutional entrepreneurship, allowing leaders to reframe pressures into opportunities for system-level innovation.
This study contributes to scholarship by bridging institutional theory with practical leadership frameworks, showing how innovation emerges under disruption. For ISTE audiences, the findings provide insight into how leaders can sustain equity, agency, and resilience while navigating systemic pressures. The study also informs professional learning by offering concrete strategies that coaches, principals, and district leaders can use to balance compliance with next practices in technology integration.
Ashworth, R., Boyne, G., & Delbridge, R. (2009). Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165-187.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Dacin, M. T., Goodstein, J., & Scott, W. R. (2002). Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 45-56.
Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Institutional entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 28(7), 957-969.
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460-484). Oxford University Press.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–128). SAGE Publications.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
Van Manen, M. (2014). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Left Coast Press.
Back
Trips and Tours