School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement

Alzouebi, Khadeegha; Al Hammadi, Dua Yousif; Ankit, Ahmed; Abu Khurma, Othman

doi:10.3390/soc15040077

Open AccessArticle

School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement

¹

School of Education, Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University, Dubai 71400, United Arab Emirates

²

Emirates School Establishment, Abu Dhabi 106621, United Arab Emirates

³

Pedagogy, Technology and Teacher Education Division, Emirates College for Advanced Education, Abu Dhabi 126662, United Arab Emirates

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Societies 2025, 15(4), 77; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040077

Submission received: 31 December 2024 / Revised: 4 March 2025 / Accepted: 22 March 2025 / Published: 24 March 2025

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Innovation in education is essential for fostering improved learning outcomes, operation efficiency and school excellence. Many challenges persist due to due to gaps in leadership strategies, limited stakeholder engagement, and inadequate professional development opportunities. This study explores the role of school principals in promoting a culture of innovation in private schools in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Methods: A quantitative research design was employed, utilizing an electronic questionnaire to examine how school leaders drive innovation. The study explores the correlation between a culture of innovation and five key elements: school leadership performance, relationships with students and parents, school activities and programs, the overall school environment, and principals’ demographic factors. An innovation assessment tool measured the level of innovation across selected schools. Results: By identifying key school performance weaknesses, this study aims to provide insights that can help school principals enhance their leadership practices and cultivate a thriving culture of innovation within their institutions. Conclusions: The findings contribute to understanding teachers’ and staff members’ propensity to innovate under effective school leadership.

Keywords:

innovation; culture of innovation; school principals; private schools; United Arab Emirates

1. Introduction and Background

Education systems face, in the current era, unprecedented challenges in preparing students for an uncertain future. Due to the high expectations and demands placed on this institution, school leaders and educators are required to innovate in both the theory and practice of their roles while doing the same across all other areas of their organizations [1]. Leaders are expected to embrace and foster innovation to ensure relevance and uniqueness. Innovation in education encompasses a broad spectrum of novel practices, policies, and technologies aimed at enhancing teaching, learning, and administrative processes, for example nurturing and to cope with current innovations, embracing technology-based initiatives including robotics competitions, and students’ utilization and engagement with artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT (version o1) [2,3]. It encompasses both incremental improvements and transformative changes aimed at improving student engagement and educational outcomes. To succeed, leaders must have a strong sense of how this innovation can be realized [4].

Successful organizations encourage team members to innovate and to think creatively. Organizations must break through silos, provide clear direction, and provide resources necessary to expand ideas to innovate further [5]. School leadership is essential in cultivating a culture of innovation in a school’s environment. Nurturing a successful culture of innovation in school environments requires efficient efforts in different areas, such as performance of school leadership, school relationships with the students and parents, school activities and programs, research and innovation, and the school’s overall environment, even the non-cognitive outcomes elements that are affected by the learning environment [6].

In the education sector, innovation is imperative to ensure “quality preparation of all students for life and work with school principals playing a major role in driving this culture within their schools” [1]. Accordingly, the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) National Agenda created a goal for all schools to have exceptional leadership and internationally accredited teaching staff so as to utilize the full capability of its human capital by expanding the participation of Emirati people, promoting entrepreneurship, and developing home-grown leaders from both the public and private sectors while maintaining and investing in the most outstanding talent from its workforce [7].

In an era of competitiveness and constant change, school leaders, staff, teachers, and students are expected to be innovative to thrive amongst other schools. This study explores the role of Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) principals in building and sustaining a culture of innovation within their schools. As part of its commitment to educational excellence, the UAE introduced a seven-year National Agenda that culminated in UAE Vision 2021 on the country’s 50th National Day. Developed by over 300 officials across various government sectors, this agenda established long-term indicators to track national progress in key areas, including education, justice, law and order, economy, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure. These benchmarks compare UAE’s educational advancements against international standards, ensuring alignment with national priorities [7]. Given the UAE’s emphasis on fostering innovation, school leadership plays a crucial role in translating these national goals into practical initiatives within educational institutions.

The second president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, enacted Law No. 24 of 2005 on September 10, establishing the Abu Dhabi Education Council. The Abu Dhabi Education Council was renamed the Department of Education and Knowledge by Royal Decree in September 2017 by His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates. Thus, Law No. 9 of 2018 was enacted to establish the Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) as a replacement for the Abu Dhabi Education Council [8].

1.1. Problem Statement

The United Arab Emirates’ education sector has prioritized fostering a culture of innovation as a key strategic objective. The Ministry of Education’s strategic plan for 2017–2021 emphasized building this culture to enhance the sustainability and efficiency of the educational system. A goal of Abu Dhabi Department of Education and Knowledge (ADEK) is to enhance Abu Dhabi’s education system and foster a culture of innovation, creativity, sustainability, and quality, focusing on developing social, personal, and economic abilities [8]. A fruitful culture of innovation can lead to successful change and progress in any organization as it ensures continuous development and stimulates change among team members. A school principal has the potential to significantly impact their school environment positively by establishing a culture of innovation and growth. Once this culture is launched, an atmosphere of creativity and innovation is likely to permeate the school, potentially producing remarkable results in teaching and learning. Frequently, school principals who fail to foster an early culture of innovation in their schools struggle to engage and motivate their staff as they are often reluctant to change and prefer the comfort of old routines and teaching practices [9].

1.2. Study Objectives

The main aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between school principals’ characteristics and their effectiveness in fostering a culture of innovation within ADEK private schools in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Specifically, the study seeks to examine:

The correlation between principals’ years of experience and credentials and their ability to cultivate an effective culture of innovation.
The relationship between principals’ roles in fostering innovation and their capacity to motivate staff and teachers to innovate.
The connection between building a successful culture of innovation and five key elements in schools:
○
Performance of school leadership
○
School relationships with the students and parents
○
School activities and programs
○
School overall environment
○
Research and Innovation

The result of this study will help future leaders excel in developing innovative culture in alignment with the Ministry of Education’s strategic plan for education and ADEK’s main objectives [10].

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Role of School Principals in Cultivating a Culture of Innovation in Schools

Innovation in education refers to the introduction of novel teaching methodologies, technological advancements, and organizational strategies that enhance student learning and school operations [1]. It is a continuous process that fosters creativity, adaptability, and problem-solving in an educational setting. Leadership modelling of target values is the key to success, whether to change an existing culture to drive innovation or to ensure a strong culture following a merger or acquisition [9]. The focus is on beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, and working styles that support the innovative culture and setting the necessary structures to ensure that it “sticks”.

For meaningful change to occur, leadership innovation must penetrate the entire institution and centre around trust—the belief that school principals place in their teams to achieve engaged transformation. This shift may be particularly challenging for leaders accustomed to a more directive approach rather than an empowering one. However, trust and empowerment go hand in hand; when school principals give teachers the autonomy to make instructional decisions, they are more likely to take ownership of innovative practices [9].

Different leadership styles play a crucial role in shaping a school’s innovation culture. Transformational leaders, who inspire and motivate their teams through a shared vision, foster an environment where creativity and experimentation are encouraged. Distributed leadership, where decision-making is shared among teachers and staff, allows for greater collaboration and innovation at all levels. In contrast, authoritarian leadership may restrict innovation by enforcing rigid structures that discourage risk-taking. When principals establish collaborative learning structures and promote a culture that embraces change, teachers and students are more likely to engage in creative problem-solving and explore new teaching methodologies [11].

Ultimately, the school principal serves as the driving force behind promoting and evaluating all novel educational initiatives. Effective leadership not only supports the adoption of innovation but also ensures that instructional strategies, staff training, and institutional management align with a forward-thinking vision. This requires strong coordination of collective intelligence, ongoing professional development, and an adaptive leadership approach that continuously fosters innovation in learning environments [12]. Are these leadership practices significant in showing the school community’s visible and tangible innovative practices? Who decides that? Innovation may not arise explicitly in annual appraisals of school leaders. Therefore, this lack of definition leads to an emergent need to know what to do as a school leader to innovate. This is why what is needed is nurturing a culture of innovation, an establishing climate where innovation can emerge intentionally according to a set of systematic procedures taken by school leaders. Hereby, this study is concerned with whether these systematic procedures will shape “the culture of innovation” as per the perceived leadership practices, which is the focus of research question one.

Riveras-León and Tomàs-Folch [13] stated that a principal’s actions are critical in forming an innovative and successful organization. Their research found that schools that had higher innovation capabilities were more likely to achieve pedagogical and behavioural targets. Such schools demonstrated the essential components required to define themselves as innovative institutions. Moreover, the findings show that teachers value their principals’ involvement in decision-making, taking on responsibilities and challenges and constantly feeling like a core part of the institution. Positive outcomes are more likely when staff are encouraged to work collaboratively in a healthy atmosphere where value and consideration are given to their opinions and ideas. Teachers believe that school leaders’ involvement in new and innovative activities is essential to the school’s growth and innovation. This reiterates the fact that principals have a significant influence on development and innovation, especially when in conjunction with teaching staff. But the question still arises as discussed earlier, whether these practices are mature enough to be visible aspects of school culture that is being established by the leaders? Specifically, researchers found that school principals who employed democratic approaches, dialog, and participation in decision-making were highly valued and more likely to achieve their objectives. In addition, the research suggests that the following leadership practices are highly valued in nurturing an innovation culture: accountability for results, clear goals, change management, the pursuit of innovative solutions, the belief that accomplishments are the result of teamwork, and the creation of reflection opportunities [13]. According to [14], the managerial skills of school principals can significantly impact the school’s organizational culture, overall performance, and student achievement. These studies employed in this section examine the relationship between school leadership and a culture of innovation in private schools, which is the aim of research question one.

2.2. Performance of School Leadership and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

Educational institutions, like other organizations, thrive on successful working relationships, where trust, collaboration, and shared vision drive performance and innovation. School principals play a pivotal role in shaping a school’s culture and influencing how innovation is embedded within daily practices. Their leadership styles and decision-making strategies determine whether an innovation culture thrives or struggles to take root. A culture of innovation flourishes when school leaders prioritize openness, encourage risk-taking, and empower teachers to develop and implement new ideas [15].

Different leadership styles directly impact how effectively an innovation culture is cultivated. Transformational leadership, which fosters collaboration, adaptability, and inspiration, encourages teachers to embrace innovation and experiment with new pedagogical methods. Distributed leadership, where decision-making is shared among school staff, further enables creative problem-solving and ownership of innovative practices. In contrast, authoritarian leadership—which emphasizes rigid control and top-down decision-making—can stifle innovation by discouraging teachers from taking initiative [11].

However, organizational resistance to innovation is a key challenge in many schools. Strict performance requirements, fear of failure, and rigid hierarchies can deter educators from trying new teaching methods [16]. To mitigate this, school leaders must establish a psychologically safe environment, where teachers are encouraged to take calculated risks without fear of negative repercussions. By fostering trust, open communication, and a shared commitment to continuous improvement, school principals can create an environment in which teachers feel confident to experiment and refine innovative approaches.

Research highlights two fundamental drivers that propel educational innovation: a culture of openness and freedom, and conscious innovation management [17]. A culture of openness and freedom is built on transparent communication, constructive criticism, and shared decision-making, fostering an environment where teachers feel valued and motivated to innovate. Conscious innovation management, on the other hand, involves structured professional development, leadership training, and strategic innovation policies, ensuring that innovation is not sporadic but deeply embedded in the school’s operational framework.

According to [18], successful leadership innovation follows a three-step process. First, principals must integrate innovation into strategic school policies, ensuring that it becomes a measurable and managed component of institutional growth. Second, mobilizing existing talent by recognizing and supporting educators with innovative potential enhances the school’s ability to sustain change. Lastly, principals must instil trust and confidence among teachers, fostering a culture where educators feel empowered to share ideas and experiment with creative solutions.

In addition to strategic leadership, the human element remains crucial. Successful leaders recognize that innovation is driven by people, not just policies. Permana et al. [19] argued that global leadership effectiveness is tied to people’s development, with strong leaders acting as mentors and coaches, identifying talents within their teams, and nurturing them to grow. Within the educational context, principals must cultivate a belief among teachers that they can improve their teaching practices, not simply to meet institutional expectations, but because of their responsibility to prepare future generations for success.

School principals who lead their schools effectively and smoothly might have solid and rich experiences since they could have been exposed to many reform movements in their schools, for example, their experience in changing or modifying the organizational structure, the way they tackled school inspection reports, and addressing emergent issues related to the school community, assessment, curriculum, employee relationships, and even financial skills. All of these factors related to principals’ experience might predict the culture of innovation at the school, where they can entirely eliminate barriers to technology use, sustaining the effective implementation of initiatives. However, this assumption is under the validation process by the third research question of this study to ensure whether this relationship is supported by evidence.

Leadership in education is not solely about managing operations—it is about creating a culture that supports innovation, risk-taking, and collaboration. Schools that embrace transformational and distributed leadership styles are more likely to develop sustainable, innovation-driven environments. By fostering openness, strategic planning, and professional growth, school principals can ensure that innovation is not just an abstract goal, but an integral part of school culture, benefiting both educators and students. These findings employed in this section support research question three, which explores how school principals’ experience and qualifications influence their ability to cultivate a culture of innovation.

2.3. Students, Parents, and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

School leaders and parents have to trust each other; parents invest in their time by allowing school leadership to thrive and nurture an effective learning community at their children’s school. School leaders also rely on parents’ trust to smoothly implement their professional interventions as per policies and procedures. However, in many situations, parents struggle and hesitate to comprehensively keep their children in the same school if they find no innovative practices that impact students learning positively over different grades. This is why there is a correlation between parents’ satisfaction, trust, and belief in school and their school choice [20]. However, what is missing is whether or not this relationship touches on innovation as a part of the parents’ satisfaction.

Sparrow [21] investigated leadership strategies by interviewing experts on innovation diffusion and practitioners who had successfully diffused innovations in their environments. Their findings demonstrated that school principals are widely recognized for their contribution to the dissemination of innovative and highly impactful teaching methods. Overall, practitioners were more concerned with fostering classroom innovation, beginning with the status of the school regarding change and then working with the staff to drive the change all over the system. On the other hand, experts were more concerned with the role of the principal as the person in charge of driving change and innovative practices. Generally, they assumed that the principal’s most important role was providing a clear vision to the school, changing its culture and its systems, inspiring staff, and leading to the right path in the transition. Principals can use various strategies to obtain innovative, high-impact practices adopted throughout a school. These strategies were based on leadership in the areas of change, instruction, diffusion of innovation, and fostering distributed leadership.

A recent study by [22] examined the relationship between school innovation and students. The findings provided evidence to support the idea that innovation management, specifically transformational leadership, is necessary for positive student outcomes. To summarize the findings of these studies in this section, they provide a foundation for research question two, which investigates how stakeholder relationships, including students and parents, contribute to the effectiveness of school innovation practices.

2.4. School Activities, Programs, Research, and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

Vonbank [23] indicated that schools must adopt a specific approach that integrates innovation across key action areas to achieve a unified vision of success. For example, school leaders should focus on collaboration and research instead of management control and can empower educators to embrace technology rather than see it as a barrier.

Research by [24] explored the development of “innovation culture” in selected schools and concluded that the innovative culture grew due to four factors. These four key factors for a successful innovation culture were collaboration, conscious integration and connectivity, a supportive leadership structure, and opportunities for ongoing professional learning. The schools involved in the research were found to create and then improve on their “innovative culture” utilizing evidence related to the four themes previously mentioned. These schools were successful in teaching and learning and offered a good representation of innovative educational culture in the 21st century.

2.5. School Environment and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

Research on promoting internal cultures suggests that a wide range of communication techniques and tools can be effective depending on the context and circumstances. Once a cultural campaign message has been established in the intended recipient’s mind, the volume and intensity of communications can be drawn down. Specifically, when people are sufficiently exposed to a coherent message, they will likely experience a high level of awareness and comprehension, which no longer requires additional communication. Subsequently, the use of motivational content such as testimonials and success stories should be used primarily to reinforce existing campaigns or progress recipients to the next stage or action. Managers also need to keep tabs on the status of their employees and the stage they are at, to help them reach the point where they can begin to take independent actions that align with the intended culture. As stated in many of the organizations’ mission statements, leaders must continue to create better environments that foster innovation [25].

A study by [26] examined the impact of the educational leadership practices, structure, and culture of school on a K–12 private school in Honolulu, Hawaii, and a cutting-edge teaching and learning institution for the 21st century in another. The study’s major findings identified several challenges that educational institutions may encounter as they strive to innovate. One is the disparity between how the organization and its individuals define innovation. A second challenge to innovative change would be the institution’s size. A third obstacle was school cultures rooted in old-fashioned notions of success, which can undermine the creating of an environment conducive to creative thinking. The fourth challenge faced by school leaders is related to structural and hierarchical conflicts in schools. The fifth finding suggests that to initiate and manage innovative change successfully, the three aspects of culture, structure, and leadership practices must be aligned and coordinated.

Similarly, ref. [23] found several barriers to digital innovation, such as resistance to change, the digital divide, and lack of funding and internet access. Because it is more challenging to quantify revolutionary learning environments, the researchers suggest it is harder for schools to create them. The key success factors in establishing such environments were found to be relationships with faculty, confidence in leadership, and philosophy, as well as how educators use technology to assist them in attaining learning objectives. While these aspects are challenging for investigators to measure, it is necessary to investigate them and disseminate the findings so that others can identify the successful elements required to develop an innovative learning environment.

A quantitative study carried out by [27] discovered that building an innovative culture is likely to occur if the organization’s principal is involved in motivating each employee or even group habits of innovation. Moreover, the leader must establish a sense of shared responsibility to innovate and generate new ideas in an organization’s culture. Leaders must help both formally and informally if innovative practices are to be adopted within a company managers. When employee efforts and actions are recognized, they appreciate that their innovative actions, ideas, and endeavours are important and that their hard work is crucial to the success of an organization. Establishing a system that rewards the sound performance of employees for their innovation can help sustain an organization’s culture of innovation.

2.6. Research Questions

RQ1. How would the perceived effectiveness of a school leader impact the culture of innovation in private schools in Abu Dhabi?

RQ2. What impact does effective practice of innovative culture in a school have concerning overall student and parent satisfaction level, school activities, research, and the school environment?

RQ3. How do a school principal’s qualifications and years of experience impact the cultivation of a culture of innovation in the school?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

A total of 204 school principals from the Emirates of Abu Dhabi were selected for the study using a random sampling approach. However, only 84 of them responded to the study data collection tools. It was determined that a sample of 100 principals would be sufficient to ensure representativeness and statistical validity for the study, and a random sampling approach was implemented using a random number generator to select participants from a list of eligible principals provided by the educational authorities. Due to the impracticalities of including all the UAE’s private schools, the targeted participants for this study were limited to 84 private school principals within the UAE in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi. Participants were selected using a random number generator. Sixteen participants dropped out of the study due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts, reducing the final sample to eighty-four respondents. The final number of participants included 49 females and 35 males ranging in years of experience from 5 to 20 years. Participation was voluntary, and participants were not rewarded for their participation. All participants had at least one year of experience as school principals, and 90% were UAE nationals. Establishing these criteria ensured meaningful and generalizable conclusions for the study results.

3.2. Questionnaire

Using an electronic questionnaire as the primary research method, the data were obtained from a sample population of school principals in the United Arab Emirates, specifically from the emirates of Abu Dhabi using random sampling method. Due to the impracticalities of including all the UAE’s private schools, the targeted participants for this study were limited to 84 private school principals within the UAE in the Emirates of Abu Dhabi. The online questionnaire was designed and hosted using Google Forms as an instrument of distribution and was sent to participants online via email. The questionnaire questions were marked as “required” to help ensure that the participants answered all the questions in the questionnaire. To make sure that the number of respondents was correct, each principal could answer the questionnaire one time only using a single device. Some principals required the researchers to attend their schools to explain the study purpose and the study survey questions. In these cases, the researchers filled out printed copies of the electronic questionnaire during face-to-face school visits.

3.3. Variables

The study explored the relationships among the following variables: school leadership, the relationship between students and parents with the school, school activities and programs, research and innovation, and the work environment in schools. To achieve this, a questionnaire comprising 50 questions was utilized, with 10 questions dedicated to each variable, designed to assess the following specific areas:

School leadership. This variable measures the commitment to fostering innovation, strategic alignment, professional development, and effective decision-making within the school.
Students and parents’ relationship with school. This variable measures the school’s engagement with students and parents to address needs, involve them in development, and ensure satisfaction.
School activities and programs. These variable measures initiatives’ alignment, efficiency, and continuous improvement with strategic goals and resource management.
Research and innovation. This variable measures the school’s commitment to fostering innovation through resource use, collaboration, and integration of advanced technologies.
The work environment in schools. This variable measures the school’s ability to foster collaboration, innovation, adaptability, and continuous improvement while addressing barriers, managing change, and balancing structure with flexibility.

3.4. Data Collection

The nature of the study is descriptive and explanatory, relying on correlational data. The primary data sources are school principals’ responses to an electronic questionnaire designed to measure ability to innovate, leadership strategies, and barriers to innovation in a school environment. The data for this study were collected between term one of the academic year 2023–2024 and term two the same academic year, through an online questionnaire distributed to school principals. The results of this questionnaire will help school principals better understand how they can improve their procedures for instilling a culture of innovation in their schools. Barriers to innovation in school environment include school vision, strategy, project, program management, and the staff’s abilities to generate ideas and concepts. Moreover, phased reviews, the ability to perform and generate better educational experiences, and the ability to review and learn are all factors to be considered [28].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1. Gender Frequency

Out of the 84 individuals that took part in the questionnaire, 58% were female while the remaining 42% were male; therefore, the majority of respondents were female. The frequency and percentage distribution of respondents’ gender are provided in the table and pie chart below. It seems that the data show a higher representation of female principals (58%), which may reflect a gender trend in school leadership within private schools.

4.1.2. Respondents’ Years of Experience

For the years of experience, 29.8% of the respondents had less than 10 years of experience, 35.7% had up to 20 years of experience, and 34.5% had more than 20 years of experience. Most of the respondents had 20 years of experience or more, which indicates a leadership pool with significant expertise, which may influence decision-making and openness to innovation.

4.1.3. Respondents’ Educational Qualifications

Responses from the questionnaire revealed that 45.2% of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree, 6% had a diploma, 5% had a PhD, and the remaining 42.9% had a master’s degree. It can be noticed that most respondents hold bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and this reflects the emphasis on formal education in school leadership, especially postgraduate degrees, which could shape their approaches to implementing innovation.

4.1.4. Professional Role

For the professional role of questionnaire respondents, of the 84 individuals who participated in the survey, 25% were administrative school staff members, 40.5% were principals, 23.8% were teachers assigned to an administrative role, and 10.7% were vice principals. From the table, it can be concluded that most of the respondents were school principals or administrative members.

4.1.5. Evaluation of Culture of Innovation

Respondents were asked to provide responses based on their knowledge and opinion on the application of innovation in different areas and functions of the school environment. These included the school leadership; students, parents, and the school environment; research and innovation; activities and programs; and the working environment. The distribution of their evaluation of the culture of innovation in these five areas and the mean and standard deviation for each response to questions evaluating the culture of innovation in schools have also been provided in the tables. Ten different questionnaire questions were used to evaluate the function and application of innovation in the above-mentioned areas and these responses have been measured on a Likert-style scale of 0–5 where 0 = Not true at all and 5 = Yes always. A value above 3.0 would suggest that participants’ responses were positive (Yes), while a mean response or value less than 3.0 implies that the responses were to some degree negative (No). The standard deviation measures how far apart two values are, how dispersed or far apart the participants’ responses are from the mean or average response to each question being asked. A higher standard deviation suggests that the responses are far apart from the mean, while a lower standard deviation means that participants’ responses are not far apart or not widely dispersed from the mean [29]. The questionnaire’s results in this study show that the standard deviation found in the data in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 deviates from the mean by 1.0 to 1.7, which indicates that it is low and the responses are not far apart from the mean.

4.1.6. School Leadership

For the section relating to the application and significance of innovation in the leadership of the school, descriptive statistics with the mean and standard deviation values for the 10 questions are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. School leadership descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
The school principal is committed to instilling a culture of innovation in the school for all school employees for all schoolwork.	84	3.90	1.228
2. The school principal is committed to formulating the school’s strategic goals, including innovation in education, driving change, and conveying it to all school employees.	84	4.05	1.181
3. The school principal is committed to linking the school’s strategic goals with innovation and change and then forming school teams to establish a culture of innovation and change in the school.	84	4.01	1.217
4. The school leadership is committed to spreading the school’s vision admission and appointing an innovation committee chair responsible for leading and implementing all innovation projects in the school.	84	3.70	1.342
5. The school is made up of a functional organizational structure that includes multiple departments, and all departments are managed by the school principal.	84	4.13	1.159
6. There is an internal, external, and integrated training program for all teachers and staff in the school that includes training on the latest innovations and the latest educational technology methods.	84	3.70	1.404
7. The school leadership is committed to ensuring continuous innovation in all school programs and supporting everything related to innovation.	84	3.76	1.368
8. The school leadership is committed to planning and organizing the decision-making process, clarifying the responsibility of each person in making decisions, and following up on the school’s progress in implementation.	84	3.70	1.421
9. The school conducts a SWOT analysis annually, and the school leadership is committed to being proactive, preparing for everything that may occur in the school, and taking the necessary measures to reduce risks.	84	3.62	1.405
10. The school leadership is committed to providing all the necessary information and resources for innovation in education to teachers and staff in the school.	84	3.55	1.339
Valid N (listwise)	84

4.1.7. Students, Parents, and the School Environment

The statistical presentation of respondents’ evaluations relating to the culture of innovation around student development, engaging and fostering relationships with parents, as well developing the school environment has been provided in Table 2. Ten different questions were used to evaluate the culture of innovation and its relationship with students, parents, and the school environment.

Table 2. Students, parents, and the school environment descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
The school administrators believe that the requirements of our students are the main drivers of innovation and educational development.	84	4.02	1.119
2. We have an organized process to know the priorities of parents and students and listen to their opinions to discover their needs and develop new concepts.	84	3.74	1.262
3. We use formal methods of competition analysis, competitive benchmarking, or others to compare our educational services to other competitive schools.	84	3.52	1.349
4. The school systematically determines the needs of students and parents who benefit from the school’s educational services. It limits new or existing services and seeks to develop new and innovative educational concepts.	84	3.46	1.265
5. We communicate regularly with different government sectors to cooperate with them and see different points of view.	84	3.42	1.407
6. We have different methods of evaluating and critiquing our “current programs “and developing a “peripheral vision” of us and everything that affects us directly or indirectly.	84	3.48	1.294
7. We use advanced technologies and are familiar with the latest educational technologies.	84	3.64	1.286
8. We identify the needs of our students and teachers, cooperate with them, and involve them with us in developing educational initiatives and programs.	84	3.82	1.263
9. We can distinguish between the different needs of learners and plan educational initiatives, or programs tailored to each student according to his level, with quick results and expected learning outcomes.	84	3.69	1.317
10. The school continuously measures the extent to which students and parents are satisfied with the services provided to them, and there is tangible evidence of the extent to which student feedback is used to inform improvements.	84	3.88	1.330
Valid N (listwise)	84

4.1.8. Research and Innovation

The mean and standard deviation for respondents’ evaluation of research and innovation in their respective schools for the 10 questions have been provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Research and innovation descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
The school allocates part of its operating budget to research and innovation in education and maintains intellectual and patent rights for staff, teachers, and students.	84	2.64	1.534
2. There are collaborative projects or initiatives with local establishments and community institutions to share training needs, knowledge, and basic skills.	84	3.01	1.401
3. It shows with practice and time that innovation is not discontinuous or ultimate, but is built on continuous and structured processes which allow us to effectively manage the development of all project schedules in all departments.	84	3.18	1.390
4. The innovation process methodology is based on making structured decisions and reviewing them monthly, considering the latest information and updates.	84	2.98	1.439
5. The scope of the innovation process covers partnership with all parties at all stages from listening to students and parents, research and technology, continuity of assessment and development in the strategic and operational plan of the school, considering the views of students and parents and technological developments.	84	3.29	1.376
6. We have indicators to measure the success of the school’s innovation initiatives and projects, and all employees are committed to all required procedures to quickly reach the required performance indicator.	84	3.18	1.433
7. The principal of the school effectively manages the resources to achieve innovation initiatives while linking them to the latest innovations globally and presenting current and future innovations.	84	3.43	1.391
8. Innovation initiatives, programs, and designs are adapted to the latest developments in innovation and technology in education services and consider the needs, levels, and presentation of students and use the latest technologies for that.	84	3.29	1.358
9. Innovation programs and projects have been designed and created, considering the elements of quality and the needs of the student, and how to obtain educational services.	84	3.31	1.448
10. All student needs are studied before providing educational services to them. A sample of students is chosen to apply the initiatives before applying them to everyone to ensure the quality of the initiative.	84	3.19	1.384
Valid N (listwise)	84

4.1.9. Activities and Programs

The mean and standard deviation for respondents’ evaluation of innovation culture in the activities and programs that are administered by school principals is provided here.

Table 4. Activities and programs descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
The principal uses planning and control methods to ensure that programs and initiatives and resource allocation are consistent with the objectives of the operational plan. Resources are allocated to initiatives in structured and improved standards.	84	3.44	1.365
2. The school considers time as a competitive advantage and a major catalyst for improvements in the development of educational services and innovation. It is considered essential to continuously improve deadlines to reach performance indicators of more than 95% in all activities.	84	3.50	1.256
3. The school focuses on providing its educational services in proportion to its students according to their geographical area, and the development of education compared to all parts of the world is not systematically analysed, and resources are not spent on it.	84	2.86	1.637
4. We use many methodologies to continually evaluate new ideas and initiatives according to our strategic and operational objectives. One of our most important points is to identify and utilize our competitive advantages, according to the suggestions of the educational field, students, and parents. We rely on trial-and-error methods to explore new trends in education and educational technologies.	84	3.30	1.446
5. We use simulation, analysis of action plans, and other appropriate techniques to explore future outcomes in the selection of new innovative ideas and analysis of new initiatives.	84	3.30	1.421
6. We use indicators in all school initiatives. It is fundamental to the continuous improvement of the school. The innovation process is also based on specific actions to determine where and how innovation management and performance can be improved.	84	3.30	1.333
7. All scales and indicators are consistent and non-contradictory and constitute a system consistent with the strategic and operational objectives of the school. Incentives are closely related to the measurement system.	84	3.24	1.295
8. The school relies on the expenditure and cost control plan to reach the required results and determine the cost of each activity. What may arise or result from any activity is discussed to avoid any additional costs. This is implemented in all programs and initiatives.	84	3.14	1.372
9. Initiatives are implemented after evaluating their current and future costs in a way that does not affect the school’s budget and educational services provided.	84	3.35	1.384
10. The performance indicators are monitored for each initiative separately to ensure that they are consistent with the terms of disbursement and strategic objectives, and any adjustments are made to avoid any additional costs that may affect the school.	84	3.23	1.508
Valid N (listwise)	84

4.1.10. The Working Environment

The mean and standard deviation for respondents’ evaluation of innovation culture in the working environment of school principals is provided here.

Table 5. The working environment descriptive statistics.

Descriptive Statistics
	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
The working environment is not conducive to generating new ideas. There are barriers to communication and cooperation. There is no place or time to start new initiatives and programs. There is daily stress at work and frequent emergencies.	84	1.44	1.608
2. All programs and initiatives are specific and include specifications and plans. Teachers hardly find time to implement them within the day-to-day work, and it is very difficult to publish or implement new initiatives.	84	2.20	1.699
3. Work teams were formed for all initiatives by the school principal. Teachers work as a cooperative team to achieve the school’s goals.	84	3.45	1.451
4. All innovation initiatives are implemented smoothly and without complications to obtain the best results and reduce the costs involved.	84	3.24	1.376
5. The school has developed the capacity for learning and change in its school environment. There are effective change management methodologies and processes, from the beginning of discovering the need for change to successful implementation. This has been proven over time with the success of the changes made to the school.	84	3.56	1.293
6. The school has developed teachers’ abilities to think “outside the box”. We collaborate in multidisciplinary teams and work in parallel. Everyone participates in the emergence of new ideas to improve educational services.	84	3.46	1.435
7. School only rewards success. Mistakes are often punished, and the school does not accept any idea that might easily jeopardize them. Incentives are based on compliance with departmental objectives and successful resolution of problems or emergencies.	84	2.00	1.763
8. There is insufficient flexibility in the implementation of the school’s programs, initiatives, and activities. Unplanned quick ideas or programs are not encouraged, but this may be important or strategic to the success of the school.	84	1.37	1.527
9. The school prefers to identify opportunities and implement specific mechanisms to evaluate ideas and programs and to exclude them if they do not fit with the goals of the school.	84	2.81	1.485
10. At the end of each initiative or program, we take the time to review all actions and activities, evaluate the positive and negative points and organize the information to improve our performance in the future.	84	3.37	1.315
Valid N (listwise)	84

4.1.11. Reliability Test, KMO, and Bartlett’s Test

Pearson correlation was used to measure relationships between variables, and one-way ANOVA assessed group differences. To test the reliability of the data set, comprising of the Likert scale items that are all in scale form or continuous form, the Cronbach’s alpha analysis is carried out. Cronbach’s alpha test is a measure of internal consistency; that is, how closely related several items are as a group. The coefficient ranges between 0 and 1. A high alpha value indicates that items measure an underlying factor. However, it is not a statistical test but a test of reliability/consistency [30]. The KMO and Bartlett tests assess all data together. A KMO value that is over 0.5 and a significance level for the Bartlett’s test that is below 0.05 suggests there is a significant correlation in the data [31]. Furthermore, the KMO and Bartlett’s test measure the level of adequacy and significance of the data set. From the table below and the reliability column, it can be observed that the Cronbach’s alpha values for all the main variables are greater than 0.70, which means that the observations in the variables are reliable except for the data accountability variable. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy presents a value greater than 0.5, which indicates that the variables are adequate.

Using Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity as shown in Table 6, the identity matrix is compared to a measured correlation matrix to see whether there is any duplication between the variables. The statistical test assumes that the variables are independent (uncorrelated). However, if the test results indicate a significant relationship, it suggests that the variables are correlated and not independent, i.e., they are correlated sufficiently to where the correlation matrix deviates substantially from the identity matrix [32]. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity chi-square indicates that the observations are significantly adequate.

4.1.12. Addressing the Research Questions

The different research questions are addressed and outlined in this section. The major variables that this study focused on include the “research and innovation” variable, the “leadership” variable, the “students, parents, and the school environment” variable, the “activities and programs” variable, the “work environment” variable, the “level of education” variable, and the “years of experience” variable. Furthermore, the effect sizes (R²) were calculated to assess variance explained. For example, R² = 0.625 (just an example) for school leadership and innovation indicates that leadership explains 62.5% of the variance in innovation culture.

RQ1. How would the perceived effectiveness of a school leader impact the culture of innovation in private schools in Abu Dhabi?

This research question examines the relationship between an innovation culture, its application, and the prevalence of effective school leadership. To address this question, correlation coefficient analysis was conducted comparing administrative performance against research and innovation used in measuring and representing the culture of innovation.

The results are in the table below. To interpret the result in the table, the sig. (2-tailed) row and Pearson correlation row are examined. The sig. (2-tailed) or p-value provides the level of significance of the correlation [33], while the Pearson correlation coefficient indicates the strength and direction of the correlation [34]. It can be observed from the table that research and innovation have a significant relationship with school leadership, where the degrees of freedom for a correlation are N − 2 for a correlation, which is why we have several at 82 (N = 84 − 2).

The values of the correlation coefficient further indicate that there is a strong, positive correlation between the compared variables. Therefore, this analysis has revealed that research and innovation, which could otherwise be referred to as an “innovation culture” has a positive relationship with effective school leadership.

As a result of this, there is a significant relationship or correlation between these variables of school leadership and a culture of innovation (see Table 7).

RQ2. What impact does effective practice of innovative culture in a school have concerning overall student and parent satisfaction level, school activities, research, and the school environment?

It can be observed from the table that research and innovation have a significant positive relationship with students, parents, and the school environment where the degrees of freedom for a correlation is N − 2 for a correlation, which is why we have several at 82 (N = 84 − 2). The values of the correlation coefficient further indicate that there is a positive, strong relationship between the compared variables. Therefore, the correlational analysis indicates that research and innovation, which could otherwise be referred to as an effective “innovation culture”, has a positive relationship with students, parents, and the school environment. Thus, an effective culture of innovation in private schools would improve relationships with students, parents, and the school environment. The findings confirm that stakeholder relationships (students and parents) positively contribute to the culture of innovation (see Table 8).

The correlational analysis between the research and innovation variable and activities and programs variable indicates that an effective innovation culture has a positive relationship with the activities and programs of the school where p < 0.05. These results indicate that an effective culture of innovation in ADEK schools has a positive relationship with improved activities and programs (see Table 9).

The correlational analysis between the research and innovation variable and school environment variable indicates that research and innovation is positively correlated with the school “work environment” where p < 0.05. This implies that an effective culture of innovation in ADEK schools has a positive relationship with improved schoolwork environments (see Table 10).

RQ3. How do a school principal’s qualifications and years of experience impact the cultivation of a culture of innovation in the school?

This research question examines if the years of experience of private school administrators or leaders have a significant, positive relationship with the level of successful cultural innovation exhibited by the schools. To address this question, a correlation coefficient analysis is once again conducted between the years of experience of school leaders or administrators and the level of research and innovation being implemented in ADEK schools.

From the results of the correlation analysis provided in the table below, it can be observed that there is a statistically significant relationship between the years of experience of ADEK school principals or administrators and their implementation or level of successful cultural innovation where p < 0.01. From the correlation coefficient (0.224), it can be concluded that the relationship is positive. That is, the more experienced the school administrator or leader, the higher the perception of success for cultural innovation within the schools (see Table 11).

A one-way ANOVA was conducted with the “qualification” or the “level of education” being the independent variable while school leadership and the work environment were the dependent variables.

The first table of interest is the descriptive statistics table that shows the mean and standard deviation for the distribution of level of innovation in school leadership and the school environment by school leaders of different educational backgrounds.

The first area where the innovation is being implemented is in school leadership, and it can be observed from the mean column that school leaders with a PhD have the highest level of success in building a culture of innovation at 4.7. This is followed by those with a master’s degree at 4.03, while those with bachelor certificates is lower with a level of 3.6. The last school leaders who hold diploma certificates have the lowest level of success in building a culture of innovation at 2.8.

For the level of implementation of a culture of innovation in the school environment, it can be observed that school leaders with a PhD degree implement or have the highest level of success in building a culture of innovation in the school environment at 3.48, and this is followed by school leaders with a master’s degree at 2.88 and bachelor holders at 2.5. Lastly, school leaders with a diploma have the lowest level of success in building a culture of innovation in the school environment at 1.52 (see Table 12).

The actual result of the one-way ANOVA is provided in the table below. The sig. value or p value, F statistics, and degree of freedom (df) are the most significant values here. From the first test (school leadership), the one-way ANOVA analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the level of successfully building a culture of innovation in administration among school leaders of different education levels, where (F (3, 80) = 3.392), p < 0.05).

The one-way ANOVA analysis also revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in the level of implementation or building a successful culture of innovation in the school environment between school leaders of different education levels, where (F (3, 80) = 3.866), p < 0.05).

These results therefore demonstrate that the level of successful implementation of a culture of innovation in the school leadership and school environment is linked to the educational background of school leaders or administrators. Thus, the higher or more advanced the educational qualification, the higher the perception of success for the implementation of innovative culture in the school’s leadership and environment (see Table 13).

5. Discussion of Findings

The study incorporated and adopted a descriptive and exploratory approach in addressing the objectives as well as the research questions of the study. For the purposes of the study and to address its objectives and research questions, the study adopted three basic analytical approaches, which were descriptive statistics, preliminary tests, and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics involved the use of frequency and percentage to examine the distribution of scores across the data set, the preliminary tests were performed using the Cronbach’s alpha reliability test to determine the reliability and consistency of the data. Inferential statistics were then used and involved the Pearson production correlation analysis and one-way ANOVA analysis to address the objectives of the study. Relevant charts and graphs were provided to better illustrate and present the results.

The study findings are all based on the formulated objectives of this research, which were all addressed using statistical analysis. Findings from the analysis have shown that the culture of innovation and its success in the school organization is directly and positively related to factors such as the role and performance of school administrators such as the principal, students and parents, research, school activities and programs, and years of experience of the principal. The level of success of the innovative culture in the school organization has also been revealed to be dependent on the level of education of the principal. In other words, these are significant in determining and influencing the level of success of innovative culture in the school organization.

5.1. Leadership and Innovation Culture

The role of leadership in fostering a culture of innovation is well-supported in the literature and strongly affirmed by this study. A robust correlation (r = 0.791, p < 0.01) between effective leadership and innovation culture demonstrates the importance of leadership in driving transformative practices. This finding aligns with Beswick et al.’s [9] assertion that leadership modelling and demonstrating leadership characteristics are foundational to embedding innovative practices within the school. The study’s emphasis on strategic alignment, participative decision-making between the school leadership and the school community members, and trust-building echoes Riveras-León and Tomàs-Folch’s [13] findings, which highlight that participative and democratic leadership fosters collaborative environments conducive to innovation, which is mainly considering teacher efforts that will ultimately influence students’ achievement and learning outcomes.

The study also reinforces the critical role of school leadership in aligning innovation initiatives with school goals that are usually documented and tracked in the strategic school improvement plan SIP in many schools throughout Abu Dhabi schools according to “Irtiqaa”, a UAE school inspection system [35]. Principals who successfully integrated strategic goals with innovation, communicated a clear vision, and empowered their school staff demonstrated higher levels of success. This mirrors Morgan’s [11] argument that innovation must penetrate all institutional levels, starting with leadership. However, while the literature extensively discusses leadership’s importance, the study adds depth by quantifying its impact within Abu Dhabi’s specific educational context, emphasizing the need for locally tailored strategies that reflect the diversity of school community members in such a dynamic and multinational country.

5.2. Stakeholder Relationships: Students, Parents, and the School Environment

The findings underscore the significance of stakeholder engagement in fostering a culture of innovation, revealing a strong positive correlation (r = 0.854, p < 0.01) between innovation culture and relationships with students, parents, and the school environment. Parents could have significant potential that has not been utilized yet to contribute to the school’s innovative initiatives, plans, and projects [36]. Schools that actively engaged stakeholders through proactive and systematic approaches or even through structured feedback mechanisms and incorporated their input into decision-making processes achieved higher levels of innovation. This aligns with Sitthisomjin et al. [22] who emphasized inclusivity and collaboration as essential drivers of innovation outcomes.

Moreover, the study highlights that stakeholders’ satisfaction and participation are not only outcomes of innovation but also key contributors. Stakeholder-driven initiatives provided valuable insights or even services that informed the development of innovative programs, demonstrating the reciprocal relationship between engagement and innovation. Reciprocity is a well-trusted principle, as emphasized by many school inspection committees, as it seeks feedback from all stakeholders to ensure innovative and productive school learning environments [37]. This finding extends the work of [27] on the importance of open communication and collective identity in fostering innovation, providing a practical model for integrating stakeholder feedback into school operations.

5.3. Activities, Programs, and Innovation

The strong correlation (r = 0.803, p < 0.01) between innovation culture and school activities and programs highlights the importance of structured, adaptable programs in fostering innovation. Schools that aligned and mapped their activities with strategic objectives documented in the SIP utilized evaluation mechanisms and emphasized continuous improvement, creating environments that supported innovative practices. This finding corroborates the conclusion of [24] that collaboration, connectivity, and professional learning are essential to innovative programs. Additionally, the study’s focus on methodologies such as leadership modelling, simulation, and action plan evaluation provides practical insights into how schools can systematically approach innovation and creativity and foster ideal solutions for their challenges. This aligns with VonBank’s [23] recommendation for using technology and data-driven decision-making to enhance program effectiveness. However, the study also identifies gaps in integrating advanced technologies, suggesting an area for further development for school principals.

5.4. Work Environment and Innovation

The work environment significantly impacts the culture of innovation, as demonstrated by the moderate positive correlation (r = 0.675, p < 0.01). The study reveals several barriers within school environments, including limited flexibility, such as the extensive teaching load for teachers; sometimes, they might teach 25 classes a week or even more. Also, the communication challenges and punitive responses to failure. These findings resonate with the study by [26] on the identification of hierarchical and structural conflicts as impediments to innovation.

However, schools that fostered teamwork provided platforms for idea-sharing, especially in this context, where Telegram is being used actively by schools [38] and implemented effective change management processes demonstrated higher levels of innovation. This highlights the importance of creating supportive environments that encourage experimentation and reduce the fear of failure. The study’s findings align with Villaluz and Hechanova’s [39] emphasis on the role of motivational content and recognition programs in sustaining innovative cultures. Still, the relatively low mean score for communication effectiveness suggests that additional efforts are needed to address these barriers comprehensively.

5.5. Principals’ Characteristics: Education and Experience

The influence of principals’ characteristics has also been highlighted by this study and its relationship with their ability to foster innovation. Educational qualifications and years of experience were significant predictors of success in innovation initiatives at their school. Principals with advanced degrees demonstrated superior capabilities in leading innovation (M = 4.7 for PhD holders), supporting Permana et al.’s [19] assertion that education enhances global leadership competencies.

The modest correlation between principals’ years of experience and innovation success (r = 0.224, p < 0.05) suggests that experience contributes positively to fostering innovation, but it is not the sole determinant. This finding adds nuance to the literature by emphasizing the interplay between experience, education, and leadership style in shaping innovation outcomes of schools.

5.6. Synthesis of Findings Across Variables

The results of this study have also emphasized that a culture of innovation is shaped by the interplay of multiple factors, including leadership, stakeholder engagement, program design, work environment, and leadership characteristics.

These variables are not isolated; their interdependence amplifies their impact on innovation outcomes. This is also calculated in statistics when they measure the emerging facts of the interplay between variables [40]. For example, effective leadership fosters stakeholder engagement, including parental involvement, which in turn enhances program effectiveness and creates a supportive work environment that even extends to support students at their homes.

While the findings align with the broader literature, they also reveal gaps that warrant further exploration. Resource allocation emerged as a critical challenge, with limited budgets for research and innovation hindering progress, as many schools do not prioritize research due to various reasons [41]. This gap, not extensively addressed in prior studies, highlights the need for targeted funding strategies to support innovation, especially through funding and encouraging research activities through policies and procedures. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence innovation culture in Abu Dhabi’s private schools. Integrating these findings with existing literature highlights both the alignments and gaps, offering a roadmap for future research and practical implementation.

Overall, these findings of the current study align with Beswick et al. [9] and Riveras-León and Tomàs-Folch [13], reinforcing the role of leadership in fostering innovation at school, considering many factors that engage all stakeholders—students, teachers, parents, the local community, and even the school inspectors, who are not only providing summative feedback; instead, they do feed their inspection criteria by school leaders according to the reciprocity principle [37], which means that school innovation will be more emphasized by inspection criteria in the future. Additionally, the strong correlation between stakeholder engagement and innovation supports the study by [22]. This comparison highlights the study’s contribution by validating and extending prior research within the Abu Dhabi context.

6. Conclusions

Innovation is a significant tool that brings about development through changes and implementation of new approaches and methods geared towards managing and running an organization effectively. Therefore, school leadership and administration, and performance and skills, are vitally important when determining the level or nature of the culture of innovation in the school organization and consequently its level of success. This study has shown that administrative performance, as well as other factors such as school relationships with students and parents, school activities and programs, overall school environment, the years of experience of school principals, and the level of education of school principals, are all directly linked to the level of success that can be achieved when implementing a culture of innovation. To conclude, this study has successfully mapped and examined some of the most significant factors that are directly related to the successful development of innovative culture in school organizations. In addition, it suggests the direction that further research with larger samples and comparative analysis could make these findings more validated by having better generalizability, which would take and provide recommendations to policymakers and administrators seeking to successfully implement cultural innovation in the school context.

Innovation is a necessary tool needed to push development in any organization. For any organization irrespective of its nature or type to grow successfully, its management and administration must be innovative or promote a culture of innovation among its members and workers. In circumstances where staff members are innovative and school administrators are steadfast in ensuring the promotion of innovation within the school organization, there is a far greater likelihood that there will be growth and development across several areas of the school. As a result of this, school administrators and principals should put in the necessary effort and resources to promote a culture of innovation, not only by implementing policies and taking decisions but also by facilitating action via its staff members and teachers through encouragement, training programs, and skill acquisition.

This study highlights the need for leadership training programs focused on innovation-driven school management and data-driven decision-making processes towards innovation. Integrating innovation management into training curricula and providing continuous professional development is essential for teachers to best support their school leaders, especially when a participative leadership style is applied to foster collaboration and trust between school community members.

Future research should examine the long-term impacts of leadership styles, the role of digital tools, and cost-effective strategies for implementing innovation. Comparative studies across regions can identify contextual factors influencing innovation, offering a global perspective on educational leadership. Addressing gaps such as resource allocation, technology integration, and localized cultural influences while tailoring strategies to specific contexts is critical for fostering sustainable innovation in education globally and in regions like Abu Dhabi.

This study is limited by its sample size, focusing only on private schools in Abu Dhabi and dealing with their leaders, which may affect generalizability. However, the local context of this study may serve global ones. As indicated earlier, future research should explore broader contexts or extend their sample sizes for a more representative sample. The findings provide practical and actionable recommendations for school leaders to enhance innovation strategies and inform professional development programs that could be incorporated into the school improvement plan. Such practical insights may extend the innovation aim to be a motive for getting better results from school inspections, which have many criteria for innovation. Theoretically, this study contributes to school leadership literature by linking school principals’ qualifications and stakeholder engagement to innovation outcomes. Addressing these factors can guide policymakers in fostering more adaptive school environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A. and D.Y.A.H.; methodology, O.A.K. and A.A.; software, D.Y.A.H.; validation, D.Y.A.H., K.A. and O.A.K.; formal analysis, D.Y.A.H.; investigation, K.A. and D.Y.A.H.; resources, O.A.K.; data curation, A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Y.A.H. and K.A.; writing—review and editing, O.A.K.; visualization, K.A.; supervision, O.A.K.; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB-1523) of Hamdan Bin Mohammed Smart University (protocol code IRB-TS1924, 19 September 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to restricted access to the private information of the participants of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

Serdyukov, P. Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it? J. Res. Innov. Teach. Learn. 2017, 10, 4–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ali, N.; Santos, I.M.; AlHakmani, R.; Abu Khurma, O.; Swe Khine, M.; Kassem, U. Exploring technology acceptance: Teachers’ perspectives on robotics in teaching and learning in the UAE. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2023, 15, ep469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abu Khurma, O.; Albahti, F.; Ali, N.; Bustanji, A. AI ChatGPT and student engagement: Unraveling dimensions through PRISMA analysis for enhanced learning experiences. Contemp. Educ. Technol. 2024, 16, ep503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Purcell, W. The Importance of Innovation in Business. Northeastern University Graduate Programs. 2021. Available online: https://www.northeastern.edu/graduate/blog/importance-of-innovation/ (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Dutta, K.; People Matters. Building a Culture of Innovation and Continuous Learning. People Matters. Available online: https://www.peoplematters.in/article/training-development/building-a-culture-of-innovation-and-continuous-learning-27921 (accessed on 8 October 2024).
Ali, N.; Abu Khurma, O.; Afari, E.; Swe Khine, M. The influence of learning environment to students’ non-cognitive outcomes: Looking through the PISA lens. Eurasia J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 2023, 19, em2233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
National Agenda 2021. Available online: https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/strategies-plans-and-visions/strategies-plans-and-visions-untill-2021/vision-2021 (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Adek.gov.ae. Available online: https://www.adek.gov.ae/About/About-Us (accessed on 19 March 2024).
Beswick, C.; Bishop, D.; Geraghty, J. Building a Culture of Innovation: A Practical Framework for Placing Innovation at the Core of Your Business; Kogan Page: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
MOE Website. Ministry of Education Strategic Plan 2017–2021. Moe.gov.ae. Available online: https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/strategies-plans-and-visions/strategies-plans-and-visions-untill-2021/ministry-of-education-strategic-plan-2017-2021 (accessed on 19 October 2024).
Morgan, G. Does Your School Have a Culture of Innovation? Getting Smart. Available online: https://www.gettingsmart.com/2015/06/03/does-your-school-have-a-culture-of-innovation/ (accessed on 3 June 2015).
Cros, F. Innovation and Society; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Riveras-León, J.C.; Tomàs-Folch, M. The organizational culture of innovative schools: The role of the Principal. J. Educ. Sci. 2020, 42, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tonich, T. The Role of Principals’ Leadership Abilities in Improving School Performance through the School Culture. J. Soc. Stud. Educ. Res. 2021, 12, 47–75. [Google Scholar]
Rupp, N.K. Online Learning and Effective Leadership: The Importance of Relationship Building and Culture. Ph.D. Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
Tran, L.H.; Moskovsky, C. Students as the source of demotivation for teachers: A case study of Vietnamese university EFL teachers. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 2022, 25, 1527–1544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lašáková, A.; Bajzíková, Ľ.; Dedze, I. Barriers and drivers of innovation in higher education: Case study-based evidence across ten European universities. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2017, 55, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vizologi. The Three Phases of Innovation: A Comprehensive Overview. Available online: https://vizologi.com/three-phases-of-innovation-comprehensive-overview/ (accessed on 12 November 2024).
Permana, J.; Rahmawati, I.; Paulina Saimima, M.; Suhardan, D.; Herlina, L. The Impact of Global Leadership and Self-Efficacy on Teacher Innovation. KnE Soc. Sci. 2020, 4, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dougherty, J.C.; Becker, S.L. An Analysis of Public-Private School Choice in Texas. 1995. Available online: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED431237 (accessed on 4 October 2024).
Sparrow, J.L. Principal Leadership for Diffusing Innovation Across an Established, High-Performing K-12 School System. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Sitthisomjin, J.; Somprach, K.; Phuseeorn, S. The effects of innovation management on school performance of secondary schools in Thailand. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2018, 41, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
VonBank, A.H. Building a Culture of Innovation: A Case Study in Digital Integration. Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Ph.D. Thesis, Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA, 2013. Available online: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds/93/ (accessed on 9 March 2025).
Rosenthal, M.M. Developing a Culture of Innovation: A Qualitative Case Study of a Massachusetts K-8 School. Ph.D. Thesis, William Howard Taft University, Denver, CO, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Vercic, D.; Zerfass, A. A comparative excellence framework for communication management. J. Commun. Manag. 2016, 20, 270–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wong-Kam, J.C. Creating a Climate for Innovation in Education: Reframing Structure, Culture, and Leadership Practices. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. Available online: https://www.proquest.com/openview/fce79a9f54e3ecfa35fb9371060d657e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 (accessed on 19 October 2024).
Barata, D.D. The impact of leader engagement on the creation of innovation culture. Int. J. Econ. Manag. 2016, 10, 135–149. [Google Scholar]
Innovation Assessment Tool. Agile Innovation. Available online: https://www.fguell.com/en/innovation-assessment-tool/ (accessed on 17 April 2024).
National Library of Medicine. Standard Deviation. National Library of Medicine. 2012. Available online: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/section2/mod8_sd.html (accessed on 23 October 2024).
SPSS FAQ. What Does Cronbach’s Alpha Mean? stats.oarc.ucla.edu. Available online: https://stats.oarc.ucla.edu/spss/faq/what-does-cronbachs-alpha-mean (accessed on 4 January 2025).
Nijs, V. radiant.multivariate: Multivariate Menu for Radiant: Business Analytics Using R and Shiny. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/radiant.multivariate/index.html (accessed on 4 January 2025).
Zach, A. A Guide to Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Statistics Simplified. 2019. Available online: https://www.statology.org/bartletts-test-of-sphericity/ (accessed on 4 January 2025).
Musheke, M.M.; Phiri, J. The effects of effective communication on organizational performance based on the systems theory. Open J. Bus. Manag. 2021, 9, 659–671. [Google Scholar]
Fernando, J. The Correlation Coefficient: What It Is and What It Tells Investors. Investopedia. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/correlationcoefficient.asp (accessed on 25 December 2023).
Irtiqaa Program—Improving Schools’ Performance. www.adek.gov.ae. Available online: https://www.adek.gov.ae/en/Education-System/Private-Schools/Irtiqaa-Programme-Improving-Schools-performance (accessed on 11 January 2025).
Baker, T.L.; Wise, J.; Kelley, G.; Skiba, R.J. Identifying Barriers: Creating Solutions to Improve Family Engagement. Sch. Community J. 2016, 26, 161–184. [Google Scholar]
Ehren, M.C.M.; Visscher, A.J. Towards A Theory on The Impact of School Inspections. Br. J. Educ. Stud. 2006, 54, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gómez, P.I. Advice for Telegram Usage in Education. Pablo Iranzo Gómez Blog. Available online: https://iranzo.io/blog/2024/01/05/advice-for-telegram-usage-in-education/ (accessed on 11 January 2025).
Villaluz, V.C.; Hechanova, M.R.M. Ownership and leadership in building an innovation culture. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2019, 40, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Frost, J. Understanding Interaction Effects in Statistics. Available online: https://statisticsbyjim.com/regression/interaction-effects/ (accessed on 19 January 2025).
Guerrero-Hernández, G.R.; Fernández-Ugalde, R.A. Teachers as researchers: Reflecting on the challenges of research–practice partnerships between school and university in Chile. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2020, 18, 423–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Table 6. Reliability test, KMO and Bartlett’s test.

Variable Name	Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)	KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy	Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi-Square < 0.05	No. of Items
School Leadership	0.968	0.920	p-value < 0.05	10
Students, Parents, and the School Environment	0.968	0.921	p-value < 0.05	10
Research and Innovation	0.970	0.946	p-value < 0.05	10
Activities and Programs	0.959	0.895	p-value < 0.05	10
The Work Environment	0.887	0.854	p-value < 0.05	10

Table 7. Correlation analysis addressing RQ1.

Correlations
		Research and Innovation	School Leadership
Research and Innovation	Pearson Correlation	1	0.791 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	84	84
School Leadership	Pearson Correlation	0.791 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	84	84

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 8. Correlation analysis addressing RQ2—students, parents, and the school environment.

Correlations
		Research and Innovation	Students, Parents, and the Work Environment
Research and Innovation	Pearson Correlation	1	0.854 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	84	84
Students, Parents, and the School Environment	Pearson Correlation	0.854 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	84	84

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 9. Correlation analysis addressing RQ2—activities and programs.

Correlations
		Research and Innovation	Activities and Programs
Research and Innovation	Pearson Correlation	1	0.803 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	84	84
Activities and Programs	Pearson Correlation	0.803 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	84	84

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 10. Correlation analysis addressing RQ2—school environment.

Correlations
		Research and Innovation	The School Environment
Research and Innovation	Pearson Correlation	1	0.675 **
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.000
	N	84	84
The Work Environment	Pearson Correlation	0.675 **	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000
	N	84	84

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 11. Correlation analysis addressing RQ3.

Correlations
		Years of Experience	Research and Innovation
Years of Experience	Pearson Correlation	1	0.224 *
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.041
	N	84	84
Research and Innovation	Pearson Correlation	0.224 *	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.041
	N	84	84

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 12. Descriptive statistics addressing RQ3—principal characteristics and innovation culture.

Descriptives
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval for Mean		Minimum	Maximum
		N	Mean	Std. Deviation	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	Minimum	Maximum
School Leadership	Diploma	5	2.7600	1.36492	0.61041	1.0652	4.4548	0.90	4.60
	Bachelor	38	3.6289	1.34243	0.21777	3.1877	4.0702	0.00	5.00
	Master	36	4.0306	0.81969	0.13662	3.7532	4.3079	2.00	5.00
	PhD	5	4.7000	0.30822	0.13784	4.3173	5.0827	4.30	5.00
	Total	84	3.8131	1.15381	0.12589	3.5627	4.0635	0.00	5.00
The School Environment	Diploma	5	1.5200	0.98843	0.44204	0.2927	2.7473	0.00	2.50
	Bachelor	38	2.5658	1.11241	0.18046	2.2002	2.9314	0.00	4.90
	Master	36	2.8750	0.92130	0.15355	2.5633	3.1867	0.90	5.00
	PhD	5	3.4800	0.68702	0.30725	2.6269	4.3331	2.70	4.30
	Total	84	2.6905	1.05894	0.11554	2.4607	2.9203	0.00	5.00

Table 13. One-way ANOVA analysis.

ANOVA
		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
School Leadership	Between Groups	12.469	3	4.156	3.392	0.022
	Within Groups	98.027	80	1.225
	Total	110.496	83
The School Environment	Between Groups	11.783	3	3.928	3.866	0.012
	Within Groups	81.289	80	1.016
	Total	93.072	83

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Alzouebi, K.; Al Hammadi, D.Y.; Ankit, A.; Abu Khurma, O. School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement. Societies 2025, 15, 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040077

AMA Style

Alzouebi K, Al Hammadi DY, Ankit A, Abu Khurma O. School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement. Societies. 2025; 15(4):77. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040077

Chicago/Turabian Style

Alzouebi, Khadeegha, Dua Yousif Al Hammadi, Ahmed Ankit, and Othman Abu Khurma. 2025. "School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement" Societies 15, no. 4: 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040077

APA Style

Alzouebi, K., Al Hammadi, D. Y., Ankit, A., & Abu Khurma, O. (2025). School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement. Societies, 15(4), 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15040077

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

School Innovation: Building a Culture Through Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement

Abstract

1. Introduction and Background

1.1. Problem Statement

1.2. Study Objectives

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Role of School Principals in Cultivating a Culture of Innovation in Schools

2.2. Performance of School Leadership and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

2.3. Students, Parents, and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

2.4. School Activities, Programs, Research, and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

2.5. School Environment and Building a Successful Culture of Innovation

2.6. Research Questions

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants

3.2. Questionnaire

3.3. Variables

3.4. Data Collection

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

4.1.1. Gender Frequency

4.1.2. Respondents’ Years of Experience

4.1.3. Respondents’ Educational Qualifications

4.1.4. Professional Role

4.1.5. Evaluation of Culture of Innovation

4.1.6. School Leadership

4.1.7. Students, Parents, and the School Environment

4.1.8. Research and Innovation

4.1.9. Activities and Programs

4.1.10. The Working Environment

4.1.11. Reliability Test, KMO, and Bartlett’s Test

4.1.12. Addressing the Research Questions

5. Discussion of Findings

5.1. Leadership and Innovation Culture

5.2. Stakeholder Relationships: Students, Parents, and the School Environment

5.3. Activities, Programs, and Innovation

5.4. Work Environment and Innovation

5.5. Principals’ Characteristics: Education and Experience

5.6. Synthesis of Findings Across Variables

6. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of Interest

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI