Conclusion, Contributions, and Suggestions 6 131 found school principals who delegate their participation to coach-teachers and minimize their involvement. Moreover, Van Schaik et al. describe their Integrators as we describe our Team players: School principals who are involved in school processes and with teachers. Whereas Van Schaik et al.’s study was descriptive, we show that the Team player leadership pattern is preferable over our other two leadership patterns (Key player and Facilitator) for collaborative innovation. Since Van Schaik et al.’s Integrators seem comparable, we would also expect the Integrators to have a positive impact and the other patterns not to. Another contribution of our leadership patterns is that we expand the range of Van Schaik et al. with the Key player pattern. School principals can choose to be too involved in collaborative innovation and leave less professional space to teachers. The fact that we found school principals who are too involved might be a result of the starting point of the school-wide leerKRACHT program. It gives rise to a new situation in which school principals search for a leadership balance. In Figure 6.2, we summarize how our leadership patterns broaden the range of how school principals choose to lead innovation processes. We feel that insights into how school principals can be too involved in collaborative innovation processes enrich current literature (Key player). Furthermore, our conclusion that Team players enhance collaborative innovation and have teams with higher degrees of distributed leadership deepens our understanding of leadership and its impact. Our findings therefore contribute to Leithwood et al.’s (2020) call for more in-depth analysis of how school principals enact leadership practices to deepen our understanding of leadership and its impact. Figure 6.2 Comparison of Leadership Patterns of School Principals or other Formal Leaders
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw