The Tendency of Principals’ Innovation Ptentials and Decision

Making Foundation Mastery

Aceng Muhtaram Mirfani

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Jl. Dr. Setiabudhi No. 229, Bandung, Indonesia

am_mirfani@upi.edu

Keywords: Innovation potential, decision making assignment, Self-Propelling Growth.

Abstract: Schools in globalization era are supposed to have self renewal mechanism so that they become organizations

that never stops transforming in response to change. For that reason, the principal strategic role of the principal

as managers of change becomes increasingly urgent to be the "enabler in chief". The principal must attend

school as an initiator of novelty and make it a reality. He must be able to map out the underlying problems in

his school, which will only be resolved through some renewal efforts. Therefore, the innovation and mastery

of the foundation of decision making becomes a prerequisite for a principal. This article explores the portrait

of experience of a number of elementary school principals along with their alternative thinking strategic steps

to increase professionalism of the principals. Survey has been conducted on 120 primary school principals in

one district in West Java, Indonesia. The purpose of the survey is to determine the trend of the potential for

innovation and mastery of the foundation of the decision of the principals of elementary school. The methods

were performed through innovative potential tests (Rogers’s theory modification) and weigh the position of

decision making updates. The findings of the study indicate that the general trend of innovation potentials

seen as feasible for the principal's task is only available in a small number of principals. The tendency of

mastery of the foundation of decision-making is generally in the low category.

1 INTRODUCTION

The quality of education in Indonesia is still an issue

that continues to emerge in every study of national

education. One of the indicators is seen from the

under expected achievement. The implementations of

school accreditation, as an indicator of improving the

quality of educational units, over the last two years

(2013 and 2014) are reported to be unable to meet

established targets and even significant reductions. In

2013, the achievement of the target of increasing the

quality standard of education and implementation of

accreditation is 97.59%. Then in 2014 the

achievement of the same thing becomes 66.14%

(Lakip Kemendikbud, 2015). Similarly, the

Kemendikbud Lakip in 2015, although presented in

different format, on the realization of several things

also showed a decrease, especially related to the

achievement of quality indicators at the Primary

level, SD / SDLB and SMP / SMPLB (Lakip

Kemendikbud, 2015)

Such conditions are closely related to the

performance of the principals. Like school

supervisors, principals occupy a strategic position in

improving the quality of education in schools

(Muhtaram, 2015). The task of the principal

performing academic supervision should be able to

improve the quality of the learning process and

outcomes. Similarly, the task of doing managerial

supervision to improve the quality of school

management. Even the efforts to meet the eight

national standards of education are often constrained.

However, even various coaching efforts for the

principal tasks of the principal has been carried out, it

turns out the issue of improving the quality of

education is still hampered.

This study tries to find the source of these

obstacles in terms of the principal's ability to manage

change. The assumption is that quality improvement

requires a change. Blau and Presser (2013) said that

“The school principal must look at the entire

organization and try to create a tight connection

between its different dimensions for helping students

to succeed. All of this should be done while trying to

change processes, to promote teaching and learning,

and to increase performance and student

achievement”.

Mirfani, A.

The Tendency of Principals’ Innovation Ptentials and Decision Making Foundation Mastery.

In Proceedings of the 1st Inter national Conference on Educational Sciences (ICES 2017) - Volume 2, pages 84-90

ISBN: 978-989-758-314-8

To be a successful change manager depends

largely on the power of potential innovation and

mastery of the foundation of decision making,

especially strategic decisions. It is therefore that the

study focuses on such things.

2 THE URGENCY OF

INNOVATIVE LEADERSHIP AT

SCHOOL

The era of globalization is marked by the progress of

information and communication technology. Under

these conditions the school is required to continue to

adapt in order to remain able to perform its ideal

function. For that reason, the innovative leadership is

required at school. According to Higgs and Rowland

(2000) innovative leadership “is ability to influence

and enthuse others, through personal advocacy,

vision and drive, and to access resources to build a

solid platform for change”.

The rapid development of information and

communications technology (ICT) is increasingly

strengthening and even being a proof of the

realization of a world without limits. Furthermore,

ICT in the midst of globalization has brought

fundamental implications by shifting the value of

products and services from the physical to digital

realm. Toffler (1990) describes (in "Power-shift")

that we are in an era of globalization that, among

other things, is characterized by a "super symbolic"

culture. Only innovative leadership is able to respond

to the rapid development. The presence of an

innovative leadership will be able to do self renewal

in line with the life of the digital era That type of

leadership is needed as an e-leadership (Blau and

Presser, 2013) It is stated that

“e-Leadership is the ability of a person to

influence the behaviour of others in a digital

technology-mediated environment; ...... e-Leadership

is realized by data-driven decision-making;

monitoring curriculum implementation, learning

performance and student activity; and e-

communication among staff, students and parents; ....

e-Leadership through school management systems

should become an integral part of daily practice for

school principals and teaching staff”.

In relation to these changes the organizational

experts divide the three main features concerning the

specific role of leaders (Kanter, 1983). First,

imagination to new things. To foster innovation,

effective leaders help develop concepts that define

different organizations. Second, professionalism to

perform. Leaders provide organizational and personal

competence, supported by training and development

workforce, to execute perfectly and deliver more

value than customers demand. Third, open to

collaboration, Leaders connect with partners who can

expand the reach of the organization, improve their

presentation, or add to their work habits.

Thus there is no longer any organization that can

be immune to change, including school-type

educational organizations. According to Alava et al.

(2012) it can also be assumed that the chain of change

will occur continuously and become more intense. It

therefore becomes more important how to keep the

principals constantly innovating. For if it only

implements externally enforced changes according to

Bush (2017) they tend to do so without the

enthusiasm that causes failure. Fullan (2002) said

enthusiasm is an important personal characteristic of

leadership in addition to energy and hope.

Of the many organizations that have attempted to

respond by also making changes to the reality, not

many are successful in a glorious way (Kotter, 1998).

According to the results of his studies there are many

mistakes have been made by the leaders of these

organizations. A lot of learning thereof for future

organizational changes. In this connection, we

suggest eight steps for organizational change, 1) to

create a sense of urgency, 2) to form a strong coalition

to guide, 3) to create a vision, 4) to communicate

vision, 5) empower others to act on vision, 6) create

plans to win in the short run, 7) consolidate

improvements and make more changes, and 8)

institutionalize new approaches.

The stronger meaning is that the principal must be

the problem solver, he is also at the same time,

ideally, as an innovator. At least he should be an early

adopter or early majority according to Rogers (1983).

Innovative is defined by Rogers (1983) as “the degree

to which an individual or other unit of adoption is

relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than the other

members of a system”. He further categorizes five

types of adopters, (1) innovator: venturesome, (2)

post-tests: respectable, (3) early majority: deliberate

(4) late majority: sceptical, dan (5) laggards:

traditional. In this regard, a principal must function as

a manager of change, even more ideal as a master of

change. The basic competences that have to be

mastered as the qualities of a change master

according to Ruth (2008) covers such aspects as:

 Common sense. And the courage to use it.

 Credibility and trust - the ability to work at all

levels in the organisation.

 A wide range of business knowledge -

preferably someone with experience in 3-4

The Tendency of Principals’ Innovation Ptentials and Decision Making Foundation Mastery

different areas, or an MBA, or a general

management experience.

 Knowledge of change management.

 The ability to work with teams of people both

inside and outside the organisation. This

includes the ability to work with people across

all departments.

 The ability to do very unstructured work.

 Creativity. The ability custom design processes

to meet the goals of the organisation.

 Self-confidence balanced by humility.

 Facilitation skills

 Design skills.

 Coaching skills.

 A love of innovation and new ways of doing

things.

 A sense of humour and a sense of fun.

 A spirit of caring.

 The ability to inspire people. To bring out the

magic within every individual and every team.

An organization can disperse because the

problems that occur that determine the future are left

unresolved. Meaning that there is no visionary

decision. The issues that determine the future of the

organization are more related to the demands of

environmental development. Because it involves the

ability to make adjustments or changes. Thus

theoretically decision-making, among others related

to the concept of organization survival. They are

related to innovation decisions (Muhtaram, 2012). In

line with the initial step to make organizational

changes according to Kotter, then the innovative

decision is also as a strategic decision. The challenge

is how to devote leadership attention to the creation

of an environment where profound proactive change

can take place anywhere - and anytime - and inspire

the entire organization to address the most pressing

issues (Hamel and Zanini, 2014).

As well as Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) suggest

that the success of change is also the result of the

interplay of strategic dimensions of change that

interplay continuously between content, process, and

context, then change decisions cannot be removed

from the context. With regard to the decision-making

changes in schools that should be put forward is the

context of authority inherent in the position of the

principals. The permission of a principal to act should

be subject to the rules that permit it. This means there

are regulations that must be complied in every

decision.

Thus to optimize the leadership role of change is

not enough just support the potential of innovation,

but also the mastery of the foundation of decision-

making. Both theoretical and regulative foundations.

That is not enough if it is related to the interests of

maintaining the survival of the system, school, in a

very dynamic global order. Organizations can survive

if innovative decisions are made in line with the

demands of development and environmental

advancement. The absence of coping with the

visionary problems faced or the undecided

innovations result in the organization in an entropy

state that leads to the disorganization or death of the

organization. Similarly, educational units such as

schools that are unable to make adjustments are in

line with the demands of development and strategic

environmental advancement in which the aspirations

of stake-holders usually depart from it. Gradually the

education unit was soon abandoned because the

stake-holders no longer appreciated the outcomes that

their graduates might have gained.

Not a few educational units no longer operates

due to not having sufficient number of learners.

Perhaps the main reason is that decision-making to

address visionary problems is not working. There is

no strategic decision. In accordance with all the above

thoughts, the foundation of decision-making at least

includes theoretical foundations, regulative

grounding, and the foundation of the problem-solving

framework (framework).

3 THE CASE STUDY ON

INNOVATION POTENTIAL

AND PRINCIPALS’ DECISION

MAKING FOUNDATION

MASTERY

3.1 The Study Design

A simple study has been conducted on a number of

principals with a view to:

 Map the principal’s innovation potentials;

 Identify the mastery level of the principals in

decision making to initiate the renewal effort at

school.

The formulated questions are:

 How is the tendency of the principals’

innovation potentials?

 How is the tendency of the principals’ strategic

decision making foundation mastery?

Methods and procedures taken are to test the

potential for innovation and test potential weigh the

position of decision making updates (Test PK). The

following instruments are then prepared:

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

Innovative test instrument involves:

 10 4-option item questions (each weighing 5,

10, 15, 20 designed based on Rogers theory

categorization);

 The criteria are: (180-200 as innovators, 145-

175 as early adopters, 110-140 as beginner

followers, 75-105 as next followers and 40-10

as lagers) PK test instrument includes;

 Theoretical mastery of Decision making (scale

5);

 Regulative mastery of Decision making (scale

5);

 Framework mastery of renewal problem

solving thinking (scale 5);

 The experience intensity in making critical

decision (scale 3).

120 principals were involved as the sample of the

study.

3.2 The Result of the Study

3.2.1 The Map of the Principals’ Innovation

Potentials

The result of data analysis from innovation test

resulted tendency of map of principal innovation

potency as illustrated in the following chart:

Figure 1: The innovativeness of primary school principals

Apparently the tendency of the principal's

innovation potential still exists in the following

follow-up category, which is not feasible for a

principal's assignment, although there are very few.

The predominant trend of the principal's innovative

potential, is in the category of followers. It is not

sufficient for the principals’ job. In the early adopter

category that should be fulfilled by a principal there

are only small number of people. In fact, there are also

very few in the category of innovators, the category

that feels feasible for the task of a school head.

3.2.2 The Tendency of Principals’ Decision

Making Foundation Mastery

In relation to the role of principals as managers of

change in the potential of making strategic decisions

are tested on three basic indicators, namely the

mastery of theoretical concepts, the mastery of

regulative knowledge, and the mastery of the

framework of problem-solving demands. The results

of the analysis of test data on the mastery of the

foundation of decision making resulted in the

distribution of the tendencies of the principals as

illustrated in the following chart:

Figure 2: Trend of Decision-making skills of primary

school principals.

That the principal's inclination in terms of the

theoretical mastery of decision-making, ie almost half

of it is in a sufficient position, only a small part that

is in a high position and very small at very high

position. Also a small part is on the tendency of low

and very low position.

In terms of mastery of the framework

recognizable trends, almost half are in position

enough and a small part on the high position. Also

there is, though very small, very high. Similarly, in

low position there is a part and in very low position

there is a very small part.

The regulatory mastery of decision making is

recognized by tendency, ie only a very small part at a

very high position and a small portion at high

position. Also in a sufficient position there is a low

and very low position and position is relatively small

there is a small part.

In addition to recognizing the tendency of mastery

of the foundation for decision-making mentioned

above, it is also recognized the tendency of strategic

decision-making intensity over the past year The

results of data analysis on the intensity of strategic

decision making produce information on the tendency

of urgent decision-making intensity of principals as

illustrated in the following chart:

The Tendency of Principals’ Innovation Ptentials and Decision Making Foundation Mastery

Figure 3: Trend of urgent decision-making intensity by

primary school principals.

The level of intensity of urgent decision making

over the past year is divided into three categories, ie

the category never makes strategic or nil decisions,

the category makes urgent decisions one to two times,

and the category makes urgent decisions three times

more.

In fact, more than half of the principals have never

made a strategic decision, and only a few make

strategic decisions one to two times over the past

year. There are about more than a quarter who make

strategic decisions three times over in a year.

4 DISCUSSION

Improving the quality of education in schools requires

the presence of leadership changes in school

principals. For that the potential of innovation that

should be owned by the principal at least fulfilled the

category of early adopter or post-test. Moreover, the

potential of innovation and mastery of strategic

decision-making base, which is closely related to the

management of change, is still far from the expected

conditions. Quality improvement will never be

achieved without any change. It starts from defining

change as a difference from the initial state compared

to the next condition (terminal state). In the context

of change management, the difference refers to better

condition which is marked by positive growth or

development or improvement (Muhtaram, 2009).

Of course the potential of innovation that should

be attached to the principals is at least in the early

majority category because they must be able to bring

all the school elements of their schools to run

innovation. He is the agent of change at school. It

would be ideal if the innovative potential of the

principal could be on the innovator category, so that

he could be functioning as a master of change.

Literally, Kanter (1983) the agent of change is “the

right people, in the right place at the right time”. In

that case, the principals in general have not been able

to fulfill, so the progress of schools, including

improving the quality of education in schools cannot

be maximized. As innovators, they, according to

Rogers (1983) are “very eager to try new ideas. This

interest leads them out of a local circle of peer

networks and into more cosmopolite social

relationships”. Along the same line Kanter (1983)

confirms that the main equipment for master of

change is “creative and interactive; they have an

intellectual, a conceptual, and a cultural aspect”.

Likewise, with the mastery of the strategic

decision-making that generally still shows the

tendency of only a small part is in very high ability.

In line with Kotter (1998) on a critical step, the

existence of a "sense of urgency" on the principals

that generally still does not exist. In the past year there

were about 17% of principals never making urgent

decisions. Therefore, the reform effort at school has

not yet flourished. Even if a small proportion (18%)

of the school principal has made three or more

strategic decisions, it still seems that they have not

been able to boost the renewal effort at school. Rogers

(1983: 248) "the innovator plays a gatekeeping role in

the flow of new ideas into a social system" has not

been fully actualized by the headmasters of such a

small minority

As an alternative solution, there needs to be

various strengthening strategies. The strengthening of

school principals in the effort to accelerate school

progress is basically a combination of two basic

strategies of empowering, and energizing the

grassroots (Muhamam, 2009). Change strategy

experts see that empowerment is a very powerful

strategy. This strategy philosophy departs from the

view that change is essentially changing human

beings with all its aspects - intellectual, mental, and

spiritual. Changes are only possible if the human

changes. Human is the agent of change. Every human

being has the power to change himself, change all

aspects of humanity, change his life and change his

environment.

The philosophy underlies empowerment. Humans

as actors of change are given the power to change

themselves, life, and environment so that he can be

different and ready as an agent of change. Ready to

act in change. Transforming man with his mind set,

attitude, and behavior. In accordance with Kanter

(1983) that in the context of most changes there are

four components of empowerment, namely: power

tools, open communication, network forming devices

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences

and the dissemination of resources - decentralization

of resources.

The application of power tools is implanted into

each principal so that the energy it possesses becomes

an intelligent person. The power tool consists of

information, resources, and support. Information as a

power tools includes, among others: data, technical

knowledge, political intelligence, and skill in school

leadership. Resources as a power tool include: funds,

materials, space, and time. While support may be

endorsement approval, backing, approval, and

legitimacy of school headship.

Changes need to be complemented by open

communication. How to ensure that in the process and

control of change there are no obstacles to convey

messages, such as being blocked by the bureaucracy

flow. In this connection, the flexibility of

communication is an essential element for potential

entrepreneurs. With the flexibility of communication,

policy and innovation creativity on the principals will

be facilitated.

The networking apparatus is a guarantee of peer

support among principals. Because the change

concerns many people, there must be a connecting

hand that spreads to different lines and corners. Just

as the nerves are the connective tissue of the body

parts to one another. This interface should touch the

strategic points to the change agents and targets. The

connectedness of the established principals' tasks

must be well preserved because change is not possible

without interconnection.

With the implementation of the four tools of

empowerment component as mentioned above, the

change effort in school has more chances to succeed.

It means empowerment touches the core of managing

change. In this case, empowerment makes

headmasters "smart" (well-informed person), those

who are not short of knowledgeable material. They

always learn and continue to learn independently

(self-propelling growth).

Grassroots empowerment means empowering

principals who are seen as common people. This

strategy philosophy starts from some basic

assumptions. First, that change affects the livelihood

of the people and therefore they must be empowered

to contribute to change. If change is to succeed, then

those who accept change must be empowered because

the change touches their lives.

As a result, that for the headmaster can change

themselves then there must be readiness to accept

change, which among other things by opening up

(openness) to change. What has to be added to the

principal's power is a wider insight, the excitement of

new challenges and greater opportunities. With such

power they seem to be more alive.

The basic strategy aimed at broader interests,

organizational systems, among others, as the model

put forward by Bennis (1975). There are four

strategies that can be done in order to change more

broadly. The four strategies are rational-empiric,

normative-reductive, power-coercive, and

environment-adaptive.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In general, the school principals have not been able to

perform renewal tasks to improve the quality of

education in schools. The innovation potential of the

school principal shows an inadequate tendency to role

as an agent let alone as a master of change. Similarly,

the tendency of the principal in the mastery of the

strategic decision making, in general still indicates a

lack of conditions to encourage the growth of

educational reform in schools. Nevertheless, there is

hope in strengthening the role of principals to initiate

and control the implementation of school renewal

through breakthroughs of alternative strategy based

on self-propelling growth.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Bogor

Training Personnel Board for their support to conduct

the survey in this research.

REFERENCES

Alava, J., Halttunen, L., Risku, M., 2012. Changing School

Management. Finland-Finnish National Board of

Education and authors.

Bennis, W. G., 1974. The Planning of Change, Holt,

Rinehart and Winston Inc. New York,

2nd

edition.

Blau, I., Presser, O., 2013. e-Leadership of school

principals: Increasing school effectiveness by a school

data management system. British Journal of

Educational Technology. Vol 44 No 6 2013.

Bush, T., 2007. Educational leadership and management:

theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of

Education Copyright, EASA. Vol 27(3)391–406.

Fullan, M., 2002. Leading in a Culture of Change, Jossey-

Bass. San Francisco.

Hamel, G., Zanini, M., 2014. Build a change platform, not

a change program. McKinsey & Company.

Higgs, M., Rowland, D., 2000. Building change leadership

capability:‘The quest for change competence’. Journal

The Tendency of Principals’ Innovation Ptentials and Decision Making Foundation Mastery

of Change Management. Vol. 1, 2, 116–130; Henry

Stewart Publications.

Kanter, R. M., 1983. The Change Masters, Corrporate

Entrepreneurs at Woar, George Allen and Unwin.

London.

Kotter, J. P., 1998. Winning at Change. Leader to leader.

1998(10), 27-33.

LAKIP Kemendikbud, 2015. Kemendikbud 2014.

Muhtaram, A. M., 2015. The Innovativeness and Decision-

Making Skills of School Supervisory. International

Seminar of Educational Administration. University of

Malaya: Kuala Lumpur, Malaya.

Muhtaram, A. M., 2012. Modul Pemecahan Masalah dan

Pembuatan Keputusan, Badan Diklat Kabupaten

Bogor. Bogor.

Muhtaram, A. M., 2009, Manajemen Perubahan: Landasan

Teoritis Untuk Praktik Kepemimpinan Institusional

Pendidikan, PT Sarana Panca Karya Nusa. Bandung.

Pettigrew, A.Y., Whipp, R., 1991 Managing Change for

Competitive Success, Blackwell publishers. Oxford.

Rogers, E. M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations, Macmillan

Publishing Co., Inc. New York,

3rd

edition.

Ruth, 2008. Quality of Change Master, (online) available

at: www.citehr.c0m/70652-qulities-change master

Quality of Change Master.

Toffler, A., 1990. Powershift; Knowledge, Wealth and

Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, Bantam

Books. New York.

ICES 2017 - 1st International Conference on Educational Sciences