The Impact of Head Start Middle Managers' Transformational Leadership on Organizational Learning and Innovativeness in the United States

The Impact of Head Start Middle Managers' Transformational Leadership on Organizational

Learning and Innovativeness in the United States

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

The purpose of this dissertation research is to examine the relationship between middle

managers' transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness within

various Head Start programs across the United States. Leadership influences followers in

achieving organizational goals and actualizing the vision, which makes it the most powerful

commodity in an organization (Northouse, 2021). Scholars posit that transformational leadership

motivates and inspires followers by transmuting their perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and,

ultimately, their actions (Xie, 2020). Transformational leadership has four core components:

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration (Bass & Avolio, 1993), and it is found in all organizations and on all hierarchical

levels (Andersen, 2018).

The four aspects of transformational leadership—idealized influence, inspirational

motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration—yield innovative

organizational cultures based on the assumption that everyone contributes to solving complex

problems by empowering them to take responsibility for achieving the vision (Bass & Avolio,

1993). Transformational leaders are charismatic, inspire learning, give personal attention, and

communicate high expectations (Northouse, 2021).

The dissertation research focuses on two dependent variables of organizational learning

and innovativeness and examines the influence of transformational leadership on these

constructs. Organizational learning enhances internal processes and systems through acquired

knowledge, practice (Park & Kim, 2018), and knowledge sharing or exchanging information

among groups (Ouakouak & Ouedraogo, 2019). Continued learning directly relates to long-term

organizational behavior change (Watad, 2019). Organizational innovativeness is the ability or

readiness to develop different types of innovations, and the process requires an openness to new

ideas, creativity, experimentation, flexibility, and a willingness to change (Strychalska-

Rudzewicz & Rudzewicz, 2021). Consequently, there is substantial agreement in the literature

that transformational leadership is significantly related to organizational learning (Eun-Jee &

Park, 2019; Vashdi et al., 2019; Xie, 2020) and innovativeness (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Chung

& Li, 2021). More profoundly, Xie (2020) acclaimed transformational leadership as the

preeminent form of leadership for a learning organization. Additionally, the literature confirms a

significant relationship between organizational learning and innovation (Bahadur et al., 2021;

Baxla & Mishra, 2022; Karimi et al., 2023).

However, a gap exists in the literature regarding how these findings translate to different

demographics, such as early childhood programs such as Head Start. This research sought to fill

that gap through a conceptual replication of research investigating transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and innovation (Alsalami et al., 2014; García-Morales, 2012; Noruzy et

al., 2013). Their quantitative methodologies involved structural equation modeling with

participants in manufacturing and the public and private sections in Dubai, Spain, and Iran. Their

findings have been cited extensively, forming the basis for subsequent studies on the topic.

Instead of replicating their procedures with a new sample, this study tested a similar underlying

hypothesis but introduced variations (Derksen & Morawski, 2022) by focusing on Head Start

middle managers. Such a replication is pivotal for understanding the broader implications of the

original findings and discerning whether similar effects manifest in Head Start programs.

Why is the previously mentioned confirmation of the interrelationship between

leadership, organizational learning, and innovation important? Organizations of all types and

sizes operate in complex and competitive environments. As such, Pudjiarti and Priagung Hutomo

(2020) surmised that leaders must engage in strategic resource utility and continuous innovation.

Leadership, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness help sustain superior

business performance during times of uncertainty and optimize competitive advantages (Mai et

al., 2022; Srirahayu et al., 2022). In other words, ongoing learning and knowledge sharing give

employees the skills to adopt new strategies, efficiencies, and capabilities (Ouakouak &

Ouedraogo, 2019; Zhao et al., 2021). Accordingly, the COVID-19 pandemic impacted

organizations' abilities to innovate (Bar Am et al., 2020) and to learn important factors that

influence performance and survival (Berraies & Zine El Abidine, 2019).

Despite the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Yukl and Gardner (2020)

laid the foundation for organizations to cope with complex situations. Their work elucidates how

organizational learning can significantly impact decision-making, innovation, the cultivation of

strategic advantages, and effective change management. Organizational learning encompasses

two central concepts: exploitation and exploration. Exploitation entails decisions and actions

involving refinement, choices, efficiencies, implementation, and execution (March, 1991). On

the other hand, exploration involves venturing into new areas such as innovation, risk-taking,

variation, and experimentation. March's groundbreaking seminal work on organizations as

adaptive systems propelled the exploitation-exploration paradox into research across leadership,

business, and finance, solidifying that the concept is directly related to innovation, organizational

learning, strategic action, and survival (Levine & Argote, 2020; Wilden et al., 2018).

In thinking about survival and sustainability, the federally funded Head Start, an early

childhood program that serves at-risk children from birth through 5 years of age, was among the

organizations impacted by the pandemic. The National Institute of Early Education Research

identified the following pandemic-related challenges in Head Start programs: (a) increased

inequities in enrollment, dropping by 257,000 children between 2018-2019, (b) lower staff

salaries, averaging $37,685 annually, and (c) inconsistent quality across programs nationwide

(Arundel, 2022). Additionally, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS;

US DHHS, 2023) reported the loss of over 80,000 early childhood jobs in 2020, with many

organizations expressing that they could not recruit candidates to fill vacancies.

Coupled with the residual effects of the pandemic, the 2024 proposed budget cuts to

Head Start would cause additional constraints and challenges. The anticipated federal budget for

Head Start for the fiscal year 2024 allocates $11,246,820,000, denoting a $750,000,000 decrease

from the 2023 funding level, representing a 6.25% cut to vital early education services for

children and families (National Head Start Association, 2023). Moreover, over 80,000 eligible

children would no longer have access to services (National Head Start Association, 2023),

directly impacting programs across the United States (Williams, 2023). Head Start programs are

funded based on the number of children served; a reduction in enrollment has budgetary

implications. Like other types of organizations, many Head Start agencies face turbulent

conditions and obstacles, as elucidated by García-Morales et al. (2012) in their organizational

learning and innovation research. Organizational learning and innovation facilitated through

transformational leadership may provide the answers needed to create competitive advantages,

which provides the premise and context for this dissertation.

This chapter addresses the problem statement, research purpose, research question and

hypotheses, theoretical framework, significance of the study, delimitations and limitations, and

definition of terms. The chapter concludes with a brief description of the research design and an

overview of the dissertation research's organization throughout the rest of the document.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Head Start programs nationwide are experiencing challenges, such as low enrollment and

increased staff vacancies (Arundel, 2022; Ioakimedes, 2022). The central problem examined in

this dissertation research is the assumption that transformational leadership theory relates to the

antecedents of organizational learning and innovativeness as described in research (Bahadur et

al., 2021; García-Morales et al., 2012; Ruvio et al., 2014) in a Head Start early childhood

organization. Whether a significant relationship exists between transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and innovativeness is unknown in an early childhood setting, as

literature does not currently exist.

There are many studies on transformational leadership organizational learning

(Alblooshi et al., 2021; Imran et al., 2016; Khan & Khan, 2019; Khan & Ismail, 2017; Mohamed

& Otman, 2021Vashdi et al., 2019; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020; Verma et al., 2022; Yukl, 2009).

Verma et al. (2022) specified that new research should empirically test the relationship between

organizational learning, transformational leadership, and innovativeness in different industries.

The limited research on how these concepts impact early childhood organizations shapes the

following questions:

1. Does transformational leadership of middle managers in Head Start impact

organizational learning and innovativeness?

2. Is there an interrelationship between transformational leadership, organizational

learning, and innovativeness?

These two questions provide data on the effects of transformational leadership on organizational

learning and innovativeness and the associations and correlations among all the variables.

Understanding the interrelationship between transformational leadership, organizational learning,

and innovativeness can contribute to a deeper understanding of their combined effects and

provide implications for leadership development and organizational strategies. Finally, the

questions can contribute to organizational leadership and behavior in an early childhood setting.

1.2 Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this quantitative study is to investigate the relationships among the

transformational leadership of middle managers, organizational learning, and innovativeness.

The study was designed to offer Head Start programs guidance and support in transformational

leadership, aiming to enhance improvements through learning and innovation. The objectives of

the research are the following:

1. Identify which transformational leadership behaviors correlate with individual and

group organizational learning.

2. Explore the relationships between middle managers' transformational leadership and

innovativeness.

3. Determine which transformational leadership behavior correlates most with

the different aspects of innovativeness.

1.3 Research Design

The researcher employed a non-experimental, explanatory correlational research design,

and it aims to investigate the extent to which a relationship exists between Head Start middle

managers' transformational leadership behaviors, organizational learning, and organizational

innovativeness. The central research question and basis for this research are, “What is the

relationship between middle managers' transformational leadership behaviors, organizational

learning, and organizational innovativeness within a Head Start program?” The research question

and hypotheses guiding this study was answered by the transformational leadership and

organizational learning scale (García-Morales et al., 2012) and the organizational innovativeness

scale (Ruvio et al., 2014). The hypotheses predict the strength and direction of the relationships

between the variables, which are as follows:

H1: There is a significant relationship between Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness.

H2: A positive correlation exists between the Head Start middle manager's

transformational leadership and organizational learning.

H3: A positive correlation exists between Head Start middle managers' transformational

leadership and organizational innovativeness.

H4: A positive correlation exists between organizational learning and organizational

innovativeness.

H5: Organizational learning significantly predicts organizational innovativeness,

indicating a positive relationship between the two variables.

1.4 Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework is a “dynamic meeting place of theory and method” (Ravitch

& Riggan, 2017, p. 141). Therefore, the framework answers the central research question for the

study, “Do middle managers' transformational leadership behaviors explain organizational

learning and organizational innovativeness within a Head Start program?” The transformational

leadership theory is the theoretical framework guides and anchors this dissertation research

(Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995). In this case, the theoretical framework provides the

integration and intersection of the transformational leadership components: idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, and how

they explain organizational learning and innovativeness. Transformational leadership provides

the

theoretical basis for how organizational learning and innovativeness constructs occur within the

context of an organization.

1.4.1 Transformational Leadership Theoretical Framework

Since the inception of the transformational leadership theory 50 years ago, new evidence

and standpoints have modified the theory from solely characterizing and embodying political

leadership to a popular phenomenon that changes the trajectory of organizations with innovative

and learning capabilities (Chung & Li, 2021; Verma et al., 2022). Scholars describe

transformational leadership as a transmutable and altering process that catalyzes followers to

perform beyond expectations by increasing their consciousness and steering them toward

actualizing collective goals (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Northouse, 2021; Yukl, 2009).

Transformative leaders support, challenge, and inspire followers, which increases trust and

engagement in learning processes and activities (Eun-Jee & Park, 2019).

The origin of transformational leadership theory started with James Downton, a

sociologist who, in 1973, was the first person to coin the term (Burgess, 2016). Notably, Robert

House's (1976) ideations of charismatic leadership influenced the theory that later manifested in

James Burns's (1978) Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Leadership, empirically positioning the

transformational leadership theory in the field (as cited in Burgess, 2016). Burns accomplished

this feat by challenging leader-centric approaches in leadership studies (Couto, 2015), previously

dominated by the leaders' behaviors, skills, and traits with minimal regard for followers (Yukl &

Gardner, 2020). He was the first authority to expand the leadership process beyond achieving

goals and merely influencing followers by incorporating the leader's values, ability to motivate

others, and embedding morality (Burns, 2003; Northouse, 2021).

Similarly, in distancing from the leader-centric perspective, Bass's (1985) theoretical

revisions to transformational leadership integrated four key concepts: (a) idealized influence, (b)

inspirational motivation, (c) intellectual stimulation, and (d) individualized consideration (as

cited in Northouse, 2021). Idealized influence is the emotional aspect, where the leader

communicates the vision using charisma to garner support for transformation (Northouse, 2021).

Inspirational motivation is the attention paid to the feelings and needs of followers (Vermeulen

et al., 2022) and the inspiration invoked by the leader (Smerek, 2018). Intellectual stimulation is

the leadership behavior that challenges the employees in an organization to foster innovation and

creativity (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Mai et al., 2022; Wilden et al., 2018). Individualized

consideration coaches the employee with authentic concern (Northouse, 2021).

Moreover, idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration are integral to a leader's ability to create positive relationships,

culture, and a shared vision (Park & Kim, 2018). Within organizations characterized by these

leadership qualities, employees actively seek new knowledge and embrace challenges (Eun-Jee

& Park, 2019). Promoting knowledge-sharing fostered by transformational leaders facilitates

organizational learning (Mahendra, 2018). These leaders provide employees with essential task

information, feedback, and instruction while collaborating with others to develop new ideas,

services, innovations, or procedures (Park & Kim, 2018), all of which are essential elements of

organizational learning. In sum, research consistently demonstrates a positive and significant

association between transformational leadership and organizational learning (Eun-Jee & Park,

2019; García-Morales et al., 2012; Nguyen & Luu, 2019; Vashdi et al., 2019; Xie, 2020).

To further detail the unique features of transformational leaders, Burns (2003) explained

that “leaders take the initiative in mobilizing people for the participation in change processes,

encouraging a sense of collective identity and efficacy, which in turn brings stronger feelings of

self-worth” (p. 25). As such, Mai et al. (2022) found that middle managers' transformational

leadership behaviors, such as intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, were key

facets that helped acquiesce employee commitment toward organizational innovativeness.

Culture promotes creativity, a critical feature in organizational learning and innovativeness

(Chong et al., 2018; Hester van Breda-Verduijn & Heijboer, 2016; Ruvio et al., 2014; Safiia,

2019). In this sense, an innovative culture is flexible and responsive in rapidly changing

environments, and middle managers fit into and model the culture (Chong et al., 2018).

1.4.2 Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning, and Innovativeness Model

As elucidated in Figure 1, the four characteristics of transformational leadership:

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized

consideration permeate the culture, with the shared vision helping to facilitate and explain

organizational learning as constructed by García-Morales et al. (2012). Ryan Smerek (2018), the

author of the book Organizational Learning and Performance and a professor at Northwestern

University, posited that a shared vision vicariously through the leader is a mechanism that

motivates learning by raising aspirational levels. According to Smerek (2018), shared vision and

culture are interconnected, particularly in transformational leadership, where both components

are essential for driving change, achieving organizational goals, and fostering innovation and

learning (Anderson, 2017). The descriptors of shared vision and culture within transformational

leadership clarify how learning and innovativeness occur contextually in an organization.

Furthermore, innovativeness has five dimensions: creativity, openness, future orientation,

risk-taking, and proactiveness (Ruvio et al., 2014). Ruvio et al.'s (2014) model demonstrates

how employees can have input via the culture into creating new processes, approaches, or

services. The overall conceptual model in Figure 1 shows the direct relationship between all the

theories, which were tested using a multivariate regression model. The model denotes the other

four hypotheses, the research question, and the overlapping relationship between organizational

learning and innovativeness to establish the hypothesized relationship. The model accounts for

the multidimensionality of transformational leadership and innovativeness by including the

distinct attributes accredited. Finally, transformational leadership is the nexus connecting

organizational learning and innovativeness.

Figure 1

Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning, and Innovativeness Model

1.5 Research Significance

For several reasons, there is saliency in researching the impact of a middle manager's

transformational leadership on organizational learning and innovativeness within a Head Start

program. First, no research exists on these variables being examined in an early childhood

setting, such as Head Start. Second, most of the current research on organizational learning and

innovation occurs outside of the United States (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Bahadur et al., 2021;

RQ1

Chung & Li, 2021; Mai et al., 2022; Vashdi et al., 2019; Verma et al., 2022; Xie, 2020). Third,

middle managers' leadership was unexamined in organizations, specifically early childhood

settings, with much of the research on organizational learning and innovation focusing on senior

leaders (Bahadur et al., 2021; Berraies & Zine El Abidine, 2019; Mohamed & Otman, 2021;

Noruzy et al., 2013).

The dissertation research provides four key facets. First, fostering the understanding of

which transformational leadership behaviors are the most correlated with individual employees

and organizational learning. Second, identifying which transformational leadership behaviors are

most correlated with the five characteristics of organizational innovation: creativity, openness,

future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness. Third, providing an awareness of the impact of

transformational leadership style among middle managers as a potential prerequisite for

improving organizational problem-solving, decision-making, learning, and performance as

predicted by scholars (García-Morales et al., 2012). Fourth, the findings of this study enhance

leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness by explaining how early childhood

programs such as Head Start improve their business performance and respond to the residual

impacts of COVID-19. Additional research in American-based settings could help leadership

scholars and the United States Administration for Children and Families that fund Head Start

programs better understand the relationships between the variables and address the multiple

literature gaps.

1.6 Assumptions

The study includes the following assumptions. First, it assumes that all participants,

middle managers, are English language proficient and can read and answer the survey questions.

Second, it is assumed that all participants answered the survey questions openly and honestly.

Third, the survey instruments (García-Morales et al., 2012) for the study are reliable and valid to

measure the constructs of transformational leadership, organizational learning, and

organizational innovativeness. Finally, the study presupposes that each middle manager has

some level of transformational leadership behaviors.

1.7 Delimitations

The study has several delimitations. This study examines the predictive credibility of the

dependent variables: organizational learning and organizational innovativeness in accounting for

the variability in the independent variable, middle managers' transformational leadership in Head

Start, and early childhood programs throughout the United States. Most of the research

previously conducted on transformational leadership, organizational learning, and organizational

innovativeness occurred outside of the United States and in industries other than an early

childhood program. Therefore, the phenomena are unstudied in this context; this research may

only address some of the needs of prior research due to differences in population and location.

The study excludes program directors and executive leaders in Head Start programs.

The dissertation research design delimits itself to a quantitative correlational study.

The research avoids concentrating on cause or effect and doesn't determine the reasoning behind

the existence or absence of the relationships. The study aims to uncover the relationship between

middle manager's transformational leadership, organizational learning, and organizational

innovativeness.

1.8 Limitations

The limitations of this study that may affect the generalization of the findings include

self-reported survey data, which are susceptible to bias and may lead to inaccurate conclusions

(Ross & Bibler Zaida, 2019). The statistical tests, correlational and multivariate regression, will

not provide cause and effect determinations, only relational data (Urdan, 2022). Moreover, using

a convenience sample does not allow generalizability to the entire population. The study's results

may need additional statistical testing in future research using probability sampling to validate

generalizability (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).

A mixed-methods design would include rich interview data to help fully elucidate an

understanding of middle managers' perceptions of transformational leadership and how they

impact organizational learning and innovativeness. This design was not selected due to time

constraints. Siangchokyoo et al. (2020) recommended a more mixed methods research design to

test the transformational leadership components to strengthen and recreate a richer theory. The

predominance of the research has employed a quantitative design, and a qualitative approach

could help further the understanding of individuals' perceptions and beliefs about

transformational leadership, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness. Xie

(2020) called for more grounded qualitative research to assess transformational leadership

theory.

1.9 Definition of Terms

The key terms for the dissertation are transformational leadership, organizational

learning, organizational innovativeness, innovation, middle managers, the Head Start program,

and mental models. The definitions for the terms are listed below.

Transformational Leadership is an inspirational and motivational approach that fosters

knowledge dissemination and promotes employee creativity by communicating followers' shared

vision, purpose, and direction (Bass, 1985; García-Morales et al., 2012).

Organizational Learning is the capability “within an organization to maintain or improve

performance based on experience. This activity involves knowledge acquisition (the

development or creation of skills, insights, and relationships), knowledge sharing (the

dissemination to others of what has been acquired by some), and knowledge utilization

(integration of learning so that it is assimilated and broadly available and can be generalized to

new situations)” (Dibella et al., 1996, p. 363).

Organizational Innovativeness is the number of innovations an organization has adopted

(Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Ruvio et al., 2014) based on five attributes: openness, future risk-

taking orientation, proactiveness, and creativity.

Innovation is developing, adopting, and implementing new processes, products, policies,

programs, or services that require learning and behavior change (Bahadur et al., 2021).

Middle Managers are mid-level employees who manage and serve as administrators,

leaders, mentors, and change agents who translate and help actualize the vision of superior

leaders in an organization (Boureston, 2019) and oversee day-to-day operations (Mai et al.,

2022).

Head Start Programs are sub-recipient agencies funded by the Administration for

Children and Families to provide a comprehensive early childhood program that includes

education, health, nutrition, mental health, and family support and engagement services to

children and families who are at risk and have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines

(The Office of Head Start, 2022b).

Mental Models are cognitive frames that guide how the world works, and they are based

on repeating what has already been done (Serrat, 2021).

Mental models shape the organizational culture. The accumulated shared learning of a

group, as it solves problems of external adaptation and internal integration, has worked

well enough to be considered valid to be taught to new members as the correct way to

perceive, think, feel, and behave concerning those problems. (Schein, 2017, p. 6)

The accumulated learning is a pattern and system of beliefs, values, and behavioral norms that

transform into conscious reality (Schein, 2017).

1.10 Overview of Organization of the Dissertation Proposal

Chapter 1 outlined the problem in examining how transformational leadership impacts

organizational learning and innovativeness in Head Start programs and why it is significant.

Subsequently, this chapter outlines the research question and hypotheses guiding the research,

purpose, theoretical framework, and key terms. Chapter 2 presents a critical review of the

literature related to the research question and the hypotheses, theoretical and historical

foundations, and a detailed background of the dependent and independent variables. Chapter 3

expounds on the research design and rationale, data collection procedures, and statistical analysis

for this dissertation research.

CHAPTER 2: Review of Literature

This non-experimental, explanatory correlational research explores the relationship

between Head Start middle managers' transformational leadership behaviors, organizational

learning, and organizational innovativeness. Leadership, organizational learning, and

organizational innovativeness help sustain superior business performance during times of

uncertainty and optimize competitive advantages (Mai et al., 2022). The literature review

focuses on the current and seminal research and findings on transformational leadership, middle

management, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness, which provide

empirical insight and conceptual linkages into any relationships between the variables. Further, it

presents research salient to the preparation of Head Start middle managers in supporting their

role in fostering and contributing to organizational learning and organizational innovativeness,

the basis for achieving sustainability and optimal performance results.

2.1 Literature Review Methods

The selection process focused on predominantly peer-reviewed books and research

studies from the past 5 years to ensure a comprehensive and up-to-date review capturing the

latest trends, developments, and methodologies in the field (Maggio et al., 2016; Pautasso, 2013;

Santini, 2018). Using literature from the past five years in a dissertation is crucial to ensuring

relevance and credibility (Santini, 2018). The author indicated that literature from the last 5 years

aids in identifying current gaps in knowledge, offers a meaningful comparative analysis of the

research findings, and underscores the study's alignment with contemporary discourse.

Furthermore, the review included relevant qualitative and quantitative studies from databases

such as ProQuest, JSTOR, ABI/INFORM Complete, Business Source Complete, and

PsycARTICLES. The key terms involved in the search were transformational leadership,

organizational learning, innovation, organizational innovativeness, and middle managers.

2.2 Organization of the Literature Review

The body of literature begins with an overview of the history of the Head Start program

and the general leadership structure within a local agency. Next, the literature examines

transformational leadership theory in the context of organizational learning, innovativeness, and

middle managers. Subsequently, the related literature provides the specific constructs,

definitions, and general theoretical underpinnings of organizational learning and organizational

innovativeness that validate the relevance and relationship with middle managers'

transformational leadership. The literature review concludes with a summary.

2.3 History of the Head Start Program

Over 58 years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson avowed legislation in his State of the

Union to address the amelioration of socio-economic inequalities and conditions persisting

across the country, known as the “War on Poverty” (Office of Head Start, 2022). As a result of a

recommendation from expert pediatricians and child psychologists, Head Start began as an

eight- week demonstration project designed to help break the generational cycles of poverty for

low- income families as one of the domestic programs in Johnson's Great Society agenda (The

Early Childhood Learning and Knowledge Center, 2019; The Office of Head Start, 2022a). Head

Start is a comprehensive early childhood program that provides education, health, nutrition,

mental health, and family support services to at-risk children and families with incomes below

the federal poverty guidelines (The Office of Head Start, 2022b).

In 2007, President Bush reauthorized Head Start with legislation that caused vital

changes to the program to strengthen and improve the quality of program services (The Early

Learning and Knowledge Center, 2019). The Office of Head Start Early Learning and

Knowledge Center indicated that these changes included a realignment of Head Start school

readiness goals, higher degree qualifications for teaching staff, and increased monitoring of

programs to include an evaluation of program outcomes and operations. Additionally, the

website specified that the 110th Congress passed the reauthorization known as the Improving

Head Start for School Readiness Act with bi-partisan support through September 30, 2012, in

Public Law, 110-134. Congress has not reauthorized Head Start since then but continues to allot

federal appropriations annually. All Head Start agencies must comply with and meet the

requirements of Head Start Program Performance Standards, the regulations that govern the

program first developed in 1975 and most recently updated in 2016 (The Office of Head Start,

2022a).

Since 1965, more than 36 million children have enrolled in Head Start, the country's

oldest and largest early childhood program (The Office of Head Start, 2022a). Head Start grew

from an eight-week project to full-day, full-year, multifaceted program options for families,

serving preschool-age children, with services expanding to infants, toddlers, and pregnant

women in the Early Head Start in 1994 upon approval from Congress (The Early Childhood

Learning and Knowledge Center, 2019). Nationally, over 1 million children receive Head Start

and Early Head Start services in 1,600 organizations situated in local communities; most are

nonprofits, schools, and community action agencies (The Office of Head Start, 2022b). In April

2022, Congress approved $11,036,820,000 in appropriations for Head Start, an increase of $289

million over the fiscal year 2021 (US DHHS, 2022).

Because of the federal financial investment in the Head Start program, innovation has

been a vital aspect of the program since its inception. Likewise, Edward Zigler, a child

psychologist from Yale University who helped start the program, explained over 53 years ago

that Head Start should be a model of the best and most innovative child and family services

(Vinci, 2018). The author noted that the founders of Head Start embedded organizational

innovativeness into the program's mission. However, do Head Start programs employ

organizational innovativeness and learning, positively affecting competitiveness and

performance (Bello & Adeoye, 2018; Levine & Argote, 2020; Mai et al., 2022; Wilden et al.,

2018; Yuliansyah et al., 2021)?

The answer to the question is not definitive due to the gaps in the literature, and it

depends on who is responding. For example, Mead and Mitchel (2016) argued that despite its

long-standing history, the program continues to experience several challenges with the increased

competition with the state-funded pre-kindergarten programs. More pejoratively, they quote

Checker E. Finn, Jr., a former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education:

Despite its popularity and the billions spent on it, and notwithstanding its decent job of

targeting services for needy kids, today's Head Start, when viewed through the lens of

pre-K education and kindergarten readiness, amounts to a huge, wasted opportunity.

(Mead & Mitchel, 2016, p. 20)

The authors posited that Head Start programs had not implemented high innovation to address

their challenges.

2.3.1 Head Start Leadership Structure

An efficient and effective leader is someone who listens and responds to the needs of their

team. It is a person who is unafraid to challenge the status quo and constantly strives to

innovate and improve.

— Dr. Deborah Bergeron, Former National Director of the Office of Head Start

As described in the quote by Dr. Bergeron, the Office of Head Start (2022) subsumes the

synergy of innovative leadership, effective management systems, and well-designed services

equal to high-quality child and family outcomes. The Head Start Program Performance

Standards (2016) identify the critical leadership structure required in a program, including

middle managers or individuals responsible for delivering comprehensive services. Head Start

middle managers are the staff responsible for these different service areas, including education,

health, disabilities, nutrition, transportation, and administrative duties such as human resources

(Head Start Performance Standards, 2016), and they generally report to the Head Start Director

or an executive leader that has program oversight responsibilities. Middle managers for this

dissertation study exclude Head Start directors or those with executive program oversight

responsibilities. The study assumes that the transformational leadership of middle managers is

central to organizational learning and innovativeness.

2.4 Transformational Leadership Theory and Organizational Learning

One definition of organizational learning is a dynamic learning process used to acquire,

retain, share, and transfer knowledge (Mousa et al., 2020). Knowledge improves actions and

reactions in organizational learning (Elshanti, 2017) by enabling people to do things differently

(Hariharan & Vivekanand, 2018). For the last 60 years, organizational learning has dominated

management literature (Lambert, 2022; Mousa et al., 2020) as the theory has continued to evolve

the processes and constructs from its early theoretical inception. The one constant in

organizational learning research is the influence of leadership (Eun-Jee & Park, 2019; Lundqvist

et al., 2023; Park & Kim, 2018).

Toward that end, Thoroughgood et al. (2018) explained that “Leadership is a

dynamic, co-creational process between leaders, followers, and environments, the product of

which

contributes to group and organizational outcomes” (p. 627). In other words, leadership involves

an ongoing relational process that is interactive, where the leader and the followers influence

one another. There is some research on organizational learning and different leadership theory

types; for example, sustainable leadership (Iqbal & Ahmad, 2021), authentic leadership (Milić et

al., 2017; Nawaz & Tian, 2022), servant (Xie, 2020), and strategic leadership (Naim & Lenka,

2020). Despite this fact, research shows that transformational leadership plays a significant role

in improving organizational learning (Alblooshi et al., 2021; Imran et al., 2016; Khan & Ismail,

2017; Khan & Khan, 2019; Megheirkouni, 2018; Mohamed & Otman, 2021; Siangchokyoo et

al., 2020; Vashdi et al., 2019; Verma et al., 2022; Yukl, 2009) at the group and organizational

level of analysis.

The leadership style is the impetus that can preclude an organization from establishing a

culture that fosters the discovery, diffusion, and application of new knowledge (Yukl, 2009). It

can also break an organization (Jaroliya & Gyanchandani, 2022). To illustrate this, Milway and

Saxton (2011) found that leaders experienced difficulties implementing organizational learning

based on three barriers:

1. A lack of measurable goals about using knowledge to improve performance

2. Insufficient incentives to promote organizational learning

3. Uncertainty about the effectiveness of processes for documenting knowledge sharing

The authors explained that 97% of the survey respondents espoused that their leaders valued

knowledge sharing to accomplish the mission but could not implement organizational learning

within the agency. In this case, discussing the importance of knowledge sharing is insufficient in

creating a culture conducive to fostering learning. Transformational leaders change the culture

and promote individual growth by inspiring members to acquiesce to a positive environment (Park

& Kim, 2018).

Additionally, Lundqvist et al. (2023) solidified the assertion that a statistically significant

relationship exists between different types of leadership and organizational learning in his

systematic literature review of 105 studies published from 1998 through 2021. His research

resulted in four key findings. First, of the 105 studies, 100 employed quantitative design.

Second, transformational leadership and behaviors were the most researched leadership styles

investigated, and the two strongest indicators that influenced learning at the organizational level

were individual consideration and idealized influence. Third, Lundqvist et al. (2023) identified

only one study by Megheirkouni (2018) that examined the impact of transformational and

transactional leadership styles on fostering organizational learning at sports organizations. He

showed through hierarchical regression results of p=0.00<0.01, with a beta weight of 0.24, that

idealized influence was the only statistically significant transformational behavior associated

with learning at the organizational level versus the individual and group levels. Fourth, like the

work of Senge (1990), he explained that group learning was a process in which different

members share different ideas and experiences, creating shared mental models that direct how

they behave and complete tasks. The evidence suggests that idealized influence, individual

consideration, and intellectual stimulation are significant in transformational leadership at the

organizational level of analysis. This dissertation research examined if the findings were similar

and consistent at the group level of analysis using a sample of middle managers and

understanding how those mental models influence organizational learning.

Moreover, research on transformational leadership and organizational behavior revealed

advantageous macro-level outcomes. Specifically, Eun-Jee and Park (2019) examined the

relationship between transformational leadership, organizational learning, interpersonal trust, and

organizational citizenship behavior in the manufacturing sector in South Korea. They analyzed

survey data from 208 employee respondents using structural model equation methods, and the

findings showed that transformational leadership directly influenced organizational learning.

Additional findings revealed that organizational learning mediated the relationship between

transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior when employees engage in

positive and constructive actions above and beyond their job description that benefit the

organization.

Likewise, Nguyen and Luu (2019) contributed to similar findings related to

transformational leadership and organizational learning, mirroring the insights discovered by

Eun-Jee and Park (2019). Their quantitative research on 314 executive leaders in

manufacturing firms in Vietnam. Their empirical investigation had two goals: determining the

role of transformational leadership on organizational performance and the indirect and direct

effects of transformational leadership on culture, innovation, and organizational learning.

Structural modeling equation analyses revealed that transformational leadership was directly

related to organizational innovation and learning, culture, and performance. They showed that

transformational leadership had a more significant effect on organizational innovation than

organizational learning, although transformational leadership correlated with organizational

learning and innovation.

In short, transformational leaders inspire followers to achieve organizational goals (Bass,

1985), empowering people to engage in collective group and individual learning and feedback

loops (Xie, 2020). Scholars (e.g., Bligh et al., 2018; Verma et al., 2022) insisted that

transformational leaders support an organizational learning culture by openly encouraging

employees to learn from their errors. The four fundamental tenets of transformational leadership,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and idealized

influence, relate to organizational learning through the leaders' positive communication,

encouragement, feedback, and reward for achieving goals (Vashdi et al., 2019).

2.5 Conceptualization of Organizational Learning

Transitioning from the influence of transformational leadership on organizational

learning, the subsequent focus is on the conceptualization itself. Aligned with Şahin's (2021)

perspective on organizational learning, this dissertation research explores three key

conceptualizations: Levitt and March's (1988) cognitive-behavioral viewpoint, Argyris and

Schön's (1978, 1996) loop learning, and Senge's (1990) learning organization model. These

three viewpoints on organizational learning converge on a common definition presented by Fiol

and Lyles (1985), who state that “Organizational learning means the process of improving

actions through better knowledge and understanding” (p. 803). Within Fiol and Lyles's definition

is that learning occurs at the individual and organizational levels, unequivocally involving

cognition and human behavior among employees at various levels.

2.5.1 March’s Influence on Organizational Learning

Cybert and March (1963), in their book, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, identified

organizational learning in a decision-making model around bounded rationality and satisficing or

aiming for an acceptable solution rather than a perfect option (as cited in Castaneda et al., 2018).

Collectively, they linked decision-making principles, such as choosing solutions during times of

uncertainty and ambiguity, to organizational learning by connecting them to norms and routines

(Li et al., 2021; Mie, 2010). They argued that individuals and organizations rely on routines or

taken-for-granted assumptions from experience rather than evaluating and gauging the

consequences of alternatives (Lemken & Anderson, 2022). Learning how and when to make

decisions, such as exploring or exploiting within an organization, was one of the earliest

attempts to identify organizational learning conditions (March 1991).

Levitt and March's (1988) organizational learning framework has a cognitive behavioral

perspective that characterizes learning as an individual human process of consuming and storing

new concepts, skills, and behaviors concerning translating learning into capabilities that add to

organizational resources and dynamics (Hariharan & Vivekanand, 2018). The framework

consists of the fundamental proposition that knowledge from organizational learning is derived

from routines, history-based learning, and aspired targets, and it is manifested in the

organizational culture. Notably, routines are the focal point of the framework, and there are four

critical aspects to routines. First, routines result from interpretations of the past and guide

decision-making in exploration and exploitation. Second, it is followed by adapting to feedback

about outcomes. Third, learning from routines encodes historical inferences, including forms,

rules, procedures, strategies, and technologies that guide behavior. Lastly, routines include

cultural and climate components such as beliefs, frameworks, paradigms, codes, cultures, and

knowledge. In other words, within their framework, organizational learning is viewed as

routines-based, history-dependent, and target-oriented.

2.5.2 Loop Learning

In the 1970s, Chris Argyris and Donald Schön extended the organizational learning

theory by incorporating assumptions from the experiential learning theories of John Dewy and

Kurt Lewin (Skhiri, 2017; Tosey et al., 2012). Experiential learning is a holistic, integrative

approach that combines experience, perception, cognition, and behavior in adult education

(Miettinen, 2000). As one of the more prominent and well-cited organizational learning theories,

Argyris and Schön's loop learning focuses on human behavior and the theory of action, acting on

existing knowledge to foster change (Basten & Haamann, 2018; Elkjaer, 2021; Skhiri, 2017). In

learning, leaders compare expectations with the intended results, reflecting, exploring, and

asking questions that engage in a deeper form of learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978), thus

implying that the stimulating intellect component of transformational leadership aligns with this

proposition.

Single-loop learning encompasses adaptations, knowledge consolidation from different

members, detecting and correcting errors (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996; Chaney, 2022), and

embedding the results into organizational maps and images (Elshanti, 2017). Double-loop

learning occurs when staff questions strategic goals and organizational responses (Skhiri, 2017)

and uses their acquired knowledge to detect and correct errors (Argyris & Schön, 1996). Loop

learning challenges deeply held beliefs when assessing why an error occurred and how to correct

it to construct new processes, systems, or ways of doing business. Double-loop learning results

from a crisis, creating a need for a different vision and directives from leadership for a new

product (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

Basten and Haamann (2018) conducted a concept-driven narrative review to identify

learning approaches and link those to the various organizational learning theories. Their research

design focused on compiling conclusions from multiple studies to advance models and

recommend future research. After reviewing 405 studies, they revealed 18 organizational

learning approaches, such as research and development, a process that challenges past collective

assumptions, and single-loop learning evolves to create new problem-solving approaches. They

surmised loop learning was beneficial in the engineering process when developing new products

that may fail or need revisions. Finally, they raised questions about the utility of loop learning.

Specifically, they explained that single and double-loop learning levels within organizational

learning are challenging to achieve due to a lack of coherent conceptualization and instructions

on implementation. The question remains how organizational loop learning fits in a service-

based industry.

2.5.3 Learning Organization Perspective

Senge (1990), who built on the theoretical influence of Argyris and Schön, argues that an

organization is a place where people can expand their competencies by learning together, leading

to desirable results. He also raised concerns with their organizational learning theory by

suggesting that it omitted the systems thinking perspective, which helps managers evoke

strategic change. Senge added four other dimensions to learning in addition to systems thinking:

mental models, shared vision, and personal mastery. Collectively, the dimensions foster groups'

capabilities to create; he deviated from the term organizational learning and coined his theory of

the learning organization. He characterized the learning organization as “where people

continually expand their capacity to create results they truly desire, where new and expansive

patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free and where people are

continually learning how to learn together” (Senge, 1990, p. 3).

The main emphasis of Senge's work was augmenting existing mental models to focus

more on systems thinking, identifying flaws, and challenging them when necessary. Mental

models augment the concept to mean deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, pictures,

and images that influence how we perceive the world and act (Bui, 2020; Serratt, 2021). For

example, personal and shared organizational visions are mental images, assumptions, stories,

and perceptions (Senge, 1990), as they are simplified versions of one's perceived reality (Serrat,

2021). Parallel to Levitt and March (1988), who stated that organizational routines are

independent of the actors that execute them, people form interpretations about past events and

mentally classify them as good or bad based on perception, inference, and judgment.

Organizations develop paradigms or mental models for interpreting those experiences, and

experience, learning, and memory shape future predictions. Individuals interpret and

communicate knowledge using mental models, a profoundly rooted lens of how the world works

(Smerek, 2018). Mental models and knowledge distribution comprise organizational memory,

the compilation of previous decisions, and how this information is stored and later retrieved

(Casteneda et al., 2018).

2.6 Organizational Learning Shortcomings

Although a plethora of research suggests the significance of organizational learning, there

are some pitfalls in organizational learning. Scholars agree there is variance, discrepancies, and

inconsistencies in the definition of organizational learning due to the cognitive and behavioral

multi-dimensionality of the construct (Elshanti, 2017; Garad & Gold, 2019; Tosey et al., 2012;

Watad, 2019). That being the case, Popova-Nowak and Cseh (2015) describe organizational

learning as a nascent theory. Their meta-analysis revealed that much of the organizational

learning research lacked epistemological or ontological positions or possessed illogically mixed

paradigms. They concluded that lacking research positions leads to unreflective and theoretical

confusion. Many theorists contributed to the early theoretical formulation (Argyris & Schön,

1978; Cyert & March, 1963; Senge, 1990), which has changed over the years and morphed into

several different definitions such as learning to correct errors (Argyris & Schön, 1978);

facilitating learning for transformation (Senge, 1990), and the acquisition, distribution, and

interpretation of knowledge that form organizational memory (Huber, 1991).

2.7 Organizational Innovativeness and Transformational Leadership

To lead in a culture of change, it is important to be an expert on innovativeness, not just

innovation. — Michel Fullan

The quote describes why going beyond innovation to a system of innovativeness

embedded in the culture is essential for ongoing change. Organizations constantly change and

evolve through collective learning and shifting practices (McKenzie & Varney, 2018). There is a

great need to study organizational innovation. Bahadur et al. (2021) explained that less than 3%

of the 1,000 published articles focused on organizational innovation. Leaders drive innovation

by creating an environment conducive to organizational learning (Tian et al., 2021; Yukl &

Gardner, 2020). The leader's knowledge is the compilation of information and the mental

structures used to organize the information (Northouse, 2021). He explained that the leader

creates new knowledge and competencies by utilizing various complex mental models for

learning and collecting data. Thus, leadership and strategic capabilities are centralized themes in

learning and innovation (Bahadur et al., 2021; Pauget & Wald, 2018).

By creating a vision for change, transformational leaders encourage followers to

challenge their traditional routines and operating methods, adopt innovative methods to cope

with complex problems and transcend their interests for the overall good of the organization

(Eun-Jee & Park, 2019). Transformational leadership stimulates an innovative organizational

culture, leading to strong knowledge orientation and performance (Gorzelany et al., 2021; Khan

et al., 2020; Verma et al., 2022). Similarly, Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt (2018) conducted

quantitative research with 269 firms in Thailand through a mail survey, using structural equation

modeling to investigate the role of CEO transformational leadership on product innovation

performance in manufacturing. The research focused on organizational learning and innovative

culture, among other variables. Innovation was measured on cultural elements like Ruvio et al.'s

(2014) model, which included risk-taking, openness, and creativity. Their findings underscored

that transformational leadership was positively associated with innovation strategy,

organizational learning, and innovative culture (p<0.001). Moreover, ingrained in the four

features of transformational leadership—idealized consideration, intellectual stimulation,

individualized consideration, and inspired motivation—is the leader's ability to promote learning

among the employees to create innovative solutions (García-Morales et al., 2012).

Specifically, Afsar and Umrani's (2020) research on the impact of transformational

leadership on employees' innovative work behavior used a sample of 338 participants from the

manufacturing sector. Structural equation modeling analyses found that transformational

leadership positively impacts employees' innovative work behaviors, with a p-value of 0.01. In

their study, they controlled for gender, age, and job tenure. Additionally, they found that task

complexity and the innovation climate moderated the relations between transformational

leadership and employees' innovative work behavior at p<0.01.

Complementing these findings, Chung and Li (2021) warned that an excessive level of

transformational leadership would negatively affect innovative behaviors, whereas an

appropriate level would yield positive innovation. Their research involved a sample of 307

employees from research and development firms using hierarchical linear modeling analysis;

they discovered that a modest level of transformational leadership is positively related to

innovative work behaviors at p<0.05. The researchers also found that team learning, a dimension

of organizational learning, has the potential to enhance members' innovative behaviors while

moderating the perceptions of excessive transformational leadership. Similarly, Karimi et al.

(2023) used a quantitative research design and structural equation modeling with a convenience

sampling of 178 employees in the agricultural sector in their investigation of the role of

transformational leadership in developing innovation. They found that transformational

leadership was significantly related to employees' innovative work behaviors (β = 0.15, p <

0.05). These findings underscore the importance of transformational leadership in fostering

innovation.

In agreement with scholars (e.g., Chung & Li, 2021; Karimi et al., 2023), Kucharska

(2021) also identified a core flaw in transformational leadership theory and innovativeness.

Kucharska (2021) explored leadership, culture, intellectual capital, and knowledge processes for

organizational innovativeness across four industries: construction, healthcare, higher education,

and information technology in Poland, with a sample of 1,481 employees. They revealed that

transformational leadership significantly affected knowledge and learning cultures in all four

industries; however, it did not fully support the acceptance of mistakes in an organization. In

other words, organizations with high levels of knowledge and learning cultures tend not to

accept mistakes, which could be a deterrent and counterintuitive.

Building on their investigation of strategic factors' influence on organizational innovation

and learning, Bahadur et al. (2021) adopted a descriptive correlational method involving 360

chief executive officers and structural equation modeling. Their study utilized a prior version of

a survey instrument developed by García-Morales et al. (2006) to measure transformational

leadership. Notably, four hypotheses were formulated to explore the positive and significant

impact of transformational leadership on organizational learning and innovation. Furthermore,

the research affirmed the positive and significant influence of organizational innovation and

learning on overall organizational performance. Pearson's correlation coefficients revealed

moderately positive relationships among the variables, and the statistical support for all

hypotheses was strong, with p < 0.01 significance.

2.8 Conceptualization of Organizational Innovativeness

Moving on from the impact of transformational leadership on organizational

innovativeness, conceptualizing the construct is the next area of focus. Scholars agree that there

is overlap and misuse in the interchangeability of innovation and innovativeness (Bahadur et al.,

2021; Ruvio et al., 2014). Previously, Wang and Ahmed (2004) indicated that innovation was the

development of new products. Innovativeness is the overall collective capabilities and innovative

activities representing the culture, leading to new services, products, and processes overall

agency-wide (Ruvio et al., 2014). Theoretically, Ruvio et al. (2014) and Wang and Ahmed

(2004) viewed organizational innovativeness in valid and reliable scales; however, they differ on

the conceptualization and operationalization of the multidimensional construct.

Wang and Ahmed (2004) identified three internal processes that undergird innovative

outcomes: behavioral innovativeness, process innovativeness, and strategic, innovative

orientation. Behavioral innovativeness is the individual, group, and management's belief and

actions toward innovation and how individual actors allow the culture to govern their innovative

efforts. Process innovativeness is developing methods, practices, new technology usage, and

approaches to foster continuous quality improvement. Lastly, strategic orientation is the ability

of the organization to create, implement, and leverage existing resources effectively.

During the initial studies to construct the scale, Wang and Ahmed focused on human resources

management.

Vanhala and Ritala (2016) followed suit in their quantitative research on communication

technology in Finland. Both Wang and Ahmed (2004) and Vanhala and Ritala (2016) found a

statistically significant relationship between effective human resource management practices and

organizational innovativeness statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level.

Although scholars (Safiia, 2019; Vanhala & Ritala, 2016; Wang & Ahmed, 2004) used the

behavioral, process, and strategic, innovative framework for this study, Ruvio et al. (2014)

conceptualization is a central aspect of the study since it focuses on organizations in general.

Other studies addressed a specialty area like human resources management instead of overall

innovativeness (Vanhala & Ritala, 2016; Wang & Ahmed, 2004). Figure 2 shows the five

dimensions of innovativeness, which allows for a multifaceted understanding of the relationships

among the key characteristics identified by Ruvio et al. (2014).

Figure 2

Theoretical Model of Organizational Innovativeness by Ruvio et al. (2014)

Ruvio et al. (2014) proposed an organizational innovativeness construct comprising five

distinct components: creativity, openness, future orientation, risk-taking, and proactiveness.

Their intention was for this scale to comprehensively measure the structure and nature of

innovativeness, serving as a strategic diagnostic instrument. Creativity, the ability to transform

new ideas into products, services, or processes, is crucial. Openness represents the organization's

agility and adaptability in the face of change, fostering innovation. Future orientation assesses

the organization's readiness for forthcoming innovations, acting as a reflection of its culture.

Risk-taking evaluates the organization's willingness to embrace risks versus aversion to them,

directly influencing its propensity for innovation. Finally, proactiveness deals with the

organization's capacity to seize or create new business opportunities regarding services,

products, or approaches.

Moreover, they identified organizational learning as an antecedent of innovativeness and

found that the creativity and openness dimensions had the strongest relationship within

organizational learning. Similarly, according to managers' perceptions in a private higher

education institution, Safiia's (2019) quantitative research found a positive relationship between

organizational learning and organizational innovativeness. Comparatively, Baxla and Mishra

(2022) examined the role of innovation in the relationship between organizational learning and

performance. In their study, innovation was the dependent variable, and organizational learning

and performance were the independent variables. Their sample was 269 employees from a steel

plant, and a quantitative design found statistically significant relationships between

organizational learning, innovation, and organizational performance at p < 0.05.

Moreover, before the work of scholars Baxla and Mishra (2022) and Safiia (2019),

Alsalami et al. (2014) evaluated the effects of transformational leadership on organizational

innovation and the mediating effect of organizational learning on this relationship. Their

methodology included a survey with 248 participants from private and public organizations in

Dubai, United Arab Emirates. The findings showed in the public sector that transformational

leadership significantly and positively affects organizational learning through inspirational

motivation, p<.001 and intellectual stimulation, p<.05. In the private sector, the findings revealed

that the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational learning was

influenced by idealized influence at p<.001, and inspirational motivation at, p<.05. Similarly, in

the public sector, transformational leadership had a statistically significant effect on

organizational innovation through inspirational motivation, p<.05, individualized consideration,

p<.05, and intellectual stimulation, p<.05. Moreover, idealized influence had a statically and

positively significant relationship in the private sector, p<.01. In their study, organizational

learning and innovation were significant in both sectors at p<.001. Their study provided evidence

that transformational leadership incites innovation, and the results aligned with previous research

that transformational leadership contributes to organizational learning. Thus, the rationale

employed to justify the research design includes the previously mentioned extant research

studies. Additionally, data were collected using a survey instrument and statistical testing was

conducted to assess the relationships between and among variables to include middle managers.

2.9 Middle Managers and Transformational Leadership

In the continuum of organizational dynamics and navigating the landscape of

innovativeness, middle managers are instrumental in cultivating an environment relevant to

growth and change. Further, leadership is a dynamic relational process that actualizes the

confluence of the leader and the followers (Naber & Moffett, 2017). In addition to managing

day-to-day operations, scholars posit that middle managers help create a culture conducive to

organizational learning and innovation across all levels of an organization (Mai et al., 2022).

Middle managers cope with paradoxical demands like operating through routines and processes

while concurrently creating new ones and exploiting existing knowledge (Yukl & Gardner,

2020;

McKenzie & Varney, 2018). Arguably, because middle managers facilitate strategy and goal

attainment, Morkevičiūtė et al. (2019) discussed how the transformational leadership style is

effective due to its effect on employee perception, working habits, job-related behaviors, and

maximizing work outcomes.

Middle managers are pivotal conduits of leadership, with considerable influence on the

organization's trajectory. Transformational leadership, a shared vision, personal mastery, the

environment, and strategic capabilities predict organizational learning and innovation (Bahadur

et al., 2021). Along those lines, middle managers with transformational leadership styles foster

confidence in all employees, a requisite noted for organizational change (Beta & Badri, 2020),

learning, and innovation (Bahadur et al., 2021; Northouse, 2021; Pauget & Wald, 2018). The

relevant empirical research on middle managers and transformational leadership explained

throughout this section provides insights into understanding how their unique roles within an

organization either foster or impede learning and innovativeness.

What transformational leadership behaviors must a middle manager exhibit to accomplish

the outcomes associated with organizational learning and innovativeness? In seeking answers to

the question of which transformational leadership behaviors middle managers must exhibit for

learning and innovativeness, Alegbeleye and Kaufman (2020) tested four hypotheses related to

middle managers' transformational leadership and effective followership using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ- 5X) with a sample of 100 middle managers across the United

States. They explained that effective followers contribute to innovativeness, question rationality

in decision-making, participate in transformation, and collaborate with leaders. Multivariate

regression results showed significant positive relationships between intellectual stimulation,

individual consideration, inspirational motivation, and effective followership at the p<.01 level

for three hypotheses after controlling for age, sex, race, educational level, and tenure.

Interestingly, the author's hypothesis involving idealized influence was unproven, indicating no

relationship to effective followership. Their research posited that effective followers perceive

themselves as partners in the shared vision and that success is reciprocal; if the leader succeeds,

so does the middle manager.

In another research study, Jyoti and Bhau (2015) determined that the individual

consideration principle of transformational leadership helped middle managers solve problems,

develop positive relationships, and carry out the leader's desired tasks. The four characteristics

of transformational leadership are charisma, consideration, motivation, and intellectual

stimulation, which prompt employees to perform beyond expectation (Verma et al., 2022) by

changing how a person feels about themselves and their attitude toward the work (Vermeulen

et al., 2022). Furthermore, Nielsen and Cleal (2011) concluded that brainstorming, planning,

information sharing, and problem-solving were all related to transformational leadership

behaviors exhibited by middle managers.

Additionally, middle managers and supervisors play a pivotal role in strategic efforts that

require empowering employees, delegating responsibilities (Engle et al., 2017), holding

individuals accountable (Fogg, 1999), and shaping the conditions for the learning environment

(McKenzie & Varney, 2018). Specifically, Jyoti and Bhau's (2015) research deemed that middle

managers encourage and empower staff to generate new ideas and to think outside the box. “For

individual behavior to change, you must influence not only their environment but their hearts

and minds …” (Heath & Heath, 2010, p. 5). Organizational learning has cognitive and

behavioral dimensions, meaning followers must learn about the change or can solve complex

problems and

think differently, leading to behavioral changes and practices (Crossan et al., 1995; Park & Kim,

2018).

Furthermore, the literature provides findings on areas that may impede learning and

innovativeness and outlines additional transformational leadership behaviors conducive to

learning and innovativeness. Engle et al.'s (2017) qualitative research on middle managers in

health care from 17 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers revealed 14 emergent themes, including

innovation failure based on resource allocation, organizational barriers, and a lack of staff

engagement. Other important themes related to innovation were effective implementation and

support. Their study found that obtaining staff buy-in is a crucial component of organizational

learning, synthesis, and diffusion of information for middle managers. The study focused on

middle managers, innovation, and performance; however, some direct leadership attributes and

behaviors emerged as themes, which resembled idealized influence, inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.

Engel et al. (2017) reported that middle managers needed to provide training, coaching,

and purposeful communication. These factors foster an environment that encourages followers to

think independently and openly, thereby stimulating innovative practices. Furthermore,

transformational leadership accentuates the importance of the relational exchange between

leaders and followers to drive change across the process (Nielsen et al., 2022; Park & Kim,

2018), an integral part of the organizational transformation model (Engel et al., 2017).

Similarly, Nielsen et al. (2022) concluded with statistical significance at p<0.001 in a

two-part study with over 2,400 survey participants in Belgium and Norway that

transformational leadership mainly benefits those in supervisory or management positions. The

researchers surmised this assertion because transformational executive leaders foster intellectual

stimulation

and provide the resources needed to carry out goals and vision in cases of high ambiguity. Their

findings also consistently showed that being a middle manager or supervisor was a contextual

factor that determined the effectiveness of transformational leadership across both samples in

Norway and Belgium. In summary, considering the level of effectiveness and the lasting impact

on job satisfaction, their recommendation is to increase and enhance transformational leadership

practices among middle managers.

2.9.1 Criticism of Transformational Leadership

Even with Nielsen et al.'s (2022) plea for more middle managers to engage in

transformational leadership practice, there are downsides to transformational leadership.

Perfection does not exist in any form of leadership because humans err, and tension exists

between what is right and self-interest (Price, 2008). Notably, there are counterarguments,

cautions, and criticisms associated with the effectiveness of transformational leadership.

Morality, values, and motivation do not safeguard followers from immorality, derailment, or

other types of maleficence; there is a propensity for the transformational leadership pendulum to

swing to the other end of the continuum to pseudo-transformationalism or dark leadership

(Johnson, 2018; Thoroughgood et al., 2018). Transformational leaders can act unethically and

egoistically, acting on personal interests instead of supporting followers' needs or organizational

goals and values (Xie, 2020).

2.9.2 Middle Managers in Organizations

Earlier in the literature review, the researcher identified the uniqueness of middle

managers in organizations and leadership since they are both leaders and followers (Yukl &

Gardner, 2020). Leader-follower roles are flexible: one can simultaneously operate as a leader

and follower (Alegbeleye & Kaufman, 2020). They work to accommodate diverse agendas, from

subordinating to following the upper echelon of leadership to supervising the line staff

(Alegbeleye & Kaufman, 2020; McKenzie & Varney, 2018). Also, middle managers serve as

administrators, leaders, mentors, and change agents who translate and help actualize the vision of

superior leaders in a local context (Boureston, 2019). They facilitate an information flow from

upper management to lower levels while implementing strategic direction by allocating resources

and staff to meet organizational goals (Ancarani et al., 2021; McKenzie & Varney, 2018).

Middle managers work with their direct reports to accomplish goals and tasks in day-to-

day operations. For this reason, middle managers generally implement organizational learning

strategies (Mai et al., 2022) as strategic decision-makers and the next generation of leadership

(Dunphy, 2019). Consequently, middle managers act as sense-makers, seeking new opportunities

and making tactical and operational decisions impacting systems and structures (McKenzie &

Varney, 2018). Sense-making is the process that middle managers use to construct knowledge

regarding the organizational process and cultivate learning in the workplace following a

hierarchical structure (Blakcori & Psychogios, 2021). They make sense of their experiences and

cue the employees to construct shared meanings (Boureston, 2019). Sense-making is a means to

understand what is happening (Weick, 1995) and determine a course of action. Juxtaposed to this

statement, Northouse (2021) explained that the leader's knowledge is the compilation of

information and mental structures used to organize the information. He explained that an

assortment of complex schemata or mental models for learning and managing data accentuate a

leader's ongoing knowledge and competency.

Why is it important to include how middle managers engage in sense-making and

constructing their mental models? Rice et al. (2019) research showed that “mental model

maintenance and building may invoke different levels of effort, resistance, complexity, risk,

changes, and improvements” (p. 3). To emphasize the answer to the question, mental models

influence how individuals and groups have explicit and implicit perceptions about tasks and

priorities, confirm how new initiatives get formed or not (Holtrop et al., 2021), drive innovation

(Vink et al., 2019), and organizational learning (Mai et al., 2022). Sense-making is the meaning

people apply to different situations, especially when dealing with complex problems (Weick,

1995), that fit into an existing mental model and shape decision-making (Carrington et al.,

2019). How middle managers apply their mental models, and the sense-making agency

determines how they understand and perceive problems and change (Blakcori & Psychogios,

2021). Both are crucial for the effectiveness and intensity of organizational learning and

innovation practices to adapt to their changing environment (Beta & Badri, 2020).

In conclusion, examining the existing body of literature on middle managers' roles in

fostering organizational learning and innovativeness through transformational leadership reveals

that researchers have made substantial strides in unraveling the intricate dynamics between the

constructs. However, notwithstanding these advancements, several notable gaps and unexplored

avenues persist, indicating the need for further investigation. In the following section, the

researcher provides a detailed description of the gaps in the literature to substantiate the need for

this dissertation research further.

2.10 Identification of Gaps in the Literature

A plethora of literature is related to the interrelationship between leadership,

organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness. Much of the literature discusses

organizational innovation and learning, competitiveness, and exemplary firm performance in

industries such as hospitality (Schuckert et al., 2018), health care (Engle et al., 2017; Nielsen &

Cleal, 2011; Pauget & Wald, 2018), banking (Caldwell, 2012; Imran et al., 2016; Migdadi,

2021), the private sector (Bahadur et al., 2021), and technology (Castaneda et al., 2018). A

systematic literature review covering four decades, from 1969 to 2020, on the interrelationship

between organizational learning, organizational innovativeness, and transformational leadership

found that the predominant industries were manufacturing and agriculture (Verma et al., 2022).

2.10.1 Knowledge Gap One: Relationship Between Variables Across Different Populations

Most of the literature showed that the relationships between leadership, organizational

learning, and organizational innovativeness occurred in countries outside of North America,

specifically the United States of America (Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt, 2018; Verma et al., 2022).

To that end, the authors emphasized that the settings of the 111 articles examined in the

systematic literature review were in China, Germany, and Spain. A critique of extant research

found that scholars who investigated leadership, organizational learning, and organizational

innovativeness confirmed Verma et al.'s (2022) argument that most of the studies occurred in

manufacturing or small and medium firms (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Gorzelany et al., 2021;

Noruzy et al., 2013; Mai et al., 2022; Xie, 2020) and entrepreneurship (Bahadur et al., 2021) in

various countries throughout Asia and Europe. Alblooshi et al. (2021) recommended additional

research on leadership and organizational innovativeness across different sectors and

organizational types. The primary gap in the literature is evaluating the relationships between

these variables across different populations to establish generalizability.

2.10.2 Knowledge Gap Two: Under-Explored in Early Childhood Organizations

In addition to most current research occurring outside of the United States, the research

settings were primarily in manufacturing. The literature was scant and almost non-existent in

examining organizational learning and innovativeness variables in early childhood education

programs. Specifically, there was no literature involving Head Start programs that serve young

children from birth through five years of age. However, Lubeck and Kezar (2002) conducted a

qualitative study using participants from four Head Start agencies. Through semi-structured

interviews, they explored how the employees viewed the agency as an organization, employing a

discursive interpretative lens. To contextualize their findings, the researchers compared the

discursive frames described by participants with the different types of organizations in

organizational theory. Their study found that the cognitive science and systems thinking frame

of Head Start as an organization revealed that the perception included creativity and

organizational learning descriptors. The researchers suggested that the discourse of employees'

perceptions regarding collective action within an agency revealed that Head Start programs

aligned with the systems presumption of organizational theory. They surmised that within

organizational studies, the systems presumption is the interrelationship between mutually

dependent actors interacting with groups, technology, structures, and the environment.

However, while Lubeck and Kezar's (2002) study effectively classified Head Start

agencies as fitting the organizational definition, it fell short in guiding the subsequent steps

concerning leadership's role in fostering organizational learning and innovativeness. Taking a

peripheral view, their research affirmed the organizational nature of Head Start programs, and

the authors offered insights into enhancing these programs, such as devising strategies to

navigate complex and evolving challenges. Lubeck and Kezar's (2002) research laid the

foundation for viewing Head Start agencies within the framework of organizational theory,

setting the stage for further investigation across early childhood programs.

Despite the dearth of research, a singular study on organizational learning in an early

childhood center in the United States was conducted 6 years after Lubeck and Kezar's research.

Austin and Harkins's (2008) germinal research on the effectiveness and efficacy of an

organizational learning intervention was conducted in an early childhood setting that served 350

children from low socio-economic backgrounds in the northeastern United States. The case study

included pre- and post-intervention services to measure organizational learning, school climate,

and morale using a sample of 28. They interviewed 27 employees and reviewed two years of

archival turnover rate data. Their study deviated from the existing research, focusing on a setting

that specifically served an underprivileged population while examining the effects of learning

and business performance. They argued,

Schools are challenged in ways that differentiate them from for-profit, private sector

companies: lack of funding and other resources, historical entrenchment in “machine-

age” thinking, and near debilitating teacher turnover rates all serve to make schools one

of the least likely environments to adopt innovative administrative practices. (Austin &

Harkins, 2008, p. 7)

What the authors described in the quote applies to Head Start, as the program shares similar

challenges with financial constraints, low enrollment, and high teacher turnover (Arundel, 2022),

posing a growing need for organizational learning and innovativeness.

Their findings showed that schools with constrained resources benefit from

organizational learning, fostering positive organizational change. Likewise, their results revealed

that organizational learning interventions reduced staff turnover and morale. They concluded a

significant relationship between the climate dimension of supportive transformational leadership

and goal congruence and a change toward organizational learning at p<0.05. They appealed for

additional organizational learning research in agencies that serve low-income populations by

explaining the necessity of leveraging knowledge from the business field in other settings, like

early childhood organizations.

Although their research has similar characteristics, this dissertation research differs as it

examines two distinct variables: organizational learning and innovativeness. Austin and

Harkins's (2008) research concentrated on organizational learning interventions, while

innovation and leadership were a small subset of the school climate but not a central focus. This

research aims to advance a different perspective on transformational leadership, organizational

learning, and innovativeness from the viewpoint of middle managers as opposed to all staff

within an early childhood setting.

2.10.3 Knowledge Gap Three: Middle Managers and the Variables Under-Explored

In the literature, middle managers' leadership was unexamined in organizations,

specifically in early childhood settings. Notably, the vast majority of the research on

organizational learning and innovation focused on senior leaders (Bahadur et al., 2021; Berraies

& Zine El Abidine, 2019; Gorzelany et al., 2021; Mohamed & Otman, 2021; Noruzy et al.,

2013). Middle managers help achieve learning and innovation (Alegbeleye & Kaufman, 2020;

Engle et al., 2017; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015); however, additional research is needed to address the

gap in the literature.

2.10.4 Knowledge Gap Four: Empirical Call for More Research on Transformational

Leadership

The literature review identified additional research gaps related to transformational

leadership, organizational learning, and innovation. Some scholars (e.g., Anderson, 2017; Yukl,

2010) pointed out the bias with transformational leadership in the leader-and-follower

relationship, which impedes the potential for explaining overall organizational effectiveness.

Moreover, Yukl and Gardner (2020) asserted that the transformational leadership theory lacks

explanatory prowess in organizational performance and processes related to change and group

learning. They purported the need to strengthen the theory, which requires more research on how

leaders enhance collective knowledge and task-oriented functions. Likewise, other researchers

argued a similar premise that the existing research on transformational leadership, organizational

learning (Verma et al., 2022; Yukl, 2009), and organizational innovativeness (Afsar & Umrani,

2020) only partially explained the power of the relationship between the variables and called for

additional exploration.

There are many studies on transformational leadership, organizational learning, and

innovation; however, the reference to this existing research alone is insufficient to create new

arguments (Javernick-Will, 2018). The researcher plans to extend the prior work by examining

these variables in a setting not yet investigated (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Javernick-Will,

2018). Verma et al. (2022) specified that new research should empirically test the relationship

between organizational learning, transformational leadership, and innovation in different

industries. The limited research on how these concepts impact early childhood organizations

leads to the following questions:

1. Does transformational leadership of middle managers in Head Start impact

organizational learning and innovativeness?

2. Can the interrelationship of these variables bring positive change to Head Start

programs?

Examining the potential relationships between the transformational leadership of middle

managers, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness can help fill gaps in

academic, leadership, and management literature.

The research is significant for multiple reasons. First, the study findings enhance the

theories of transformational leadership related to middle managers, organizational learning, and

organizational innovativeness, and how potentially transformational leadership could bring

about sustainable change in a Head Start organization. Second, the findings could further the

theoretical rationale and justification for the variables. Theoretical justification is the logical

statement for relating the variables mentioned in other studies, which helps in framing a

coherent explanation of the phenomena in the new research (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).

2.11 Summary

The literature review illustrates the general assumptions and fundamental notions within

the transformational leadership theory and situates it with organizational learning,

innovativeness, and middle managers. Scholars concluded that transformational leadership is

significantly related to organizational learning (Alsalami et al., 2014; Alblooshi et al., 2021;

Imran et al., 2016; Lundqvist et al., 2023; Khan & Khan, 2019; Khan & Ismail, 2017; Mohamed

& Otman, 2021; Vashdi et al., 2019; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020; Verma et al., 2022; Yukl, 2009),

and organizational innovativeness (Baxla & Mishra, 2022; Safiia, 2019). Three of the four

transformational leadership components have been widely associated with fostering learning

intellectual stimulation, individual consideration, and idealized influence (Lundqvist et al., 2023)

by providing feedback and a vision for learning (Xie, 2020). However, this is not without

impediments, as described by Milway and Saxton (2011), such as when leaders do not possess

the skills to create a vision for learning or when transformative leaders misuse their power and

position within an organization (Thoroughgood et al., 2018). Equally, scholars note that

transformational leaders misuse their position with organizational innovativeness (Chung & Li,

2021; Karimi et al., 2023), as transformational leaders may not be as open to accepting mistakes.

From this review, four gaps in the literature emerged. First, most research on

organizational learning and innovativeness occurred outside the United States, and the

relationship between the variables across different populations is unknown (Verma et al., 2022).

Second, these variables are underexplored in early childhood settings. Three, the variables are

equally underexplored from the perspective of middle managers (Bahadur et al., 2021; Berraies

& Zine El Abidine, 2019). Fourth, there are empirical calls to conduct more research on

transformational leadership and organizational effectiveness (Yukl & Gardner, 2020). From the

critical review, addressing the gaps in the literature offers a new scope and perspective on how

transformational leadership attributes contribute to organizational learning and innovativeness in

an early childhood setting. Chapter 3 provides a detailed overview of the methodology for the

dissertation research.

CHAPTER 3: Methodology

This quantitative explanatory correlational research aims to test the relationship between

middle managers' transformational leadership on organizational learning and organizational

innovativeness within various Head Start programs across the United States. Although the

literature review did show that extant research examined these variables together empirically, no

studies exist to explain these relationships in an early childhood organization. The research

results explain how the middle manager's transformational leadership behaviors affect

organizational learning and innovativeness. Furthermore, the findings provide implications for

program leaders on the inter-relationship of the variables working together to yield positive

organizational outcomes. The data analyses for this study include descriptive and inferential

statistics, specifically correlations and multivariate regression models. In this chapter, I address

the research questions and hypotheses, design, population, sample, operational definitions,

instruments, data collection, limitations, and ethical assurances.

3.1 Role of the Researcher

Many scholars recommend including positionality, or the researcher's stance concerning

the context of the study, in all types of research (Jafar, 2018; Knoblauch, 2021; Wilson et al.,

2022) to include quantitative methodology (Savolainen et al., 2023). Moreover, Creswell and

Guetterman (2019) encouraged researchers to reflect on their biases, values, and assumptions

and to write about them in their research. Jafar (2018) supported this position when arguing:

Without knowing anything of the positionality of the research team and context, a reader

can never know whether the researchers thought this had any influence on the study, nor

can they judge for themselves how important they think it is in interpreting the study as a

whole. (p. 324)

I am sharing my position concerning my dissertation research in the spirit of transparency.

I hold a bachelor's degree in social work, a master's degree in curriculum and instruction

specializing in early childhood education, and a master's degree in public administration. I have

worked in early childhood programming for over 20 years in various capacities and sectors. My

experience includes working as a teacher, director, and executive leader with federal and state

programs. I have extensive experience and professional certifications in process and continuous

quality improvement. Likewise, I have a passion for solving complex problems and

transformational change. In 2023, in my leadership position with the state government, I was

nominated for the Governor's Award for Innovation. Thus, I am interested in innovation and

learning to do things differently.

A quantitative research design curtailed bias in interpreting the data and drawing

conclusions. I adhered to the ethical guidelines of the university's Institutional Review Board

and the American Psychological Association for conducting correlational research. I value early

childhood education and innovation.

3.2 Research Design and Appropriateness

Quantitative research methods allow the researcher to investigate the relationships

between variables and formulate predictions (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). The explanatory

correlational research design identified the existence and strength of the relationships among the

variables (Urdan, 2022). The design shows how one variable changes, the impact it has on the

other variable, and whether it changes in the same or the opposite direction (Delost & Nadder,

2014). Moreover, the research design permitted the correlation of two or more variables, the

collection of data at one point in time, the analysis of participants as one group, and the

collection of data from each participant for every tested variable (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).

Accordingly, the researcher presents correlational statistical analyses and derives conclusions

from these tests (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). This study subscribes to the positivist

paradigm, seeking a testable and verifiable interpretation of the world (Klenke et al., 2015;

Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). It is imperative to note that the results did not suggest causality, as

correlational research designs do not elucidate cause and effect (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019;

Mills & Gay, 2019).

A qualitative research design delves into experiences, opinions, feelings, and perceptions

about various phenomena (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). Unlike quantitative research, which is

inductive and typically involves a smaller, potentially non-generalizable group of participants,

qualitative inquiry offers depth and can be used to examine organizational processes (Roberts &

Hyatt, 2019). However, this dissertation employed a deductive analysis, with correlations and

regression analyses, to explore the predictive relationship between the independent variable,

transformational leadership, and the two dependent variables, organizational learning and

innovativeness. Consequently, A qualitative methodology was not conducive to this type of

examination and was therefore rejected.

A mixed methods research approach, combining quantitative and qualitative elements,

would provide great depth and breadth with statistical data and recounts of lived experiences

related to transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness when

examining a phenomenon that has not been previously explored, such as the topic of this

dissertation research. Nevertheless, a vast majority of prior studies on the interrelationships

among these variables opted for a quantitative positivist research design, employing

correlational, factor, regression, or structural equation modeling analyses (e.g., Afsar & Umrani,

2020; Alegbeleye et al., 2020; Bahadur et al., 2021; Chung & Li, 2021; Eun-Jee & Park, 2019;

Lundqvist et al., 2023; Megheirkouni, 2018; Karimi et al., 2023; Kucharska, 2021; Nielsen et al.,

2022; Nguyen & Luu, 2019).

3.2.1 Conceptual Replication

“Conceptual replications examine the general nature of the previously obtained effects

while aiming at extending the original effects to a new context” (Koul et al., 2018, p. 2). Further,

the conceptual replication employs the same theory or hypotheses, albeit differently, providing a

salient approach to expanding upon the theory (Derksen & Morawski, 2022). Consequently, it's

crucial to acknowledge that variability in conceptual replications is both expected and

permissible, primarily due to micro-level and research-specific contextual nuances (Derksen &

Morawski, 2022; Hudson, 2023). From a methodological standpoint, this research introduces the

significance of transformational leadership and its ability to promote organizational learning and

innovation.

Emulating some aspects of Klonek et al.'s. (2020) conceptual replication of ambidextrous

leadership theory research, this dissertation employed a quantitative correlational research design

to measure the effects of transformational leadership on organizational learning and

innovativeness. The research design allowed the researcher to replicate previous study results

conceptually (García-Morales et al., 2012; Ruvio et al., 2014) with a different population and

environment, advancing transformational leadership theory and its impacts.

Finally, this is quintessential in ensuring validity and facilitating conceptual replication;

maintaining a consistent quantitative methodology affords easier comparisons between prior

studies and the present inquiry (Roberts & Hyatt, 2019). Emphasizing the significance of

methodological congruence, Flake et al. (2022) posited, “The replicability of results is at the core

of scientific progress. When scientists observe consistent results across multiple studies, theories

receive validation, and groundbreaking discoveries emerge” (p. 577). Given that most of the

studies on these variables followed a quantitative approach, this research excluded the option of

a mixed-method design.

3.3 Overview of Research Question and Hypotheses

For the study, the researcher collected data using valid instruments at one point in time

from a sample of middle managers working in a Head Start program to answer the research

question and hypotheses. In quantitative studies, the research questions and hypotheses narrow

the focus and help shape the study by advancing a prediction of what the researcher expects to

find (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). The central research question is, “What is the relationship

between middle managers' transformational leadership behaviors, organizational learning, and

organizational innovativeness within a Head Start program?”

The research question and hypotheses guiding this study were answered by the

transformational leadership and organizational learning scale (García-Morales et al., 2012) and

the organizational innovativeness scale (Ruvio et al., 2014). The two valid and reliable scales

were combined into one survey with 29 questions. Table 1 describes the scales and statistical

tests used to address the research question and the hypotheses.

Table 1

Research Questions, Hypotheses, Scale(s), and Statistical Tests

Research Question and

Hypotheses Scale(s) Statistical Test

Research Question 1: What

is the relationship between

middle managers'

transformational leadership

behaviors, organizational

learning, and organizational

innovativeness within a Head

Start program?”

H1: There is a significantly

positive relationship between

Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and

innovativeness.

H2: A positive correlation

exists between the middle

manager's transformational

leadership and organizational

learning in a Head Start

program.

H3: A positive correlation

exists between Head Start

middle managers'

transformational leadership

and organizational

innovativeness.

H4: A positive correlation

exists between

organizational learning and

organizational

innovativeness.

H5: Organizational learning

significantly predicts

organizational

innovativeness, indicating a

positive relationship between

the two variables.

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Organizational Innovativeness

(Ruvio et al., 2014)

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Organizational Innovativeness

(Ruvio et al., 2014)

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Organizational Innovativeness

(Ruvio et al., 2014)

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Organizational Innovativeness

(Ruvio et al., 2014)

Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning

(García-Morales et al 2012)

Organizational Innovativeness

(Ruvio et al., 2014)

Multivariate Regression

Model One-Tailed

Pairwise Correlation

Multivariate Regression

Model

One-Tailed

Confirmatory Factor

Analyses

Correlation

Pairwise Correlation

Regression

The researcher did not intend to explore a certain phenomenon's meaning in this

dissertation study. Instead, the focus was on examining the proposed relationships in the research

questions and hypotheses. Therefore, an explanatory correlational research design was

appropriate to elucidate whether middle managers' transformational leadership, including the

associated behaviors, predicts organizational learning and innovativeness. Previous leadership

studies articles have utilized correlational or other quantitative research designs to investigate the

associations between organizational learning, organizational innovativeness, and one or more

predictor variables (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Bahadur et al., 2021; Chung & Li, 2021; García-

Morales et al., 2012; Mai et al., 2022; Vashdi et al., 2019; Verma et al., 2022; Xie, 2020).

3.4 Population and Sample

A population is a group of individuals with the same characteristics, and a sample is a

subset of the population chosen to generalize about the population (Creswell & Guetterman,

2019). The study focused on middle managers within Head Start programs, providing a targeted

yet diverse sample that reflects the larger population of interest. Since the researcher did not

choose Head Start mid-level managers using random sampling, the sample does not represent the

entire nationwide population. Specifically, the Head Start programs in the subset of the

population have unique features with their program design and options, which provide an array

of middle managers from different types of Head Start programming, such as center-based,

home-based, Early Head Start, and urban and rural geographic locations. Only middle managers

or those individuals responsible for managing a specific component of the Head Start program,

such as education, health, nutrition, human resources, fiscal, facilities, family services,

transportation, disabilities, or mental health managers, were selected to participate in the study.

Head Start directors were excluded from the study.

The researcher obtained participant screening data through three distinct demographic

questions: location of the Head Start program, type of middle manager, and years of service in

the position. In aiming for a high survey response rate to ensure representativeness, the

researcher completed the following steps:

created the survey so that it would take 15 minutes or less to complete

pilot-tested the survey to identify any challenges before launching the research study

personal invitations were sent to participants via Qualtrics to complete the survey

provided clear survey instructions

employed multiple communication channels, using social media and emailing

provided a QR code and mobile access to the survey

provided follow-up reminders

shared gratitude with a personalized thank you note

The targeted population of mid-level managers was obtained from national Head Start

association websites. The researcher chose a convenience sample of middle managers for its

accessibility, distinct characteristics, and relevance to the research question (Creswell &

Guetterman, 2022), ensuring it matched the target population without affecting the results. Other

scholars, such as Karimi et al. (2021), employed the convenience sampling methodology in

similar organizational innovation and leadership studies, validating its appropriateness and

successful utility in quantitative research.

The researcher used power analysis to ascertain whether the statistical tests were

sufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion and determine the sample size for the study

(StataCorp, 2022). Power analysis is a critical step in quantitative research; it accounts for the

probability of Type I errors, denoted as alpha or a, or Type II errors, denoted as beta or β, that

may occur during the hypotheses testing (Bagiella et al., 2019). The effect size is vital in

determining the practical importance in addition to the statistical significance of the findings

(Urdan, 2022). The G*Power 3.1 power command calculation involved running a correlation

statistical t-test and a priori, designed to compute the required sample size based on a specific

power and effect size (Kang, 2021). Toward that end, the G*Power 3.1 revealed that a minimum

sample size of 74 was needed for a power of .80 (β=0.2), an alpha significance level of 0.05, and

a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of .4 to show a moderate relationship based on

two predictor variables, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness. Additionally,

the G*Power 3.1 showed the targeted sample was needed to achieve a medium effect size (f2 =

.15) to help prevent Type II errors (Kang, 2021), as described in Figure 3.

Figure 3

G*Power Sample and Effect Size Computation

3.4.1 Actual Sample Used in the Study

The total population for the subset was 76, with a projected sample size of 74. The

researcher aimed to collect 74 surveys and exceeded this goal by securing 76 surveys via

Qualtrics, about 2.7% more than the initial target. However, 12 surveys were later removed from

the analysis for missing data, outliers, or failing to meet the inclusion standards. This step was

crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of the data. Ultimately, the final sample size used

for the analysis was 64, constituting about 86.5% response rate. Despite this reduction, the

sample size remains sufficient for conducting the planned multivariate regression analyses

involving one independent variable and two dependent variables. According to various

guidelines, a sample size of at least 20 cases per independent variable is recommended for

regression analyses (Hair et al., 2018; Memon et al., 2020). In such a case, with only one

independent variable, transformational leadership, the final sample of 64 is more than adequate

to yield reliable parameter estimates and to test for statistical significance.

Scholars Hair et al. (2018) deem a sample size of more than 50 adequate for regression

testing. To ensure the sample size was adequate for the study, the researcher used post-hoc

power analysis, which is designed to evaluate the power of the statistical test to detect a

statistically significant effect, give the actual sample size, effect size, and alpha level observed

in the study (Faul et al., 2009). A post-hoc power analysis was run using G*Power to check the

effect size of the N=64 sample, as illustrated in Figure 4. The post-hoc power results revealed an

achieved power of .86, which is in the commonly accepted range of .80, for a medium-size

effect, thereby reducing the probability of type II errors (Cohen, 1988; Kang, 2021). The post-

hoc power for correlations was also at .80.

Figure 4

G* Power Post-Hoc Power Analysis Results

G*Power Post Hoc analysis also showed a power of .86, higher than the approved

threshold of .80 for statistical testing (Cohen, 1988; Kang, 2021). Therefore, the findings can be

considered statistically sound, even after accounting for the data-cleaning process, resulting in a

sample size of 64. The use of the robust feature in the regression analyses further enhanced the

reliability of the results.

3.5 Informed Consent

The researcher secured informed consent (see Appendix B) from all study participants,

clearly stating that participation in the study was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any

point. This informed consent document offered a comprehensive study description, outlining

participants' rights and responsibilities during the research. Additionally, it detailed the potential

risks and benefits of participation and delineated the measures undertaken by the researcher to

ensure participants' confidentiality.

Participants were recruited via social media and emails with the Office of Head Start

Regional Associations and Head Start Directors (Appendix D) across the United States. A link to

the surveys hosted on Qualtrics was distributed to potential participants. This link also provided

access to the electronic informed consent document. It is crucial to note that reviewing and

signing this informed consent form was a prerequisite; participants could only proceed with the

survey after providing their signed consent.

Once collected, survey responses were exported from Qualtrics and imported into the

STATA statistical software for subsequent analysis. Any incomplete surveys were promptly

deleted. As per Qualtrics' official documentation (Qualtrics, 2023), the platform integrates robust

data safety measures, safeguarding against potential threats such as attacks, eavesdropping, and

session hijacking. All data submissions are protected via the Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure

(HTTPS). Importantly, the survey was designed to exclude any personally identifiable

information. For instance, details such as names were omitted, and no data, including IP

addresses, was captured, further bolstering the confidentiality of participant responses.

3.6 Operational Definition of Variables and Measurements

This section delineates the operational definitions of the variables under investigation and

the measurement instruments employed for data collection. This study had two dependent

variables, organizational learning and innovativeness, and one independent variable,

transformational leadership. These three factors, transformational leadership, organizational

learning, and innovativeness, were measured using established constructs rigorously tested in

previous empirical research, ensuring the robustness of validity and reliability. The subsequent

descriptions provided the operational definitions for each variable and how they were measured.

3.6.1 Transformational Leadership

For this study, the operational definition of transformational leadership is an inspirational

and motivational approach that fosters knowledge dissemination and promotes employee

creativity by communicating a shared vision, purpose, and direction for followers (Bass, 1985;

García-Morales et al., 2012). Accordingly, transformational leadership was measured using a

validated four-item scale developed by García-Morales et al. (2012) to measure the key features

and attributes. The study utilized a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘strongly disagree,'

and 5 corresponds to ‘strongly agree.' This scale demonstrated high validity and reliability, as

indicated by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of a=.91. A recent Xie (2020) study employed a

similar scale in their research, involving 356 employees from the jewelry and manufacturing

sectors. The study used structural equation modeling and revealed that transformational

leadership exhibited a stronger predictive relationship with organizational learning than servant

leadership. This relationship was statistically significant with a p-value < 0.01.

Sample statements from the scale include, “Transformational leadership transmits the

organization's mission, the reason for being, and purpose to all of the employees, and

transformational leadership increases employees' level of enthusiasm” (García-Morales et al.,

2012).

3.6.2 Organizational Learning

Organizational learning is operationally defined as the capability “within an organization

to maintain or improve performance based on experience. This activity involves knowledge

acquisition (the development or creation of skills, insights, and relationships), knowledge

sharing

(the dissemination to others of what has been acquired by some), and knowledge utilization

(integration of learning so that it is assimilated, and broadly available, and can be generalized to

new situations)” (DiBella et al., 1996, p. 363). Organizational learning was measured using a

four-item scale modified by García-Morales et al. (2006) and García-Morales et al. (2012). The

study adopted a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree,

with high validity and reliability (a=.71). García-Morales et al. (2012) used confirmatory

analysis to validate the Likert scale. They used the scale with the CEO and followers and found

a strong correlation and statistical significance at p<.01. Examples of statements from the scale

are: “In the last three years, organizational improvements have been influenced fundamentally

by new knowledge entering the organization (knowledge used), and the organization is a

learning organization.”

3.6.3 Organizational Innovativeness

Organizational innovativeness differs from the term innovation. For this study, the

researcher adopted the operational definition of organizational innovativeness as the number of

innovations an organization has adopted using five attributes: openness, risk-taking, future

orientation, proactiveness, and creativity (Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Ruvio et al., 2014). These

researchers posited that the more innovations an organization implements, the higher the overall

innovation level. Furthermore, Ruvio et al.'s (2014) scale, which aligned with the sample

population for this study, was evaluated on 536 mid-level managers selected through

convenience sampling in social and health services organizations. Correspondingly, in addition

to its applicability to the sample, the scale was tested in three countries: Israel, Norway, and

Spain demonstrating validity and reliability in diverse contexts. Therefore, the researcher

employed the five-dimensional scale Ruvio et al. (2014) developed to measure organizational

innovativeness. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the five characteristics assessed by the scale,

Cronbach's range for the three studies conducted in three countries, factor items, and sample

items from the scale. The study adopted the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree, with high validity and reliability as described in Table 2. The

scale had a total of 21 items.

Table 2

Characteristics of the Organizational Innovativeness Scale

Characteristics and Definitions Cronbach’s a Factor Items Sample Items

Creativity—the creative thinking and

behaviors of the organization's managers.

Organizational openness—measures the

support for innovation and open-

mindedness toward new ideas.

Future Orientation—represents the extent

to which managers have a clear sense of

direction and share it with their

employees.

Risk-Taking—managers' feelings about

taking uncertain risks or making risky

decisions.

Proactiveness—the degree to which

managers possess proactive tendencies

and actions.

.84 to .86 5 In this organization, creativity is

encouraged.

.82 to .88 4 This organization is always

moving toward the development

of new answers.

.86 to .88 4 This organization conveys a clear

sense of future direction to

employees.

.79 to .82 4 This organization encourages

innovative strategies, knowing

well that some will fail.

.78 to .83 4 In this organization, managers

take the initiative to shape the

environment to the organization's

advantage (Ruvio et al., 2014).

3.7 Data Collection and Analysis

Scholars researching organizational learning described applying correlational and

regression analyses (Kim & Lu, 2020) to understand the relationship between variables. Like

Kim and Lu (2020), the researcher applied correlation, multivariate regression, and confirmatory

factor analysis statistical tests for this study. The researcher collected data from October 6, 2023,

through November 6, 2023, after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University. The data analysis occurred

throughout November and December 2023. After establishing a Qualtrics account, the researcher

added informed consent and a valid and reliable scale that measured the research variables in the

survey management system. The researcher received email permission from Ruvio and García-

Morales to utilize their scale instruments in this study (Appendix A). The combined scales have

29 items and four demographic questions added to the Qualtrics survey. The first survey question

included an informed consent question to participate in the survey.

3.8 Data Collection Procedures

The key respondents for this study were 64 Head Start middle managers. Each respondent

received a cover letter explaining the purpose of the study and providing an overview of the

ethical assurances required for research. Furthermore, the cover letter provided details about how

the data would be analyzed at the aggregate level to prevent desirability bias, as no identifiable

information about specific Head Start programs was reviewed. The researcher implemented the

following strategies to mitigate nonresponse bias: (a) the survey link was accessible via a

smartphone device, and (b) no sensitive information was shared (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019).

The researcher used the following procedures for data collection with the Qualtrics

survey management system. First, Qualtrics was downloaded to a personal computer, which was

only used by the researcher. Second, two-factor authentication was required to access Qualtrics

from the personal computer. Third, no survey data from Qualtrics was printed; all data will be

deleted from the Qualtrics system within 7 years or upon completion of the research. Finally, the

researcher kept all research data in a locked file cabinet.

The researcher assessed the data to identify any missing data or values. In such cases, the

surveys were removed from the data set. Twelve surveys were removed from the data set due to

incompletion or exclusion purposes to ensure the intended sampled population aligned with the

intent of this dissertation research. The researcher reviewed all the survey data in Qualtrics to

conduct consistency checks to identify errors. Data-cleaning procedures were updated and

documented as part of the research process (Urdan, 2022).

3.8.1 Data Analysis

The researcher used an explanatory correlational research design. Data were analyzed

using descriptive and inferential statistics through the STATA statistical software. As

Alexopoulos (2010) elucidated, “Inferential statistics are used to answer questions about the

data, test hypotheses, generate measures of effect, describe associations, model relationships

within the data, and serve many other functions” (p. 23). Before running the statistical tests, the

researcher verified that the analyses met certain foundational assumptions to ensure the results'

validity and reliability. Specifically, these were (a) the dependent and independent variables

were continuous, (b) a linear relationship persisted between all variables, (c) potential outliers

were identified and stabilized in the data, and (d) observations remained independent

(Alexopoulos, 2010). The researcher subsequently checked for linearity, multicollinearity,

variance inflation factor (VIF), homoscedasticity, residuals, and the normal distribution of

residual errors.

Scatterplots and histograms were employed as visual tools to aid these assessments, particularly

before generating the multivariate regressions.

Correlational analysis and multivariate regressions were employed to address the research

objectives adequately. Specifically, multivariate regressions tested the central research question

and the first and fifth. In contrast, correlational analyses tested the remaining hypotheses, aiming

to show the associations and relationships among variables. Notably, regression analysis

illustrated the predictive influence of transformational leadership on organizational learning and

innovativeness, highlighting the impact of transformational leadership on these dependent

variables. Finally, the researcher completed a confirmatory factor analysis to ascertain the

alignment between the construct measurements and the survey instrument used in this

dissertation research.

3.8.2 Descriptive Statistics

The researcher used descriptive statistics to describe the characteristics of the sample

(Urdan, 2022), which included the participant's demographic information, such as the location of

the Head Start program, years in the position, and mid-level management position. The

descriptive statistics showed the mean, mode, and median to enhance the understanding of the

data. The standard deviation, minimum, maximum, and variance measures revealed the

variability and dispersion of the data (Urdan, 2022). The descriptive statistics are shown in tables

in Chapter 4.

3.8.3 Correlational Analysis

Correlations between the dependent variables occur first to prevent multicollinearity in

subsequent regression modeling (Gordon, 2020). This research validated the linear relationship

assumption between dependent and independent variables, emphasizing the importance of

evaluating the potential influences of extraneous variables on the primary relationship of interest

(Urdan, 2022; Zyphur & Pierides, 2020). Outputs from STATA, such as scatterplots, a

correlational matrix, and VIF data, provided evidence of variable relationships and confirmed

the absence of multicollinearity. A Pearson product-moment r correlation analysis identified

variables closely related to transformational leadership. Notably, correlation values span from -

1.0 to 1.0, with a value of 0 indicating no relationship (Blaikie, 2003; Kim & Lu, 2020; Urdan,

2022), quantifying the strength and direction of the relationship. These correlational analyses

addressed hypotheses H2, H3, and H4 and contribute to answering the primary research question.

3.8.4 Multivariate Regression

The researcher used multivariate regression analyses to test H1 and H5 and to help

answer the central research question. These analyses assessed relationships between the two

dependent variables and a single independent variable (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019; Urdan,

2022). Specifically, since this study included two dependent variables and one independent

variable, the multivariate regression analysis was the appropriate statistical test for this

dissertation (Urdan, 2022). Moreover, the multivariate regressions were vital for three primary

reasons. Firstly, these analyses clarified how transformational leadership behaviors among

middle managers influence organizational learning and innovativeness. Secondly, the

methodology emphasized the relationship between transformational leadership and

organizational learning and the five dimensions of innovativeness. Finally, it showed the

interconnectedness of the two dependent variables (Creswell & Guetterman, 2019). By

examining the coefficients and levels of statistical significance, the researcher determined the

strength and magnitude of relationships between dependent variables.

According to Urdan (2022), spurious correlations refer to connections between two

variables that appear related but lack a causal link. For this analysis, data are sourced from a

combined instrument that measures transformational leadership, organizational learning, and

organizational innovation. The researcher performed multiple pairwise statistical tests and

utilized the Bonferroni correction command in STATA to minimize Type I errors and spurious

impacts, thereby ensuring accurate p-value adjustments (Porter, 2018).

3.8.5 Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a statistical process that involves examining the

reliability of the individual indicators (Hair et al., 2020), and it is applied to validate a previously

hypothesized theoretical model (StataCorp, 2022). Accordingly, Hair et al. (2020) explained the

following:

When researchers apply CFA, established—or at minimum some—meaningful theory is

available about the relationships between the individual variables and how they relate to

theoretical concepts. In short, researchers are testing the hypothesis that a proposed

theoretical relationship exists between the observed variables and their underlying latent

constructs. (p. 111)

The CFA technique seeks to verify if the gathered data supports the given model (Knekta et al.,

2019), and it tested how the researcher's data for Head Start middle managers fit the existing

model as described by Urdan (2022). For this dissertation, the researcher used two previously

validated and reliable instruments created by García-Morales et al. (2012) and Ruvio et al.

(2014) in a new context, setting, and with a new population. Importantly, both instruments had

undergone CFA with leaders and mid-level managers in García-Morales et al. (2012) and Ruvio

et al. (2014) studies. Given the uniqueness and significance of the present research, a re-

evaluation of their validity was deemed crucial; therefore, the researcher performed a CFA.

The model under examination comprises two instruments accounting for 29 factors.

These encompass four factors, each for transformational leadership and organizational learning

and 21 for organizational innovativeness. García-Morales et al. (2012) postulated that

transformational leadership and organizational learning operate as unidimensional constructs. In

contrast, Ruvio et al. (2014) characterize innovativeness as a multi-dimensional construct

represented by five distinct variables: creativity, openness, future orientation, risk-taking, and

proactiveness. These elements collectively define the scale of the construct. Through the CFA,

the research determined the latent factors among these five variables and those associated with

transformational leadership and organizational learning. The researcher used STATA statistical

software to perform the CFA to validate the scale for this dissertation study.

The analyses provided evidence reinforcing confidence in using these instruments to

interpret data from Head Start mid-level managers (AERA, APA, & NCME, 2014), as discussed

in detail in Chapter 4. Moreover, Chapter 4 elaborates on the goodness-of-fit indices assessed in

the CFA, including the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), the chi-square test

of model fit, and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). Further details, such as Cronbach alphas and

data relating to specific estimation methods, will also be presented.

3.9 Ethical Assurances

This study addressed three main ethical assurances: respect for persons, beneficence, and

justice (Roberts & Hyatt, 2019). The researcher obtained informed, voluntary consent with the

caveat that participants could withdraw their participation without penalty at any point in the

study. Participants provided consent in the first question on the survey; failure to provide consent

prohibited the participant from moving further in the survey. Information was kept anonymous

by ensuring no personally identifiable information was listed on the survey documents.

The study was designed to minimize risk. First, the researcher obtained and followed the

guidance from the North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University IRB. Second, the

study did not include physical contact or interaction with participants outside of electronically

issuing a survey. Third, all instructions for completing the survey and the purpose of the research

were provided to the participants to consider and decide if they were willing to participate in the

study to eliminate any potential deception. Additionally, Head Start Directors for participating

agencies were issued a letter to seek their permission to allow their managers to participate in the

study for full transparency. To ensure the anonymity of the Head Start programs that participate

in the study, the researcher presents only aggregate findings. The names of the Head Start

programs were kept confidential and were not disclosed in the study. Finally, the study did not

exploit any vulnerable persons.

3.10 Summary

Chapter 3 provided a detailed overview of the research design and methodology that was

executed in the research on the relationship between Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership on organizational learning and organizational innovativeness. The

researcher attributed the justification to use a quantitative research correlational research design

to similar past studies (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Bahadur et al., 2021; Baxla & Mishra, 2022;

Chung & Li, 2021; Karimi et al., 2023). This chapter offers an overview of the population and

rationale for sampling, assumptions, data collection, and the valid and reliable instruments that

used to collect data in the dissertation research. Data analyses were completed using the STATA

statistical software to test relationships among and between variables using multivariate

regressions, correlations, and confirmatory factor analysis. The study's research findings are

detailed in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4: Results

This explanatory correlational quantitative study examined the relationships among the

transformational leadership of Head Start middle managers, organizational learning, and

innovativeness. Unlike extant transformational leadership research, this study focuses on two

dynamics of organizational performance: learning and innovativeness in early childhood settings

across Head Start programs in the United States. Sixty-four surveys were completed in the

Qualtrics survey system using 29 questions from valid and reliable scales created by García-

Morales et al. (2012) and Ruvio et al. (2014), the basis for this research results. In such case, this

dissertation had one research question and five directional hypotheses, and using multivariate

and linear regressions, confirmatory factor analysis, and correlational analysis, the researcher

tested each one. The hypotheses predicted the strength and direction of the relationships between

the variables, which are as follows:

H1: There is a significant relationship between Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness.

H2: A positive correlation exists between the Head Start middle manager's

transformational leadership and organizational learning.

H3: A positive correlation exists between Head Start middle managers' transformational

leadership and organizational innovativeness.

H4: A positive correlation exists between organizational learning and organizational

innovativeness.

H5: Organizational learning significantly predicts organizational innovativeness,

indicating a positive relationship between the two variables.

These statistical tests aligned with the research objectives and hypotheses. The

subsequent sections provide details of the procedural steps associated with the data analysis and

present the findings, results, and interpretations for each statistical test.

4.1 Examining Assumptions for Regressions and Correlations

Before running the inferential statistics, the researcher completed tests to verify the

assumptions for regressions and correlations and assess the internal reliability of the survey

instrument. The explanation of the results is below. The researcher examined the assumptions for

multivariate regressions and correlations. The study had two dependent variables, organizational

learning and innovativeness, and one independent variable, transformational leadership. The data

were continuous, which meets the threshold for multivariate regressions. The survey used in the

study combined the scale by García-Morales (2012) to measure transformational leadership and

organizational learning and the scale by Ruvio et al. (2014), which measured the five dimensions

of innovativeness. Both scales employed Likert scales, creating numerical values in response to

the participant's assessment of their transformational leadership skills and their perception of the

organization's learning and innovativeness. Finally, for the correlational analysis, the variables

were assessed in pairs as indicated in H1, H2, and H3.

4.1.1 Independence of Observations

Next, the researcher tested for the independence of observations using the Durbin Waston

Test of Autocorrelation in Stata. The Durbin-Watson test generates a value that ranges between 0

and 4, with values less than 2 suggesting positive autocorrelation. The higher the value, such as

from 2 to 4, there is likely no autocorrelation. As shown in Table 3, the Durbin-Watson statistic

was 1.542935, which confirms positive autocorrelation. The researcher utilized Robust Standard

Errors in the regression models to correct the violation and ensure reliable results. The robust

feature adjusts the standard errors of the estimated coefficients to provide more reliable findings.

Table 3

Durbin-Watson Test of Autocorrelation

Durbin-Watson Number of Observations

1.542935 64

4.1.2 Linearity

The assumption of linearity specifies that the relationship between the independent and

dependent variables should be linear. Scatterplots were used to examine the linearity between

variables. The scatter plots showed a primarily upward trend, indicative of a linear relationship.

Although the scatterplots did show that the linearity assumption was met, some variability was

noted. The plot reveals that the residuals mostly center around zero, with about half lying above

and half below the zero line (see Figure 5).

Figure 5

Residuals vs. Fitted Plot

This pattern supports the assumptions of linearity and independence of residuals,

suggesting that the model is a good fit for the data. However, the presence of a few outliers—

specifically, one residual at 2 and another at 6—indicates potential concerns that may affect the

model's accuracy. Robust regression techniques were enabled to reduce the impact of the outliers

(Urdan, 2022).

4.1.3 Homoscedasticity

The next assumption of regression analysis posits the necessity for homoscedasticity of

residuals, which signifies that the error variances should be equal across all values of the

predicted dependent variable. Figure 6 shows the residuals vs. fitted plots to test the

homoscedasticity, which was not violated. The residuals—essentially the differences between

observed and predicted values—are plotted against the fitted values in these plots. A constant

variance of residuals across the range of the independent variable substantiates the claim of

homoscedasticity. Specifically, when the errors appear normally distributed around the fitted

values on the vertical range, it suggests that the assumption of homoscedasticity is met.

Figure 6

Homoscedasticity Plots

-1

-2

-3

0 2 4 6 8

Fitted values

Residual

4.1.4 Normality

Lastly, the Shapiro-Wilk test tested the normality to ensure the residuals were normally

distributed. The results of the Shapiro-Wilk test, as shown in Table 4, indicate a significant

deviation from normality in the residuals (p-value = 0.00021). The non-normal distribution of

residuals could potentially violate the assumptions for performing regression, leading to

inaccurate estimates. Scholars posit that when the assumptions of regressions are unmet, robust

regression techniques can give more accurate estimates because they are less sensitive to these

violations (Fox, 2016; Wilcox, 2012) and were thus employed for this study.

Table 4

Shapiro, Wilk W Test for Normal Data

Variable Obs W V z Prob>z

r 64 0.911 5.099 3.524 0.000

4.1.5 Multicollinearity

The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) was calculated for all the variables in the model to

assess multicollinearity. All VIF values ranged from 1.348 for Risk-taking to 3.39 for Creativity,

well below the threshold of 10. Therefore, multicollinearity is not a concern in this model

(Urdan, 2022). Specifically, the lowest VIF value (1.348 for Risk-taking) indicates that this

predictor is least correlated with other variables in the model, while the highest VIF (3.39

for Creativity) is within acceptable limits. The mean VIF of 2.706 further confirmed that the

degree of multicollinearity among the variables is moderate and unlikely to impact the regression

results. See Table 5 for more details.

Table 5

Variance Inflation Factor

VIF 1/VIF

Creativity 3.39 .295

Openness 3.224 .31

Proactiveness 2.889 .346

Future Orientation 2.801 .357

Organizational Learning 2.583 .387

Risk-taking 1.348 .742

Mean VIF 2.706 .

4.1.6 Internal Consistency and Reliability

The instruments (García-Morales et al., 2012; Ruvio et al., 2014) have previously

demonstrated reliability and validity. García-Morales et al.'s (2012) scale achieved a Cronbach's

a of .91, while Ruvio et al.'s (2014) scale for the five dimensions of innovativeness showed

Cronbach's a ranging from .88 to .78. An alpha value of .70 or higher indicates adequate internal

reliability (Taber, 2018). The researcher re-evaluated internal consistency and reliability with the

current sample, a crucial step in conceptually replicating the study, as the relationship between

the dependent variables (organizational learning and innovativeness) and the independent

variable (transformational leadership) had never been tested among early childhood middle

managers. The survey instrument exhibited good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's a of

0.8261, as depicted in Table 6, indicating that the items from the dimensions of transformational

leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness are closely related and likely measure the

same underlying construct. This robust reliability emphasizes the survey's quality and establishes

a solid foundation for its validity.

Table 6

Cronbach's Alpha Statistic

Number of Survey Items Cronbach's Alpha

29 0.8261

4.2 Descriptive Statistics and Findings

The sample for this study was 64, and the survey included three distinct demographic

survey questions:

1. What is your mid-level management position?

2. How long have you been in your management position?

3. In what state is your Head Start program located?

All participants (N=64) responded to the demographic questions, and the roles of mid-level

management positions, time in positions, and the program locations were diverse. Education

managers comprised 21.31% of the sample, followed by center managers at 18.03%, family

service managers at 13.11%, and health managers at 11.48%. Nutrition and Early Head Start

managers each constituted 8.20% of the sample. Other managers represented in the study

included human resources, fiscal, mental health, disability services, and transportation managers.

Remarkably, no compliance or home-based service managers participated in the study, as shown

in Figure 7.

As illustrated in Figure 8, most of the managers, over 43%, were in their positions for 0-5

years, and 24.62% were in their positions for 6 to 11 years. Managers represented in the study for

more prolonged periods included 10.77% who were in their positions for 12-17 years and 9.23%

who were in their positions for 18-23 years. Interestingly, 6.15% noted they were in their

positions for 30 to 35 years.

Middle Managers Years in the

Position

Total 36−41

years

30−35 years

24−29 years

18−23 years

12−17 years

6−11 years

0−5 years

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Figure 7

Head Start Middle Manager Participant Positions

Figure 8

Head Start Middle Managers Years in the Position

0.00%

1.64% 1.64% 1.64%

3.28% 3.28% 3.28%

4.92%

5.00%

8.20% 8.20%

10.00%

11.48%

13.11%

15.00%

18.03%

20.00%

21.31%

25.00%

Head Start Middle Managers Survey Participants

Education Manager

Center Manager/DirectorFamily Services Manager

Health Manager

Nutrition/Food Service Manager

Early Head Start Manager

Disabilities ManagerHuman Resources ManagerFiscal Manager

Enrollment Services Manager

Transportation ManagerFacilities ManagerMental Health Manager

Map of the Location of Head Start Middle Manager Research Participants

As shown in the map in Figure 9, participants from 14 states, representing 9 out of 12

Administration for Children and Families Head Start Regions, participated in the study.

Texas had the highest number of participants, making up 27.69% of the sample. New Jersey was

next with 23.08%, followed by North Carolina at 16.92%. Virginia and Vermont comprised

7.69% and 3.08% of the participants, respectively. Arizona and Maryland each accounted for

4.62% of the total responses.

Figure 9

of the survey results to understand the descriptive statistics, specifically, the dispersions and

variations in the data. The mean values for transformational leadership are 5.40 and 5.43 for

organizational learning. These high mean scores indicate that the respondents, on average, rated

these constructs high, implying that the sample generally perceives the presence of

Map of the Locatio of Head Star Middle Manager Researc Participants

Moving beyond the demographic data related to the sample, additional detailed

analysis

transformational leadership and organizational learning as strong within their programs. The

mean scores for the dimensions of innovativeness provide insights into the middle managers'

perceptions of the construct based on Ruvio et al.'s (2014) research. Specifically, the high mean

of 4.13125 for creativity alludes to respondents generally perceiving their organizations as

highly creative.

Similarly, a mean score of 3.933594 for proactiveness indicates that the organizations are

adept at identifying future needs and anticipating and initiating change. Future orientation, with a

high mean value of 4.130208, suggests a focus on long-term planning and foresight within these

organizations. Similarly, openness had a high mean score of 4.132813, implying an

organizational culture that values transparency and open communication. Unlike the other

dimensions of innovativeness, the mean for risk-taking is drastically lower at 2.988281, implying

a more conservative and adverse approach to risk within Head Start programs. The following

section explains additional descriptive statistics to elucidate these trends further.

As shown in Table 7, the standard deviation for all the variables was less than 1.5,

denoting that responses are close to the mean and there is minimal variability or spread. This

finding indicates a general agreement among the respondents about evaluating transformational

leadership, organizational learning, and other dimensions like creativity and openness, which

aligns with Urdan (2022). He explained that the survey responses are more similar when the

standard deviations are small. The range of minimum and maximum values, which lean towards

the higher end of the scale, reveals that innovativeness and organizational learning are generally

perceived positively within the sample and further supports respondents' agreement level.

Noteworthy, the data did not show extremely low scores, and this pattern suggests that the Head

Start programs may be performing well in transformational leadership and organizational

learning.

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics for the Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning, and

Innovativeness Survey

Variable Obs M SD Min Max

Transform. Leadership 64 5.397 1.499 1 7

Creativity 64 4.131 .797 1.4 5

Organizational Learning 64 5.426 1.16 1.5 7

Openness 64 4.133 .821 1.25 5

Future Orientation 64 4.13 .84 1.75 5

Risk-Taking 64 2.988 .796 1.25 5

Proactiveness 64 3.934 .858 1 5

Note. N=64.

4.3 Results

The researcher used Stata to perform multiple statistical analyses, including correlations,

multivariate regression, and confirmatory factor analyses, focusing on organizational learning

and innovativeness outcome variables. The regression analyses were executed with specified

parameters identified using G*Power: a 5% margin of error, an effect size of f2=0.15, a 95%

confidence level, and a power of 0.95. The results of the research questions and the five

hypotheses are discussed in detail below.

4.3.1 Research Question 1 Results

“What is the relationship between middle managers' transformational leadership

behaviors, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness within a Head Start

program?” The variables used in this study were Transformational Leadership, Organizational

Learning, Creativity, Openness, Future Orientation, and Proactiveness, the five dimensions of

innovativeness. In answering the research question, multivariate regression analysis found

several statistically significant relationships between middle managers' transformational

leadership behaviors and organizational learning and innovativeness. The researcher used

multivariate regressions, confirmatory factors, and correlational analyses to investigate the

relationship between the variables.

The regression data shows a significant positive relationship between middle managers'

transformational leadership behaviors, organizational learning, and most of the dimensions of

innovativeness. Specifically, a one-unit increase in Transformational Leadership is associated

with a 0.5159-unit increase in Organizational Learning, a 0.3206-unit increase in Creativity, a

0.2150-unit increase in Openness, a 0.2495-unit increase in Future Orientation, a 0.0554-unit

increase in Risk-Taking, and a 0.9967-unit increase in Proactiveness. Organizational learning,

Creativity, and Future Orientation relationships are statistically significant, p<0.000, and

Openness at p=0.001. Given the extremely low p-values, there is strong evidence rejecting the

null hypothesis for the relationships between transformational leadership and dimensions of

innovativeness to include all the variables except risk-taking. The impact of Transformational

Leadership is most substantial on the dimension of Proactiveness, followed closely by

Organizational Learning and Creativity, as evidenced by the higher standardized coefficients for

these variables. On the other hand, the Risk-Taking dimension is less strongly influenced by

Transformational Leadership, suggesting that other variables not included in the model may also

play a role. Finally, correlational and confirmatory factor analysis showed similar findings as the

regression, with Risk-Taking not statistically significant.

4.3.2 Hypothesis 1 Results

Multivariate regression analysis explored how well transformational leadership predicted

organizational learning and innovativeness. H1: A significant relationship between Head Start

middle managers' transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness was

supported for the dependent variable, organizational learning, and four dimensions of

innovativeness—proactiveness, future orientation, creativity, and openness—through

multivariate regression analyses. Risk-taking was not found to be statistically significant as

summarized in Table 8.

Table 8

Results of Hypothesis 1: Multivariate Regression

Predictor

Variable Standardized

Coefficient (β)

Std.

Error

value p-value Interpretation

Organizational

Learning

Creativity

(Innovativeness)

Openness

(Innovativeness

Future

Orientation

(Innovativeness)

.5158887 .0732029 7.05 0.000*** Organizational Learning was a significant

predictor, B=0.516, SE=0.073, t(df)=7.05,

p<.001, indicating a positive relationship

between Organizational Learning and

Transformational Leadership.

.3205627 .0538692 5.95 0.000*** Creativity was a significant predictor,

B=0.321, SE=0.054, t(df)=5.95, p<.001,

indicating a positive relationship with

Transformational Leadership.

.2150013 .0640011 3.36 0.001*** Openness was a statistically significant

predictor B=0.215, SE=0.064, t(df)=3.36,

p=.001, indicating a positive relationship

with Transformational Leadership.

.2494637 .0636789 3.92 0.000*** Future Orientation was a statistically

significant predictor B=0.249, SE=0.063,

t(df)=3.92, p<.001, indicating a positive

relationship with Transformational

Leadership.

Risk-Taking .0553772 .0670801 0.83 0.412 Risk-Taking was not statistically

significant with Transformational

Leadership, B=0.055, SE=0.067, t(df)=

0.83, p=.41.

Proactiveness .2969783 .0621657 4.78 0.000*** Proactiveness was statistically significant

with Transformational Leadership,

B=0.296, SE=0.062, t(df)=4.78, p<.001.

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

4.3.2.1 Organizational Learning. In examining the influence of transformational

leadership on organizational learning, the regression analysis unveiled statistically significant

results. Specifically, for each one-unit increase in Transformational Leadership, Organizational

Learning increased by 0.516 units, F (1,63) =49.67, p<.001. This finding strongly supports

rejecting the null hypothesis, substantiating the link between Transformational Leadership and

Organizational Learning. Further, the coefficient of determination, R2, was 0.445, indicating that

approximately 44.5% of the variability in Organizational Learning could be accounted for by

Transformational Leadership. This suggests moderate to strong explanatory power for the model

as predicted in the priori hypothesis.

Additionally, the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) was 0.871, indicating a reasonable fit

of the model, although there was some interesting unexplained variation in Organizational

Learning. The constant term, β0, was statistically significant at 2.641 (p<.001), suggesting a

meaningful baseline level of Organizational Learning when Transformational Leadership is

absent. In other words, the constant terms show that Organizational Learning may exist without

Transformational Leadership; however, the attributing factors are unknown. Yet, this is an

interesting finding, worth further exploration in future studies. These results imply that Head

Start middle managers' transformational leadership significantly enhances organizational

learning. Next, the researcher explains each of the dimensions of innovativeness from the

multivariate regression output.

4.3.2.2 Creativity. Transformational Leadership has a strong, statistically significant

positive impact on creativity, as evidenced by a coefficient of 0.321 (p< 0.001). The R2 is 0.364,

and approximately 36.4% of the variance in creativity is explained by transformational

leadership. This indicates moderate explanatory power, suggesting that while transformational

leadership is an important factor, the model might not include other variables affecting creativity.

This point is made clear since 63.6% of the variance is potentially explained by other factors

unknown in this study. The RMSE is 0.641, and the model's predictions are relatively close to

the actual values of creativity, but there is still some discrepancy. In other words, although the

model shows a reasonably good fit and promise for the variable Creativity, there is room for

model improvement. Future research could consider adding more predictors, exploring

interaction effects, or employing more complex modeling techniques to better understand the

underlying mechanisms influencing creativity.

4.3.2.3 Openness. The R2 for Openness was 0.154, and only about 15.4% of the variance

in Openness is explained by Transformational Leadership. This relatively low explanatory

power points to other significant factors affecting Openness that the model does not capture. The

RMSE is 0.761, and the higher RMSE suggests that the model's predictions for Openness are

less accurate than other variables, such as Creativity, reinforcing the lower R2 value.

Transformational Leadership has a moderate yet statistically significant influence on Openness

within the Head Start organization. Specifically, the coefficient stands at 0.215 and is significant

at the p<0.01 level. The results indicate that the relationship is not likely due to chance and

holds meaningful implications for understanding the role of middle managers' Transformational

Leadership in shaping Openness regarding innovation.

4.3.2.4 Future Orientation. The R2 was 0.0109, and nearly 20% of the variance in

Future Orientation is accounted for by Transformational Leadership. While this shows some

influence, it also suggests that other factors contribute substantially to Future Orientation. The

RMSE value is 0.758, which shows a reasonable but imperfect fit, suggesting that the model has

some predictive power but could be improved. Future Orientation showed a similar statistically

significant positive relationship, marked by a coefficient of 0.249 (p < 0.001).

4.3.2.5 Risk-Taking. The R2 was 0.011, and unlike the other dimensions of

innovativeness, a very small amount of the variance of 1.1% in Risk-Taking is explained by

Transformational Leadership, denoting that the model is ineffective for this variable and other

factors are likely at play. The RMSE of 0.798 is high and confirms that the model's predictions

are inaccurate for Risk-Taking. Further, Risk-taking is an anomaly; it does not exhibit a

statistically significant relationship with Transformational Leadership, as indicated by its p-

value of 0.4122. Thereby, Risk-taking does not show a significant change, meaning it appears to

be neither positively nor negatively influenced by levels of transformational leadership. Out of

the five dimensions of innovativeness, the Risk-taking variable is the only one that was not

statistically significant with Transformational Leadership.

4.3.2.6 Proactiveness. Proactivity is also positively and significantly influenced, with a

coefficient of 0.297 (p < 0.001). The R2 value is 0.269, and Transformational Leadership

explains about 26.9% of the variance in Proactiveness. This suggests a moderate level of

influence. The RMSE is 0.740, which shows a reasonable fit, suggesting that while the model

has some predictive power for proactivity, it could be refined further. See Figure 10 for the

multivariate regression output. The second statistical analysis addressing H1 included the

confirmatory analyses.

Figure 10

Multivariate Regression Output

Equation Obs P RMSE

"R-

sq" F P>F

OrgLearn 64 2 .8709

0.4448 49.66

0.0

Creativity 64 2 .6409

0.3635 35.41

0.0

Openness 64 2 .7614

0.1540 11.28

0.0

FuturOrient 64 2 .7576

0.1984 15.34

0.0

RiskTaking 64 2 .7981

0.0109 .6815

0.4

Proact 64 2 .7396

0.2691 22.82

0.0

Coefficient Std. err. t P>|t| [95% conf. interval]

OrgLearn

TransLe

_cons

.5158887

2.64146

.0732029

.4098123

7.05

6.45

0.000

.3695581

1.822257

.6622192

3.460663

Creativity

TransLe

_cons

.3205627

2.40113

.0538692

.3015763

5.95

7.96

0.000

.2128797

1.798288

.4282456

3.003972

Openness

TransLe

_cons

.2150013

2.972421

.0640011

.3582976

3.36

8.30

0.001

0.000

.087065

2.256195

.3429376

3.688648

FuturO

TransLe

_cons

.2494637

2.783819

.0636789

.356494

3.92

7.81

0.000

.1221713

2.071198

.376756

3.496441

RiskTaking

TransLe

_cons

.0553772

2.689403

.0670801

.3755349

0.83

7.16

0.412

0.000

.078714

1.93872

.1894684

3.440087

Proact

TransLe

_cons

.2969783

2.330762

.0621657

.3480228

4.78

6.70

0.000

.1727108

1.635074

.4212458

3.026449

4.3.2.7 Confirmatory Factory Analysis. This dissertation employed Confirmatory

Factor Analysis (CFA) to validate the survey instrument, conceptually replicating previous

research findings (Knekta et al., 2019) related to Transformational Leadership, Organizational

Learning, and five dimensions of organizational innovativeness, Creativity, Proactiveness,

Future Orientation, Risk-Taking, and Openness within a Head Start environment as part of

looking at the interrelationships comprehensively. The instrument was valid and reliable, with a

Cronbach's alpha of 0.8261. The CFA process was replicated in similar studies by scholars

(García-Morales et al., 2012; Ruvio et al., 2014). The CFA model showed a good fit to the data,

as indicated by a chi-square value of χ2 (15) =22.15 and a p-value of .103, indicating that the

model fit is adequate, as the p-value is greater than the .05 significance level. Additional fit

indices further supported the model's adequacy; the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) was .05, and the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was .97. All factor loadings were

statistically significant at p<.001, confirming the robustness of the model in capturing the latent

constructs. These significant factor loadings provide relevant statistical support for the

hypothesis that Transformational Leadership influences the various dimensions of

innovativeness.

The standardized factor loading for Creativity was ß=.865, for Openness was ß=.855,

and for Future Orientation was ß=.829, suggesting that as the latent variable, Transformational

Leadership, increases, these dimensions of innovativeness are likely to be positively influenced.

Put differently, the high factor loading scores for Creativity, Openness, and Future Orientation

are associated with high scores in Transformational Leadership. Moreover, the CFA results

confirmed that Transformational Leadership significantly influences Organizational Learning

and all five innovativeness dimensions, F (6,58)>20, p<.001. Notably, the standardized

coefficients revealed a strong positive impact of Transformational Leadership on Openness

(β=.865, p<.001), followed by Proactiveness (β=.855, p<.001) and Future Orientation (β=.829,

p<.001). These results suggest that higher levels of Transformational Leadership are associated

with greater innovativeness across these dimensions within Head Start programs. As part of a

broader statistical evaluation, equation-level goodness-of-fit metrics were calculated. Figure 11

shows the CFA model's R2 values for each observed variable. These R2 values ranged from 0 to

1, with higher values indicative of a better model fit for the corresponding variables.

Figure 11

R-Squared Values of Each Variable in the CFA

Note. R-squared values for each variable in the CFA. Asterisks indicate statistical significance at the <0.001 level.

R2 values were used to evaluate the proportion of variance explained for each variable to

determine the model's fit to the data. Specifically, the variables Openness (R2=.748),

Proactiveness (R2=.730), and Future Orientation (R2=.688) displayed strong associations with

Transformational Leadership, F(1,63)>15, p<.001. Notably, the high R2 values for these

variables further validate H1 and the central research question for this dissertation study. On the

other hand, the R2 value for Risk-Taking was notably lower (R2=.215), suggesting that the model

does not adequately capture all contributing factors for this variable. The overall R2 for the

multivariate model was .910, further substantiating the model's strong explanatory power for the

dependent variables under consideration. The results suggest that the model is robust in

explaining most innovativeness and organizational learning dimensions with an overall R2 value

for the model of 0.910, denoting 91% of the variance across all the variables in the data.

Nevertheless, the model fails to explain risk-taking, which had the lowest R2 value of all the

other innovativeness dimensions, as illustrated in Table 9.

Table 9

Equation-Level Goodness of Fit Variance

Dependent Observations Fitted Predicted Residual R-squared mc mc2

Org. Learning*** 1.324 0.533 0.790 0.403 0.635 0.403

Creativity*** 0.625 0.354 0.272 0.565 0.752 0.565

Openness*** 0.664 0.497 0.167 0.748 0.865 0.748

Future Orientation*** 0.694 0.477 0.217 0.688 0.829 0.688

Risk-Taking 0.624 0.134 0.490 0.215 0.464 0.215

Proactiveness*** 0.725 0.530 0.196 0.730 0.855 0.730

0.910

Note. mc = correlation between the dependent variable and its prediction. mc2 = mc2 is the Bentler, Raykov squared

multiple correlation coefficient. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Second, a multivariate regression model was run after the CFA. After the regression

analysis, a box plot employing Tukey's (1977) method was used as a diagnostic tool to validate

the model's findings and to assess the robustness, as detailed in Figure 12. Although the

regression model was run before using Tukey's method, employing this as a post-regression

diagnostic tool is widely accepted for evaluating model assumptions and robustness (Field et al.,

2012).

Figure 12

Boxplot of Variables

4.3.3 Hypothesis 2 Results

A correlational analysis, using a Pearson Product Moment Correlation (r), was employed

to determine if a relationship existed between transformational leadership and organizational

learning and to denote the strength and direction. Correlational values range from -1 to 1, with -1

representing a negative correlation, 0 indicating no correlation, and 1 denoting a positive

correlation (Blaikie, 2003). With that in mind, the second hypothesis, H2: A positive correlation

exists between the Head Start middle manager's transformational leadership and organizational

learning was supported. The pairwise correlation table presents the relationship between

Transformational Leadership and Organizational Learning. As exhibited in Table 10, the

correlation coefficient between these two variables is 0.667, which is statistically significant

with a p-value of less than 0.0001 (indicated by the asterisk). This strong, positive correlation

suggests that organizational learning increases as transformational leadership increases. The

statistical significance (p < 0.0001) provides strong evidence against the null hypothesis,

affirming that the observed relationship is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Therefore, the

data supports the idea that Transformational Leadership has a meaningful and positive impact

on Organizational Learning.

Table 10

Correlational Matrix of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Learning

Variables (1) (2)

(1) TransLead 1.000

(2) OrgLearn 0.667*

(0.000)

1.000

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 (one-tailed)

4.3.4 Hypothesis 3 Results

Hypothesis 3 stated that a positive correlation exists between Head Start middle

managers' transformational leadership and organizational innovativeness, which was partially

supported. The Pairwise Correlations in Table 11 provide insight into the relationships between

Transformational Leadership and organizational variables such as Organizational Learning,

Creativity, Openness, Future Orientation, Risk-Taking, and Proactiveness. All p-values are

reported in parentheses next to the correlation coefficients, with asterisks denoting statistical

significance at different levels.

Transformational Leadership shows statistically significant correlations with all variables

except Risk-Taking. Specifically, Transformational Leadership has a strong positive correlation

with Organizational Learning (r = 0.667, p < 0.000) and Creativity (r = 0.603, p < 0.000), a

moderate correlation with Openness (r = 0.392, p = 0.001) and Future Orientation (r = 0.445,

p < 0.000), and a weaker but still statistically significant correlation with Proactiveness

(r = 0.519, p < 0.000).

Notably, Risk-taking is the only variable that does not have a statistically significant

correlation with Transformational Leadership (r = 0.104, p = 0.412). Among the dimensions of

innovativeness, substantial and statistically significant correlations are evident, such as between

openness and future orientation (r = 0.762, p < 0.000) and between proactiveness and several

other dimensions, including Openness (r = 0.723, p < 0.000) and Future Orientation (r = 0.724,

p < 0.000). In summary, these findings indicate that Transformational Leadership is significantly

related to multiple aspects of organizational dimensions of innovativeness, except for Risk-

taking. These statistically significant correlations underscore the potential influence of

transformational leadership on organizational innovation.

Table 11

Correlational Matrix of Transformational Leadership and the Five Dimensions of Innovativeness

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

(1) TransLead 1.000

(2) OrgLearn

(3) Creativity

0.667*

(0.000)

0.603*

1.000

0.778*1.000

(4) Openness

(0.000)

0.392*

(0.000)

0.480*0.635*1.000

(5) FuturOrient

(0.001)

0.445*

(0.000)

0.444*

(0.000)

0.562*0.762*1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

(6) RiskTaking 0.104 0.182 0.225 0.456*0.379*1.000

(7) Proact

(0.412)

0.519*

(0.151)

0.543*

(0.074)

0.634*

(0.000)

0.723*

(0.002)

0.724*0.446*1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 (one-tailed)

4.3.5 Hypothesis 4 Results

H4 specified a positive correlation exists between organizational learning and

organizational innovativeness, and the hypothesis was partially supported. In examining the

relationships between organizational learning and various dimensions of innovativeness, as

depicted in Table 12, several significant correlations emerge. Specifically, Organizational

Learning shares a robust positive correlation with Creativity, as evidenced by a coefficient of

0.778 and a p-value of less than 0.0001. This strong association suggests that as levels of

Organizational Learning increase, there is a parallel rise in Creativity. Similarly, Organizational

Learning exhibits a moderate yet statistically significant correlation with Openness (r = 0.480, p

< 0.0001), implying that higher levels of Organizational Learning are associated with greater

Openness within the organization.

Table 12

Correlational Matrix of Organizational Learning and the Five Dimensions of Innovativeness

Variables (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

(1) OrgLearn 1.000

(2) Creativity

(3) Openness

0.778*

(0.000)

0.480*

1.000

0.635*1.000

(4) FuturOrient

(0.000)

0.444*

(0.000)

0.562*0.762*1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

(5) RiskTaking 0.182 0.225 0.456*0.379*1.000

(6) Proact

(0.151)

0.543*

(0.074)

0.634*

(0.000)

0.723*

(0.002)

0.724*0.446*1.000

(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)

Note. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 (one-tailed)

With Future Orientation, a moderate positive correlation of 0.444 is observed, which is

also statistically significant (p < 0.0001), indicating that improvements in Organizational

Learning tend to be accompanied by enhancements in Future Orientation. Conversely, Risk-

taking has a weak and non-significant correlation with Organizational Learning (r = 0.182, p =

0.151), suggesting that the relationship between these two variables is neither strong nor

statistically meaningful. Lastly, Proactiveness displays a moderate to strong, statistically

significant correlation with Organizational Learning (r = 0.543, p < 0.0001), reinforcing that

higher levels of Organizational Learning are linked with increased Proactiveness. These

findings provide compelling evidence against the null hypothesis, affirming that the observed

relationships are statistically significant and not due to random chance.

4.3.6 Hypothesis 5 Results

Hypothesis 5 states that organizational learning significantly predicts organizational

innovativeness, indicating a positive relationship between the two variables. Hypothesis 5 was

partially supported, as denoted in Table 13. In the linear regression model assessing the

predictors of Organizational Learning, Creativity emerged as a significant factor, with a

coefficient of 1.093, t (62) =6.79, p<.01, 95% CI [0.771, 1.416]. This implies that a one-unit

increase in Creativity is associated with a 1.093-unit increase in Organizational Learning,

holding other variables constant. Conversely, Openness, Future Orientation, Risk-Taking, and

Proactiveness were not statistically significant predictors of Organizational Learning (p=.521,

.945, .935, and .493, respectively). The model exhibited a moderate fit, with an R2 of .613, (5,58)

=18.484, p<.01, indicating that the predictors could account for approximately 61.3% of the

variance in Organizational Learning.

Table 13

Linear Regression Model of Organizational Learning and Innovativeness

OrgLearn Coef. St. Err. t-value p-value 95% CI Sig

Creativity 1.093 .161 6.79 0.000 [.771, 1.416] ***

Openness -.123 .191 -0.65 .521 [-.505, .258]

FuturOrient -.017 .245 -0.07 .945 [-.508, .474]

RiskTaking -.009 .111 -0.08 .935 [-.23, .212]

Proact .192 .278 0.69 .493 [-.364, .748]

Constant .762 .563 1.35 .182 [-.366, 1.889]

Mean dependent var 5.426 SD dependent var 1.160

R-squared 0.613 Number of obs 64

F-test 18.484 Prob > F 0.000

Akaike crit. (AIC) 150.834 Bayesian crit. (BIC) 163.787

Note. CI=Confidence Interval; *** p<.01, ** p<.05, * p<.1

Information criteria, including the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC = 150.834) and the

Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC = 163.787), provide additional support for the model's fit.

Additionally, while Creativity appears to be a strong predictor of Organizational Learning, the

other variables do not significantly contribute, suggesting avenues for future research to explore

other potential predictors. Lower values for AIC and BIC generally indicate a better model fit,

and these values can be used for model comparison (Field, 2018).

4.4 Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 focused on the statistical findings and results for the research question and the

five hypotheses. Statistical analyses included multivariate regression and Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA), revealing that Transformational Leadership substantially impacted

Organizational Learning and multiple facets of innovativeness, except Risk-Taking. Thereby

answering the research question--there is a positive and significant relationship between Head

Start middle managers' transformational leadership on organizational learning and

innovativeness. Various fit metrics like RMSEA (.05) and CFI (.97) verified the model's

suitability. The study also found a significant correlation between Transformational Leadership

and Organizational Learning (r = .667, p < .0001), partially validating the third and fourth

hypotheses. The fifth hypothesis indicated that Creativity is a crucial determinant of

Organizational Learning, accounting for approximately 61.3% of its variance (R2 = .613).

The hypotheses predicted the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables,

and a detailed summary of the results is presented in Table 14.

Table 14

Research Question, Hypotheses, Statistical Tests, and Results

Research Question and

Hypotheses Statistical Test Results

Research Question 1: What

is the relationship between

middle managers'

transformational leadership

behaviors, organizational

learning, and organizational

innovativeness within a Head

Start program?”

H1: There is a significantly

positive relationship between

Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and

innovativeness.

Multivariate Regression

Correlations

Multivariate Regression

Model

One-Tailed

Confirmatory Factor Analyses

A significant and positive relationship exists

between middle managers' transformational

leadership and organizational learning and

innovativeness with a Head Start program.

Partially Supported

All dependent variables were statistically

significant at (p < 0.001) except for risk-

taking, which was not significant.

The CFA model showed a good fit to the data,

as indicated by a chi-square value of χ2 (15)

=22.15 and a p-value of .103, indicating that

the model fit is adequate, as the p-value is

greater than the .05 significance level.

H2: A positive correlation

exists between the middle

manager's transformational

leadership and organizational

learning in a Head Start

program.

H3: A positive correlation

exists between Head Start

middle managers'

transformational leadership

and organizational

innovativeness.

H4: A positive correlation

exists between

organizational learning and

organizational

innovativeness.

Correlation Supported

The correlation coefficient between these two

variables is 0.667, which is statistically

significant with a p-value of less than 0.0001.

Pairwise Correlation Partially Supported

All variables were significant at p < 0.000,

except for risk-taking.

Pairwise Correlation Partially Supported

All variables except Risk-Taking have

statistically significant correlations with

Organizational Learning at the p<0.01 level.

H5: Organizational learning

significantly predicts

organizational

innovativeness, indicating a

positive relationship between

the two variables.

Regression

One-Tailed

Partially Supported

In the linear regression model assessing the

predictors of Organizational Learning,

Creativity emerged as the only significant

factor, with a coefficient of 1.093, t (62)

=6.79, p<.01, 95% CI [0.771, 1.416]. All other

variables were not significant.

Note. The scales used for this research were Transformational Leadership and Organizational Learning (García-Morales et al.,

2012) and Innovativeness (Ruvio et al., 2014).

100

Chapter 5 provides a synthesis of these findings, the theoretical and practical

implications, and recommends areas for future research, particularly focusing on Head Start

programs and the role of transformational leadership.

101

CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter includes a discussion of findings, alignment of findings to the literature,

unexpected findings, recommendations for leadership, practice, and further studies, a reflection,

and the conclusion. This study aimed to extend existing research on transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and innovativeness by applying these well-established theories and

findings to a novel population and setting. Specifically for Head Start programs across the

United States, the research conducted a conceptual replication to examine whether previous

findings are generalizable to this new context. Despite the critical role that Head Start programs

play in early childhood education and development for the nation's most vulnerable children, as

well as support for their families, there is a paucity of literature regarding the impact of

transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness within these settings.

The lack of research is concerning, given that scholars (Alblooshi et al., 2021; Imran et al., 2016;

Khan & Ismail, 2017; Khan & Khan, 2019; Mohamed & Otman, 2021; Vashdi et al., 2019;

Verma et al., 2022; Siangchokyoo et al., 2020; Yukl, 2009) tout that these factors are critical

drivers of organizational effectiveness, performance, and success in various other contexts and

industries. Before this study, there was an insufficient understanding of how transformational

leadership behaviors of middle managers manifest and impact organizational learning and

innovation outcomes in Head Start programs. This study addressed this gap by evaluating these

constructs within the unique context of Head Start, thereby providing valuable insights for

program improvement, policy development, and future research.

To this end, this non-experimental, explanatory correlational research design study

investigated the relationship between Head Start middle managers' transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and innovativeness. The research question that guided this dissertation

102

research is, “What is the relationship between middle managers' transformational leadership

behaviors, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness within a Head Start

program?” The priori directional hypotheses were established based on the extant literature and

theoretical reasoning.

5.1 Discussion of the Results and Key Findings

The results of this study are intended to determine the relationship between Head Start

middle managers' transformational leadership behaviors and organizational learning and

innovativeness. For this study, a convenience sample of 64 Head Start middle managers from 14

states completed the survey for transformational leadership, organizational learning, and

innovativeness (García-Morales et al., 2012; Ruvio et al., 2014) used to measure the relationship

between the variables for this research. The researcher explored the answers to the research

question and the five hypotheses by analyzing the survey data results. The findings are presented

below.

5.1.1 Research Question 1

What is the relationship between middle managers' transformational leadership

behaviors, organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness within a Head Start

program? Recent studies (Alsalami et al., 2014; Baxla & Mishra, 2022; Safiia, 2019) suggested

a positive relationship between transformational leadership, organizational learning, and

innovativeness. Consistent with these findings, the study found that transformational leadership

plays a significant role in organizational learning and innovativeness in Head Start programs.

Through quantitative surveys completed by Head Start mid-level managers, the data showed that

transformational leadership qualities such as inspirational motivation, individualized

consideration, and intellectual stimulation were strongly and positively correlated with

103

organizational learning and four out of the five dimensions of innovativeness: proactiveness,

future orientation, openness, and creativity. However, transformational leadership behaviors

were not associated with the risk-taking dimension. These findings are critical and suggest that

investing in leadership development could be strategic for enhancing performance,

organizational sustainability, and overall effectiveness.

5.1.1.1 Hypothesis 1. There is a significant relationship between Head Start middle

managers' transformational leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness, and the

multivariate regression model explained a substantial portion of the variance in the dependent

variables of organizational learning and innovativeness. Organizational learning and all the

dimensions of innovativeness except for risk-taking were statistically significant. While

transformational leadership has a moderate to strong influence on some dimensions, like

organizational learning and creativity, its impact is much less pronounced for dimensions like

risk-taking and openness. Specifically, risk-taking was not statistically significant, and openness

had the lowest coefficient and t-value. Further, as transformational leadership increases, so does

organizational learning and four dimensions of organizational innovativeness: proactiveness,

future orientation, creativity, and openness. Contrarily, since transformational leadership was not

a significant predictor of risk-taking, this variable should be the focus of further research to

understand why it is not significant and whether the sample size was an influential factor. As

predicted, the directionality of the hypothesis was adequate and correct for all other dependent

variables.

As highlighted in existing literature gaps, constructs like transformational leadership,

organizational learning, and innovativeness have yet to be explored in early childhood settings,

such as Head Start. With that in mind, the CFA confirmed that all the variables associated with

104

innovation and organizational learning were statistically significant, and these results suggest

that higher levels of transformational leadership are associated with greater innovativeness

across these dimensions within Head Start programs. The question arises as to why risk-taking is

not statistically significant in the multivariate regression but is significant in the CFA. In

thinking about this question, it is important to understand that risk-taking may still be a good

measure of the underlying innovativeness construct, as postulated and confirmed in their model

by Ruvio et al. (2014). The purpose and intent of CFA is a construct validation, whereas the

purpose of the regression was to understand predictions. Notably, risk-taking was not a

sufficient predictor for transformational leadership in the multivariate regressions run for this

study. A key takeaway from this hypothesis is that the variables are interrelated,

transformational leadership predicts organizational learning and innovativeness, and the

instruments used in this study are appropriate for the Head Start population.

Tukey's (1977) method also offered valuable insights into the range and scale of the

variables, which is crucial for interpreting their relative importance in the regression model.

When dealing with multiple predictors, such as the five dimensions of innovativeness, it is

especially important to allocate their predictive power properly. While the regression model

indicated that Risk-Taking is not statistically significant, this does not necessarily invalidate the

model. The lack of significance suggests that Risk-Taking may not be a strong predictor in this

specific context, a finding confirmed in the multivariate regression. Various factors could

account for this, such as the predictive power being captured by other variables or Risk-Taking

not being a relevant factor for outcomes within the Head Start population. Future research

should consider incorporating additional variables to gain a more comprehensive understanding

of this dimension.

105

5.1.1.2 Hypothesis 2. A positive correlation exists between the Head Start middle

managers' transformational leadership and organizational learning. Correlational analyses found

a positive correlation between the Head Start middle managers' transformational leadership and

organizational learning.

5.1.1.3 Hypothesis 3. A positive correlation exists between Head Start middle managers'

transformational leadership and organizational innovativeness. Like the findings with the

multivariate regression, risk-taking is the only variable that does not have a statistically

significant correlation with transformational leadership (r = 0.104, p = 0.412). There were

similarities in strength and direction as both statistical tests showed that risk-taking was an

outlier unrelated to transformational leadership.

5.1.1.4 Hypothesis 4. A positive correlation exists between organizational learning and

organizational innovativeness. This hypothesis was partially supported as risk-taking was not

correlated with organizational learning like the other dimensions of innovativeness. Creativity

had a strong association, as shown in multivariate regression. Future orientation, proactiveness,

and openness were all moderately or strongly positively correlated with organizational

learning.

5.1.1.5 Hypothesis 5. Organizational learning significantly predicts organizational

innovativeness, indicating a positive relationship between the two variables. In the linear

regression model assessing the predictors of Organizational Learning, Creativity emerged as a

significant factor, with a coefficient of 1.093, t (62) =6.79, p<.01, 95% CI [0.771, 1.416]. This

implies that a one-unit increase in Creativity is associated with a 1.093-unit increase in

Organizational Learning, holding other variables constant. Conversely, Openness, Future

Orientation, Risk-Taking, and Proactiveness were not statistically significant predictors of

Organizational Learning (p=.521, .945, .935, and .493, respectively). This hypothesis was

106

partially supported. Creativity is a unique variable strongly correlated with transformational leadership

and organizational learning.

5.2 Relationship to Prior Research

Organizational learning is the sum of individual learning (Xie, 2020), and innovativeness

is the total collection of innovations using creativity, future orientation, proactiveness, risk-

taking, and openness to foster new services, systems, approaches, or implement change to

improve the organization overall (Ruvio et al., 2014). Transformational leaders stimulate,

inspire, and serve as role models, fostering organizational learning and bringing out the best in

employees (Xie, 2020). Existing literature reveals that transformational leadership is positively

and significantly related to organizational learning and innovativeness (Bahadur et al., 2021;

Nguyen & Luu, 2019; Park & Kim, 2018; Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt, 2018; Verma et al., 2022;

Xie, 2020) as also predicted and supported in this research, which conceptually replicated

examining the variables with a different population, Head Start middle managers.

Supportive leaders create the ideal environment for organizational innovativeness by

stimulating mutual trust, risk-taking, and shared vision among team members. Both are well-

documented in the literature to foster effective organizational performance (Bahadur et al.,

2021; Karimi et al., 2023). Organizations adept at learning achieve greater strategic competence

and sustainable and competitive advantages (Senge, 1990). Findings from research from

Gorzelany et al. (2021) and Sattayaraksa and Boon-itt (2018) explained, unlike in my research,

that risk- taking was statistically significant with transformational leadership, emphasizing the

importance of the role of the leader and culture determining the level of risk taken related to

experiments, creative errors, and ongoing learning. Thus, the current dissertation research

contrasts with these findings as risk-taking as a dimension of innovativeness was not significant,

indicating little to

107

no influence within the context of transformational leadership. While, the explanatory

correlational research design did not examine causation, the contrast in findings could be

attributed to other situational or organizational factors that were not accounted for in this

dissertation research.

In H1, the multivariate regression in H2 and H3, the correlational analysis indicated that

risk-taking was neither positively nor significantly relevant to transformational leadership, which

were different from the priori hypothesis denoted for this research. Interestingly, H3 and H4

were partially confirmed. Unlike the other facets of innovativeness, risk-taking did not correlate

with organizational learning. Creativity demonstrated the strongest relationship, as evidenced in

the multivariate regression and the correlational analysis. Meanwhile, future orientation,

proactiveness, and openness exhibited moderate to strong positive associations with

organizational learning. Moreover, H5 organizational learning predicts innovativeness, which

was also not fully confirmed, contrary to the literature (Alsalami et al., 2014; Safiia, 2019;

Verma et al., 2022), revealing a strong relationship between the constructs. To put it simply,

Verma et al. (2022) explained the following:

The transformational leader makes employees act as a leading force of the organization

by being emotionally available for the employee, considering them as a valuable resource

for the organization, and inspiring, motivating, and guiding employees to attain higher

values, thus developing organizational learning in them. (p. 18)

The findings of this study align with Verma et al. (2022), who denoted that the

moderating role of the industry type within the effect of organizational learning on innovation

varies across sectors. Their study revealed a stronger correlation between innovation and

business performance for manufacturing firms than for service firms. Head Start is an

108

educational service industry, and the finding was not as significant as the literature, where the

contextual focus was on manufacturing or banking (Afsar & Umrani, 2020; Bello & Adeoye,

2018; Migdadi, 2021; Nguyen & Luu, 2019).

Werlang and Rosetto (2019) used the five dimensions of innovativeness found in this

study, researched the relationship with organizational learning, and found the relationship

statistically significant. The findings for this research only found one of the dimensions of

innovation that predicted organizational learning: creativity. An intriguing revelation of this

research was the pronounced correlation between creativity—a facet of innovation—and

organizational learning. This aligns with Alblooshi et al. (2021), who contended that employee

creativity is directly related to the innovation climate that transformational leaders foster. It

encourages employees to demonstrate their fullest potential and creative thinking.

However, when juxtaposed with the findings of Werlang and Rosetto (2019), it is

essential to note that there were variations, including sample characteristics and methodological

differences. As previously stated in the literature gaps, these constructs have not been widely

investigated in the United States. Werlang and Rosetto's (2019) research took place in Brazil

using small- and medium-sized hospitality and tourism firms and a quantitative cross-sectional

research design. Their study and this one used a similar scale but yielded very different results.

5.3 Limitations

Limitations are reported in research to provide transparency about potential weaknesses

or constraints, ensuring readers understand the study's context and findings (Creswell &

Guetterman, 2019). Reporting limitations prevent overgeneralization of the findings and

conclusions. Furthermore, acknowledging the limitations helps frame the recommendations for

109

future research and provides useful direction for new studies and inquiry (Creswell &

Guetterman, 2019).

Potential limitations of this study include using self-reported survey data, which is

susceptible to biases, possibly resulting in conclusions that are not entirely accurate (Ross &

Bibler Zaida, 2019). Additionally, the statistical tests employed, correlational, multivariate

regression, and the CFA will not provide cause and effect linkages, only relational data between

the variables (Urdan, 2022). Moreover, using a convenience sample does not allow

generalizability to the entire population. Based on initial calculations with G*Power, a sample

size of 74 was determined to achieve an effect size of 0.80. However, while over 86% of

participants responded, the final sample size was 64. A follow-up analysis using G*Power's post

hoc tool revealed that a sample size of 64 yielded an effect size of 0.86, which remains within

the accepted range. Nevertheless, the study's results may need additional statistical testing in

future research using probability sampling to validate the generalizability (Creswell &

Guetterman, 2019) of these results to the broader population of Head Start middle managers.

5.4 Theoretical Implications

Building upon the foundational concepts of transformational leadership theory, the

findings from this research offer a nuanced understanding of how leadership behaviors intersect

with organizational outcomes, specifically organizational learning and innovativeness.

Interestingly, the pronounced role of creativity within organizational learning and innovativeness

and the significance of how transformational leadership exudes this common factor could expand

current theoretical discussions around its central role within organizations. Conversely, the

diminished correlation between risk-taking and specific outcomes challenges existing

110

assumptions, prompting a reevaluation of the theoretical weight ascribed to risk-taking within

innovation, learning, and the intersection with the transformational leadership context.

Moreover, by focusing on specific organizations like Head Start programs, the study

provides pivotal insights into the contextual dynamics of transformational leadership, raising

questions about the broader applicability of these findings in different contexts, such as public

sector maternal health and early intervention programs. This becomes particularly salient when

juxtaposing these findings against the predominance of the studies conducted outside the United

States, as evidenced by discrepancies with research conducted in regions like Brazil. Such

contrasts accentuate the potential cultural, economic, or sectoral variations in transformational

leadership, opening the door for enriched theoretical discussions. Finally, the transformational

leadership theory posits that leaders elevate the aspirations and performance of their followers by

fostering a shared vision, encouraging exploration, and challenging the status quo. In this context

and by addressing the scarcity of literature on transformational leadership, organizational

learning, and innovativeness in early childhood programs, this research contributes a unique

burgeoning perspective to the leadership field.

5.5 Conceptual Replication and Moving Forward

This study has successfully achieved a key objective of the study, conceptual replication,

demonstrating that the core findings from previous research not only exist in a different context

but also contribute to an enhanced understanding of the underlying phenomena, thus reinforcing

the importance of the transformational leadership theoretical framework. This research provides

a basis for the continued utility of the Transformational Leadership, Organizational Learning,

and Innovativeness Scale in Head Start Programs. The survey instrument is appropriate and

relevant for utility in Head Start programs for two key reasons based on the findings from this

111

study. First, the statistical significance of the relationships between the predictor and outcome

variables, coupled with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.8261, shows the survey appears to be a relevant

and appropriate tool for measuring the constructs in this study, even in a new population such as

with Head Start middle managers where it has not been previously used.

The Cronbach's alpha showed high reliability for the survey instrument. It is important to

note that Risk-Taking had the lowest factor loading, suggesting that while Transformational

Leadership influences it, it may also be influenced by other factors not included in the model.

Therefore, four dimensions of innovativeness are salient to the model and this study based on the

results. The CFA results affirmed that the survey is conceptually sound for this new population.

Further validation came from Tukey's (1977) method, which revealed no significant issues with

the individual variables. This dual validation supports the model's appropriateness for the Head

Start population.

Moreover, the by including Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian

Information Criterion (BIC) in robust regression analysis provided four vital components to

show the prowess and strength of using the model in a different context:

1. These criteria facilitate model comparison by assessing different models in terms of

their fit to the data. This balance between goodness-of-fit and model complexity is

essential in robust regression, where the aim is often to minimize the impact of

outliers.

2. Lower AIC and BIC values can bolster confidence in the model's generalizability,

which is crucial when the model's predictions guide important decisions.

3. These criteria enhance the study's methodological rigor, demonstrating that fit and

complexity have been considered.

112

4. Most importantly, the AIC and BIC are interdisciplinary measures, making the

quality of the model easily transferable across different fields of study.

A model with low AIC and BIC values in the initial study can provide strong evidence for the

generalizability and validity of the findings, thereby setting a solid foundation for future

replication. Moreover, when multiple models are considered in the original study, AIC and BIC

can guide researchers in selecting the most parsimonious or simple model that still fits the data

well. The aim is that the selected model in this dissertation research becomes the standard against

which conceptual replications can be compared. If the replication studies, which might employ

different methods or samples, produce models with similarly low AIC and BIC values,

confidence in the robustness and generalizability of the original findings is further enhanced.

Thus, while AIC and BIC are not direct measures of replication success, their role in assessing the

strength of original findings is crucial for the integrity and interpretability of both the initial

and replication studies. In contributing to the leadership field of study, including the AIC and

BIC, it was essential for other scholars to consider when implementing this tool in future

research to confirm and validate further the relevancy and prowess of the tool with different

service-oriented populations.

5.6 Recommendations for Leaders

As predicted, the findings of this research reveal that transformational leadership propels

employees to share and transfer knowledge, think creatively about new endeavors, and engage

in innovations (Northouse, 2021). Transformational leaders create a culture conducive to

learning and innovation. Given the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on

organizational learning and innovativeness, leaders within Head Start programs and other early

childhood organizations should prioritize cultivating inspirational motivation, idealized

consideration,

113

intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence behaviors. These recommendations guide leaders

in nurturing an organizational culture conducive to transformational leadership, learning, and

innovation. Therefore, the following recommendations are recommended for leadership practice.

First, leaders must establish a clear and compelling vision for the future. This vision,

when consistently communicated and reinforced, provides direction and purpose.

Transformational leaders should prioritize not only their growth but also the development of

their teams. Leaders can refine and culminate their skills by attending seminars, workshops, and

courses. Furthermore, promoting a culture of continuous learning is essential, especially among

mid-level managers and emerging leaders. This emphasis on learning individually and

organizationally should focus on innovative strategies, transformational leadership practices, and

approaches as supported by Afsar and Umrani (2020), Baxla and Mishra (2022), Karimi et al.

(2023), and Verma et al. (2022).

Second, the pronounced association between creativity and organizational learning, as

evidenced in the multivariate regression, underscores its importance. Leaders must foster an

environment that actively encourages creative thinking and innovative problem-solving. Given

the positive correlations of future orientation, proactiveness, and openness with organizational

learning, it's evident that these aspects should be central to leadership training initiatives.

Leaders need the tools and strategies to cultivate a forward-thinking mindset in their teams,

encouraging a proactive stance to challenges and an openness to fresh ideas. By emphasizing

intellectual stimulation and inspirational motivation, leaders can create an environment that

champions curiosity, welcomes diverse perspectives, and ensures safe spaces for

experimentation, as highlighted by Migdadi (2021). Lastly, data-driven decision-making is

114

paramount. Leaders should leverage quantitative and qualitative insights to make informed

decisions, particularly when considering innovation and risk-taking.

5.7 Recommendations for Future Research

There are several key recommendations for future research. These recommendations are

based on the research findings, implications, and conclusions to ensure continued growth and

evolution in the leadership field.

1. Future research should employ a mixed-methods design, leveraging the current

instrument and qualitative interviews. This approach will verify content validity and

deepen the understanding of risk-taking as a dimension of innovativeness within early

childhood settings.

2. Future research should expand on the quantitative findings of this research by

designing and conducting a qualitative research design to explore the dynamics, lived

experiences, perceptions, and challenges of how mid-level managers'

transformational leadership influences organizational learning, innovativeness, and

approaches to risk. The qualitative research design could provide a rich contextual

understanding and insight into transformational leadership.

3. It is recommended to replicate the study with a larger sample using structural

equation modeling analyses to elucidate the direct and indirect effects, mediations,

and correlations among independent variables, transformational leadership, and the

organizational learning and innovativeness constructs.

4. This dissertation research utilized a convenience sampling methodology, which limits

the potential for generalizability; therefore, in future research, probability sampling is

recommended to allow for generalizability to a greater population.

115

5. Future research should modify this study to include Head Start Directors and compare

the findings with those of middle managers across various organizations to see the

full impact of transformational leadership on organizational learning and

innovativeness, using a cross-section quantitative research design. Comparing the

findings between middle managers and directors across different organizations may

yield more profound insights and knowledge in understanding transformational

leadership from a macro level.

5.8 Researcher’s Reflections

As I embarked on this research journey, I was driven by my personal experience with

Head Start and the field of early childhood education. Having worked in a Head Start myself, I

was always intrigued by how leadership styles influenced our daily work lives, our motivation,

and our commitment to children and families. My initial assumption was that transformational

leadership would always yield positive results, given its emphasis on vision, inspiration, and

personal connections, which this research successfully demonstrated. Professionally, this

research has deepened my appreciation for leadership as both an art and a science. My view of

leadership has deepened my understanding of its nuances, intricacies, and the profound impact it

has on organizations.

With that in mind, why are Head Start middle managers risk averse in their perceptions

about innovativeness and how it relates to organizational learning? This question continues to

resonate with me. This study amplifies, along with a plethora of other studies, the profound and

effective qualities and efficacy of transformational leadership and inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, idealized influence, and individual consideration permeate the culture to

yield learning and catalyze change. Amid the challenges that Head Start programs experience,

116

the return on investment is worth the exploration to learn how to incrementally embrace some

levels of risk in terms of “thinking outside the box,” specifically in the areas of diversification of

funding to increase salaries and improve program quality.

Even though it was not a focus of this study, research and data-driven decision-making,

pilot programming, and incremental innovations thoughtfully planned out all reduce risk. I hope

to expand this research to further probe into risk-taking to determine if the full scope of

innovativeness is applicable in the transformational leadership of mid-level and futuristically in

the executive leadership of Head Start programs. Methodologically, I initially struggled to decide

between qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. While I opted for a quantitative research

design, reflecting upon this, I sometimes wonder if deeper qualitative insights might have added

richness to the findings.

From a personal perspective, as a former Head Start parent of two children who went

through the program, I am proud of its influence on my life and the trajectory of my career and

education. Beyond my love for innovation, organizational learning, and leadership, I hope this

dissertation research and its implications will help programs cultivate and foster the

organizational prowess to sustain the program for many more years.

5.9 Conclusion

Chapter 5 presented the conclusion, discussion of key results and findings, limitations,

recommendations for leaders, and directions for future research. The primary objective of this

non-experimental, explanatory correlational research was to explore the relationship between

Head Start middle managers' transformational leadership and its impact on organizational

learning and innovativeness. Four significant gaps in the literature highlight the importance of

this study. First, most of the literature showed that the relationships between leadership,

117

organizational learning, and organizational innovativeness were studied primarily outside North

America, especially outside the United States (Sattayaraksa & Boon-itt, 2018; Verma et al.,

2022). Moreover, the prevailing research settings were in the manufacturing sector. Second,

there was a notable absence of research examining organizational learning and innovativeness

within early childhood education programs. Third, while existing literature extensively focused

on senior executive leaders' roles (Bahadur et al., 2021; Berraies & Zine El Abidine, 2019;

Gorzelany et al., 2021; Mohamed & Otman, 2021; Noruzy et al., 2013), middle managers'

leadership in early childhood settings remained largely unexplored. Although middle managers

play a pivotal role in promoting learning and innovation (Alegbeleye et al., 2020; Engle et al.,

2017; Jyoti & Bhau, 2015), there is a clear need for further research in this area. Fourth, there

were gaps concerning transformational leadership's role in organizational learning and

innovation. Some scholars, such as Anderson (2017) and Yukl (2010), highlighted biases in the

leader-follower dynamics of transformational leadership, suggesting a limitation in its

explanatory power for overall organizational effectiveness.

Furthermore, Yukl and Gardner (2020) argued that the transformational leadership theory

lacks depth in explaining organizational performance, especially in change and group learning

processes. The gaps in the literature provide the basis for this original research. The study

provides a broader understanding of leadership, organizational learning, and innovativeness by

focusing on a previously underexplored context, specifically in the United States. This

burgeoning research, therefore, serves as a foundational reference for future studies and provides

a more comprehensive view of transformational leadership dynamics in diverse settings.

Through various analytical methods, including multivariate regression, correlations, and

confirmatory factor analyses, this study found a significant positive relationship between middle

118

managers' transformational leadership and both organizational learning and innovativeness.

However, risk-taking did not show a statistically significant association. The overall model fit

the data satisfactorily. Notably, the correlation coefficient between transformational leadership

and organizational learning was a robust 0.667. Except for risk-taking, most variables showed

significant correlations at p<0.000. Creativity emerged as the sole significant factor when

evaluating organizational learning predictors.

These findings emphasize transformative leadership's crucial role in enhancing

organizational learning and innovativeness among Head Start managers, particularly highlighting

the significance of creativity in the Head Start context. Consequently, leaders are encouraged to

foster environments that champion learning, promote divergent thinking, and stimulate

innovative problem-solving approaches. Emphasis should be placed on professional

development programs targeting transformational leadership, especially tailored for current mid-

level managers and aspirants to such roles

The Impact of Head Start Middle Managers' Transformational Leadership on Organizational Learning and Innovativeness in the United States

Students also viewed