The Leadership Roles and Institutional Readiness on the Implementation of Educational Technology Policies

Zijia Peng

doi:10.71222/dsqh8162

Authors

Zijia Peng Graduate School, Emilio Aguinaldo College, Manila, Philippines Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71222/dsqh8162

Keywords:

transformational leadership, institutional readiness, educational technology, digital transformation, vocational education

Abstract

This study comprehensively explored the critical link between transformational leadership paradigms and institutional readiness concerning the implementation of educational technology (EdTech) policies within a higher education institution. Employing a rigorous descriptive-correlational research design, the investigation gathered quantitative data from a diverse cohort of 120 academic and administrative respondents. The empirical findings demonstrated that both transformational leadership and institutional readiness were generally perceived and rated as "Implemented." Specifically, leadership exhibited the strongest manifestation in intellectual stimulation and the weakest in idealized influence. Conversely, institutional readiness was most robust in organizational culture and motivation, while notably deficient in technical skills. Demographic analyses revealed that variables such as sex and age exerted no significant effect on these perceptions; however, educational attainment and length of institutional service generated substantial perception gaps among the respondents. Furthermore, the majority of correlations between leadership dimensions and readiness factors were found to be weak. Nevertheless, three significant relationships emerged: idealized influence was negatively related to resource allocation, intellectual stimulation was negatively associated with technical skills, and individualized consideration demonstrated a positive correlation with institutional motivation. The study concludes that the overall institutional capacity for digital integration remains moderate. Consequently, it strongly recommends enhancing leadership visibility, providing differentiated professional training, upgrading digital skills, and ensuring strategic alignment to foster sustainable digital transformation.

References

1. K. Ala-Mutka, Mapping Digital Competence: Towards a Conceptual Understanding. Sevilla: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, pp. 7–60, 2011.

2. E. Brynjolfsson and A. McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.

3. H. Buyukgoze, O. Caliskan, and S. Gümüş, “Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration,” Educational Management Administration & Leadership, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1388–1409, 2024.

4. B. Deacon, M. Laufer, and L. O. Schäfer, “Infusing educational technologies in the heart of the university—A systematic literature review from an organisational perspective,” British Journal of Educational Technology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 441–466, 2023.

5. S. de Oliveira Durso, L. E. Afonso, and S. Beltman, “Resilience in higher education: A conceptual model and its empirical analysis,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 29, p. 156, 2021.

6. D. Dumulescu and A. I. Muţiu, “Academic leadership in the time of COVID-19—Experiences and perspectives,” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, p. 648344, 2021.

7. N. J. Foss and T. Saebi, “Fifteen years of business model innovation research: A review and future agenda,” Journal of Management, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 200–227, 2017.

8. M. Bashir, M. M. Naqshbandi, and R. Farooq, “Business model innovation: A systematic review and future research directions,” International Journal of Innovation Science, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 457–476, 2020.

9. L. Yuan and S. J. Powell, MOOCs and Open Education: Implications for Higher Education, 2013.

10. S. El Achi, N. J. Al Maalouf, H. Barakat, and J. L. Mawad, “The impact of transformational leadership and work environment on teachers’ performance in crisis-affected educational settings,” Administrative Sciences, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 256, 2025.

11. A. Osterwalder and Y. Pigneur, Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2013.

12. Y. Zhao, A. M. P. Llorente, and M. C. S. Gómez, “Digital competence in higher education research: A systematic literature review,” Computers & Education, vol. 168, p. 104212, 2021.

13. J. Voogt and N. P. Roblin, “A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 299–321, 2012.

14. C. Zott, R. Amit, and L. Massa, “The business model: Recent developments and future research,” Journal of Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1019–1042, 2011.

15. O. Zawacki-Richter, V. I. Marín, M. Bond, and F. Gouverneur, “Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators?,” International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 39, 2019.

16. D. J. Teece, “Business models and dynamic capabilities,” Long Range Planning, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 40–49, 2018.

17. L. Ilomäki, S. Paavola, M. Lakkala, and A. Kantosalo, “Digital competence—An emergent boundary concept for policy and educational research,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 655–679, 2016.