Table of Contents
Go Back
A MODEL FOR CULTURAL CHANGE IN SCHOOLS: AN EVALUATION OF
SOME NEW LEARNING ORGANISATION METHODOLOGIES
Dr. ROBERTJ.MCLEOD
Director University of New South Wales Foundation Y ear
at Pittwater House Campus
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Pittwater House
PO Box 244
MANLY NSW 1655
Australia
Phone 61 2 99814400
FAX 61 2 99711627
email mcleod@TPHS.NSW.edu.au
Abstract:
Schools are complex systems and have traditionally been resistant to change due to a
combination of complex social and cultural factors. In spite of many attempts to effect
meaningful change and improvement, schools have remained relatively unchanged in a
deterministic scientific paradigm, rather than a systemic change paradigm, or in the
context of modemity rather than post modemity. To change the culture of schools
therefore requires new, advanced and sophisticated approaches.
The essential task in creating a LO was the creation of enabling cultures and structures,
which were needed at the individual and organisational level. This was the essential focus
for the creation of a LO “Model of Cultural Change in Schools”, that would augment
such cultures and structures.
This paper looks at such a model for cultural change and presents the results of research
into the effectiveness of selected learning organisation methodologies in changing a
school’s culture. These methodologies include “dialogue”, “scenario analysis”, and
“learning histories”.
INTRODUCTION:
The seeds of school education’s current failures are found in its successes in the past.
From its inception school education has been called on to transmit core knowledge and
cultural values, provide custodial care, and prepare students for life after school, the most
important aspect of which is critical thinking for problem solving and decision making
(Betts, 1992).
School education has been very successful in its first function, generally successful in the
second and much less successful in the last. School education has been one of the prime
sources of stability in our society. School education's overwhelming success as a pattem
maintenance institution is at the heart of its failure to match changing societal
expectations (Betts, 1992).
Mass education by schools over the past century, in most western countries, has therefore
successfully created a generation with a reductionist/functionalist, individualistic, moral
relativist organisational paradigm that expects good organisation to be naturally
evidenced in controlling, bureaucratic type structures. It is therefore not surprising that
schools, populated, staffed, managed, directed and subject to govemmental policy
generated by such people, are not learning organisations and have difficulty becoming
learning organisations (Bamett, 1997; McLeod, 1997).
Over the past decade most educational organisational reform has aimed at refining the
existing organisational style through targeted application, of ever narrower versions of
the same perspective. Therefore no amount of fine tuning of the old system will produce
significant improvement. Fukuyama (1996) asked the question who will replenish the
social and moral capital that such organisational thinking draws upon, unconsciously
assuming it to be an inexhaustible, natural, and environmental resource?
If education, defined in the broadest sense as stimulating learning for the whole school
community, is to be the mechanism of reinvestment, then the problem is how to
encourage schools to leam new forms that model this wider definition of leaming. The
underlying problem is that a century of school management practice has buried, in the
general organisational cultural unconsciousness, the values, attitudes, and beliefs needed
for the transformation.
Assuming that there is enough genetic material remaining to permit cultural regeneration,
the solution is in widespread reawakening, amongst education professionals, of
holistic/interpretative understandings of knowledge, education and organisations. Such
systemic change will necessitate the creation of leaming communities where the aim of
schools will be to serve the needs of their communities and the needs of the nation by
promoting learning at all levels.
Fullan (1996) takes this perspective a step further and suggests that what is at stake here
is a fundamental redefinition of teachers and professionals that includes radical changes
in teacher preparation, in the design and culture of schools, and in the teachers’ day to
day role. The role of the teacher of the future will be both wider and deeper, involving at
least six domains of commitment, knowledge and skills including; teaching and leaning;
collegiality; context; continuous learning; moral purpose; and change process (Fullan
1996, p. 422).
Fullan (1996, p.423) added the rider that it was impossible to improve student learning
for all or most students without improving the learning of all or most teachers. It is clear
that to improve this leaming process and achieve all the other requirements for cultural
change a new management paradigm has to be established in schools.
Systemic reform mainly involves strategies (such as reculturing) that help develop and
mobilise the conceptions, skills, and motivation in the minds and hearts of educators.
Such systemic reforms increase the capacity of systems to manage change on a
continuous basis. However, such change will not result from regulation and structural
reform, but will only be successful when those within the system are given the
opportunity to change the system. Such ownership and control by those responsible for
the change, will be effective and long lasting.
This paper will investigated the possibility of establishing a new systems paradigm for
schools that concentrates on changing mindsets of the staff concerned, so that they may
assume more responsibility for change, and thus dissolve many of the ineffective
structures described above. A LO model that expedites a path to cultural change, the
“Model of Cultural Change in Schools” will be evaluated in the process.
LEARNING ORGANISATION SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MODEL:
Much of the literature on LO’s was written from the perspective that LO’s produced
positive outcomes for the organisation. Although numerous authors (Garvin, 1993;
McGill, Slocum & Lei, 1992; Senge, 1990a) have considered the notion of a LO culture,
there was no widely accepted theory on how this could be achieved.
Some have identified LO culture as: entrepreneurship and risk taking (e.g., Cahill, 1997;
Kanter, 1989; Naman & Slevin,1993; Sykes & Block, 1989); facilitative leadership (e.g.,
Meen & Keough, 1992; Slater & Narver, 1995); organic structures (e.g., Gupta &
Govindarajan, 1991; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993); decentralised strategic
planning processes (e.g., Day, 1990; Hart, 1992; Mintzberg, 1994); and individual
development was valued as an end in itself (Garvin, 1993), but there was little attempt to
test their existence empirically, or to measure how they contributed and ultimately
enhanced organisational culture and improved performance (Garavan, 1997, pp.20-21).
Perhaps new light can be focused on this dilemma by developing a LO model that
expedites a path to cultural change. Garavan (1997, p.26) suggested that the essential task
in creating a LO was the creation of enabling cultures and structures, which were needed
at the individual and organisational level. This was the essential focus for the creation of
aLO “Model of Cultural Change in Schools”, that would augment such cultures and
structures.
WHY USE A MODEL?
Cleary (1992, pp.117-126) described a model as a simplified representation of the real
world and suggested that it took the form of a diagrammatic representation (chart,
drawing) or may be conceptual in that words, statements, or phrases were used to
describe the overall operation of the research at hand. Whether the model be a diagram or
be conceptual, its purpose, according to Dye (1992, p.20) was to: simplify and clarify
thinking; identify important aspects; suggest explanations; and predict consequences.
In management theory, models have been consistently employed to help clarify
relationships and processes, for example: McGregor's (1960) linear theory “X”, theory
“Y” model; Blake & Mouton’s (1964) more complex nine part grid diagram model that
linked “concern for production” to “concern for people”; conceptual models developed
by Maslow (1954); and later Herzberg (1974), helped to explain teacher behaviour in
schools. These studies confirmed that models assisted the researcher to understand the
real world, and provided a useful "touchstone" between the real world and the reality of
the researcher, and thus fulfilled the purposes as described by Dye (1992) above.
Today, there are many models to choose from including: analogue models (mostly used
in physical sciences); semantic models (expressed in verbal form and sometimes called
figurative or metaphoric); schematic models (resembled a map and generally grouped and
clustered constructs into an ordered relationship); mathematical models (quantitative
predictions that may be tested with empirical data); and causal models (structural
equation model of causal processes) (Kaplan, 1964; Tatsuoka, 1968).
The “Model of Cultural Change in Schools” presented later in this paper is a schematic
model of OL which allows a link between theory and the real world. It is analogous to a
map that links analysis and investigation with the world of observable events. The
schematic model is an extension of the semantic model and displays the relationships and
processes of OL and cultural change in schools.
Keeves (1997, p. 388) claimed that semantic and schematic models lacked precision,
which rendered them not amenable to testing, and did little to advance the development
of theory. However he later acknowledged that semantic and schematic models were
none the less very popular in educational research and such symbolic and diagrammatic
form models, helped to make explicit the structure of the model, that would be otherwise
hidden in an excess of words.
Morecroft and Sterman (1994) warmed that when constructing a model, it was better to
adopt the “client” perspective rather than the “expert” perspective as this avoided the
problem of giving little consideration to the client’s existing mental models. In the
“Model of Cultural Change in Schools” presented later, this valuable piece of advice was
strongly considered.
MODELS OF EDUCATIONAL CULTURAL CHANGE AND LEARNING:
A plethora of educational and LO change models have been forwarded in recent years
(e.g., Acker-Hocevar, 1996; Benoit and Mackenzie, 1994; Castle and Estes, 1995;
Cicmil, 1997; Garvin, 1993; Kim, 1993; Marquardt & Reynolds, 1994; Nevis, DiBella &
Gould, 1995; Robinson, Clemson & Keating 1997; Roth & Kleiner, 1995). Here a brief
analysis of three of the above models of OL and cultural change will be reviewed as these
models have been influential on the evolution of the “Model of Cultural Change in
Schools” presented later in this paper.
Firstly, Acker-Hocevar (1996, p.80-81) presented an “Education Quality Culture Model”
for schools that had for the centre of its focus customer success and satisfaction and this
resulted from the interconnected action of six performance areas that included: strategic
planning; systems thinking and action; information systems; human resource
development; quality services; and visionary leadership. An additional dimension of
continual improvement stimulated all the performance areas into ongoing, system wide
improvement.
Acker-Hocevar claimed that a quality school culture influenced the system wide response
to customer needs and expectations and affected desired outcomes in customer success
and satisfaction. Thus customer needs and expectations drove school development over
time and affected shared vision and school purpose. New customer requirements affected
both the individual’s and the school’s capacity for increased adaptation and change. The
school’s ability to respond to altered conditions and trends in the educational
environment, was essential for the success of the school (Acker-Hocevar, 1996, p.81).
The importance of this model resulted from its strong links and dialogue with the
customer/community and the importance of visionary leadership, strategic planning,
systems thinking and action, and human resource development.
Secondly, Castle and Estes (1995) created a model of the high performance leaming
community. This model depicted a leaming community that was learner-centred,
community based and strategically managed, and assumed that all individuals were able
to learn to their fullest capacity. The model promised education, health and social
services to children, their families, and the community. It provided coherence and support
for all citizens from birth to death. Through the mastery of specialised skills in
preparation for employment at the individuals highest level, learners acquired the abilities
and motivation necessary for lifelong learning.
Although the scale of impact of the above model may have drawn criticism as it extended
in breath from lifelong education for all community leamers to health and social services
of the community, and in time span form “birth to death”, it nevertheless displayed rich
qualities of a systemic nature, that separated it from the rest of the recent school
improvement/cultural change models.
Finally, a LO model that incorporated a sophisticated notion of process, was presented by
Benoit and Mackenzie (1994). This model expanded the simple definition of process and
recognised process as a time-dependent sequence of elements, which also incorporated
the role of people and structures in the organisation.
MODEL OF CULTURAL CHANGE IN SCHOOLS:
The above three educational-LO models emphasised strong LO processes but offered
limited insight into the methodologies required to implement such processes in schools,
and were also unsympathetic toward teacher emotions that had both positive and negative
impacts on cultural change outcomes.
The discovery of effective methodologies for cultural change in schools remained the
crucial challenge. Nevertheless the rich diversity of the three OL models outlined above
strongly influenced the formulation of the “Model of Cultural Change in Schools”
outlined below in Figure 1.
The “Model of Cultural Change in Schools” highlighted the need to accurately establish
the existing culture of the school before any methodologies were applied. This was
essential according to Drucker (1998, p. 3-5) who claimed that most organisations moved
to correct the culture of the organisation, before they accurately established the
assumptions on which the organisation had been built.
These were the assumptions that shaped the organisations behaviour, dictated its
decisions about what to do and what not to do. To successfully carry out cultural change
in an organisation, it was necessary to establish correct assumptions about the
environment of the organisation, that included the society and its structures, the market,
the customer and technology. In addition it was necessary to establish assumptions about
the specific vision/mission of the organisation, as well as to establish correct assumptions
about the core competencies needed to establish the organisation’ s vision/mission
(Drucker, 1998 pp.9-10).
MODEL OF CULTURAL CHANGE IN SCHOOLS
ENVIRONMENT
Existing School Culture
v
Ideal Learning Organisation School
v
Diagnostic survey identifies perceived shortcomings
(Laws & McLeod 1997)
Methodologies for wrt
eeeen <+—!§|_ > Scenario Analysi
culture level
we Learning Histories
wzo0-HAOZMm
New School Culture established
focused on continuous improvement
and better able to cope with change
Key:
Learning between/
among key
methodologies
<>
J Cultural change process
Key Learning Methodologies ENVIRONMENT
Figure 1
The assumptions about the environment, vision/mission and core competencies must fit
reality and must also fit one another, and be known, understood and constantly tested
throughout the organisation (Drucker 1998, pp.10-11). The above “Model of Cultural
Change in Schools” aimed to establish accurate assumptions about the school’s
environment, mission/vision and core competencies and to record the impact that LO
methodologies had on these processes taking into account the possible positive and
negative impacts of staff emotions.
The importance of emotions to any systemic cultural change model was emphasised by
Bawden (1998) who suggested that long term effective cultural change in many instances
depended on just that. Others also shared this emphasis on emotion (Fineman, 1997;
A. Hargreaves, 1994; Langford & Oliver,1997; Marshak, 1996).
At the school research case study, data were collected on the above assumptions by
administering the Organisational Diagnostic Survey, at the beginning of the year, to all
staff. Survey results were augmented with data collected at staff interviews of the College
Principal, the Coordinator of Studies, and leaders of faculties. These data provided an
accurate assessment of the existing culture (or assumptions about the environment) of
the College, thus allowing suitable methodologies to be selected that could lay the
foundations for the core competencies that were required to foster long term cultural
change.
Dialogue, scenario analysis and leaming histories were selected as the most appropriate
learning organisation methodologies to assist in the discovery of the above three
assumptions at Jay College. After the Organisational Diagnostic Survey was
administered, dialogue was used to help in the process of establishing a shared
vision/mission for the College. This process was commenced during the seminars and
was supported and continued later by the College Principal and staff.
In addition to dialogue, scenario analysis and learning histories were also employed at
Jay College to help create the core competencies necessary for successful cultural change
within the College. With the assistance of the three LO methodologies, all staff were
given the opportunity to experience and reflect on these assumptions and in the long term
were encouraged to take on change policies and practices, which enhanced the school’s
culture. All three methodologies were followed up with numerous visits by the
researchers to the College staff, who were encouraged to apply the methodologies to their
workplace practice.
The importance of the “Model of Cultural Change in Schools” and the effectiveness of its
methodologies, in assisting schools to become LO’s, will be the focus of the latter part of
this paper.
A brief description ofJay College
Jay College is a large K-12 Independent Church School in Sydney that began in the early
1970's. It has a pupil population that has grown rapidly in recent years to reach over 1400
students. The College is governed by a Board of Management with a President as its
head. The Board formulated policy and was responsible for the maintenance of all
College activities. It was elected by members of the College Association, of which
parents could become members by making application to the Board.
The educational goals of the College emphasised the development of the total person and
encouraged students to realise their full potential. In promoting intellectual, spiritual,
moral, social and physical aspects of student development, the College fostered critical
thought, independent learning, adaptability, cultural interests, tolerance, social
responsibility and self discipline. In addition to the above there was a deep spiritual
commitment that fostered life-long spiritual values that characterised the religious beliefs
of the parent community.
A Leadership History of Jay College
In the mid 1990's, on the retirement of the very long standing and well respected
Principal, there began a turbulent and unstable period of leadership for Jay College. This
began with the dismissal of the newly appointed Principal, after a few months, due to
serious discontent from both staff and parents. The next three years saw the current
Deputy Principal appointed as Acting- Principal, while the College Management Board
searched both within Australia and intemationally for a suitable replacement. Eventually
an appointment was made and a highly qualified and experienced person from overseas
was appointed as the new Principal.
Staff perceived that a “leadership vacuum” existed during those years and this was
compounded by the sacking of the previous Principal and the winding down processes of
the retiring Principal, over a period of years beforehand. Leadership it was argued had
therefore been missing for much longer than three years.
APPLYING THE LEARNING ORGANISATION METHODOLOGIES IN THE
CASE STUDY SCHOOL “JAY COLLEGE”
Needs Analysis for Jay College
The identification of the positive, neutral and negative perceptions of staff were obtained
from the “Organisational Diagnostic Survey”. This was a vlauable tool in establishing the
of existing climate and culture of Jay College, and were valuable data in helping to
establish the format for the organisational leaming seminars.
The survey identified problems that included a poor shared vision/mission for the Jay
College community as well as substantial evidence of fractured dialogue within the
school and it was revealed that creativity and risk taking were not encouraged by the
performance and attitude of the existing leadership of the College. Lessons were not
being learnt from mistakes as mistakes were being punished rather than viewed as
opportunities to learn. In addition ambivalent responses indicated that staff were not
being as reflective on their practice as perhaps they could have been.
In addition there was concer that team decision making was not part of the present
culture of the College and that creative work systems were not part of the normal
processes of the College. Staff also perceived that the College had made few plans to
assist their long term professional development, and collaborative decision making
needed to be fostered so that staff gained some ownership of the policy creation
processes.
These concems were presented to and discussed with the Principal and the Co-ordinator
of Studies, who were not surprised by the findings and agreed with the diagnosis of the
problems. In an attempt to overcome these problems it was agreed that the leaming
organisation methodologies of dialogue, scenario analysis and learning histories be
employed during the seminars and over the course of the year. They also agreed to allow
the proposed seminar sessions to run as suggested previously, as this would address the
important issues raised in the survey.
Why Use Dialogue, Scenario Analysis and Leaming Histories?
Jay College had experienced a “leadership vacuum” for a number of years and this had
permitted a number of strong power bases to be developed. This made the prospect of
changing the culture of the staff by the new Principal, all the more difficult.
However the new Principal had at least approached this task with an open mind and was
prepared to take some risks. One of those risks was to allow some external change agents
into the school to try to move the culture forward toward a more systemic and global
perspective, and one that would allow learning to flourish at all levels in the school
community.
Essential to the task of cultural change and to help dissolve the “power bases” that had
developed in the College, it was essential to try to establish high levels of dialogue within
the school community. This was considered a high priority and it was decided to begin
the process by utilising dialogue to help in the processes of establishing a shared vision
for Jay College.
Anticipating the future in a rapidly changing, volatile environment required far more than
systematic analysis. It demanded creativity, insight and intuition. Scenarios - stories
about future possible futures - combined these elements into a foundation for robust
strategies and was therefore a tool for ordering one’s perceptions about future
environments. Scenario analysis thus presented alternative images, instead of
extrapolating current trends from the present.
The schools of tomorrow are likely to be invented in places where leaders and teachers
have a vision of a different kind of schooling and also possessed knowledge and skills to
nurture change over time toward that vision. It was decided to employ scenario analysis
at Jay College to help teachers to be reflective on their teaching practice and to try to
imagine the type of worlds that their pupils were moving into in the future. This
methodology was employed in the seminars and was encouraged to be continually
practised in the day to day activities of the College.
Learning histories were selected to assist in the cultural change processes at Jay College
as they: saved valuable time at meetings;
allowed discussion to begin at meetings, at a much higher level than was possible
previously; involved all staff in the change processes and derived the benefits of a
corporate intelligence; implemented change at all levels irrespective of the scale or the
issue at hand; flagged staff who were “in left field”, distant from the mainstream thinking
on an issue; encouraged staff members to adopt a more “global or systems” approach;
and embellished rich debate on key issues by all members of staff. It was for these
reasons that dialogue, scenario analysis and leaming histories were selected as
appropriate leaming organisation methodologies to be employed at Jay College.
The use of Dialogue at Jay College
The initial survey at Jay College clearly indicated that there was fractured communication
at many levels and that this situation needed immediate attention. To assist Jay College to
establish better communication at all levels, it was decided to devote several sessions to
dialogue, during the seminar programme.
The seminars sessions on dialogue initially began with an explanation of the central
purpose of dialogue and that was to establish a field of genuine meeting and enquiry,
which was referred to in the literature as a "container".
Dialogue is a basic process for building common understanding, in that it allows one to
see additional meanings of words. By letting disagreement go, meanings became clearer
and participants gradually built a shared set of meanings, that made much higher levels of
mutual understanding and creative thinking possible.
To illustrate the operation of dialogue during the seminars, an example was taken from
the work of Sergiovanni (1994, pp.200-201) who described the operation of a “talking
circle”. In the “talking circle” all members of the faculty sit in a circle and quietly prepare
for a time of sharing. Then at a time when sharing was ready to begin, one person held a
sacred object, an eagle feather for example, and while this person held that object only
she/he could talk and the others listened. Within that “talking circle’ members of the
community shared their frustrations and their celebrations. Such deep, honest, dialogue
was confidential and augmented the process of community building. This example had a
strong impact on the members of staff at Jay College.
Once the group experienced dialogue, the process tended to gain momentum. Dialogue
by definition was a process that only had meaning in a group. Several people had to
collaborate with each other for dialogue to occur.
The characteristics that dialogue fostered in participants included: learning to think
together; taking on a new perspective by listening (suspension of judgment); thoughts,
emotions and actions belonged to all; participants acted in an aligned way; “hot” issues
were discussed in a “cooler” climate; a container was built; a shared intention of enquiry;
and a desire to touch the dangerous (Schein, 1993).
Dialogue was used to assist in the processes of the initial creation of a shared
vision/mission for Jay College and this was attempted at one of the initial leaming
organisation seminar. At this seminar each participant was invited to write down three
characteristics of the ideal learning organisation school that they would like to work in.
They were then invited to combine with another staff member and dialogue their selected
characteristics, and then distil their combined choices to just 4. This process continued
when they then combined with two other staff members and they reduced their total
choices to 5. Again they combined with four other staff members and they reduced their
total choices to 6. As the groups became larger, more time was required for dialogue. At
the conclusion of this process there were three separate groups and each elected a
spokesperson to report to all the seminar participants on the results of their groups
distillation process.
The application of the shared vision distillation process allowed the staff to dialogue with
their colleagues their reasons for selecting their characteristics of an ideal learning
organisation. They were then invited to take these characteristics forward to an ever
growing forum of colleagues until the selected number of characteristics had been
distilled. This distillation process had the advantage of commencing the process of
developing a “shared vision” that had endured the processes of dialogue from all
colleagues.
Other Dialogue Practice at Jay College
After the initial session that highlighted the above dialogue characteristics, a seminar
workshop was held that invited participants to read through a transcript of a simulated
faculty meeting that had a combination of recognisable examples of fractured dialogue
that could be effortlessly identified by the participants.
Participants were then invited to form groups that included members of different
faculties/departments at Jay College and to answer a series of questions. These questions
asked participants to identify any dialogue “roadblocks” that they identified in the
simulation case study as well as identifying the assumptions that determined the actions
of the staff in the simulation. They were then asked to extract some strategies that would
assist the imaginary Faculty Head in the simulation, to enhance dialogue in his Faculty.
Seminar participants identified some “roadblocks” to dialogue as: lack of respect for each
other; resistance to change; sensitivity to criticism; poor motivation; fear of own staff;
poor relations and poor attitude. The assumptions that had led to the fractured dialogue
situation included: lack of authority by leader; no team culture; and no predetermined
outcomes. It was identified the faculty leader should have learnt from the meeting that
there was: little shared vision; no trust; shallow respect for him; poor teamwork; and no
clearly defined outcomes for meetings.
College staff suggested the following would foster dialogue: more professional
development; sharing leadership positions; shared vision; developing a code of conduct
for meetings; rotating of the position of chair at meetings; valuing staff more; becoming
more of a servant/leader; and developing better crisis management.
During the seminars it was clear that all the College staff including College executives
were becoming more aware of the need to develop high levels of dialogue within the
school community. This planted a seed of expectation in staff that communication in Jay
College would improve in the near future. It became clear, later in the study during staff
interviews, that staff felt that the College executives were still not engaging in dialogue in
an open and honest manner, and that there was a hidden agenda to much of what was said
at staff meetings and on other occasions.
The Final Report on Dialogue to the new Principal.
It was agreed to send to the Principal a written report of the findings of the LO seminars
and staff interviews held during the data collection period. The report suggested the
Principal should consider strategies such as:
To carry out an interview with each executive (even
each member of staff if possible) before the end of the
year, to allow them time to express their concerns but
more importantly to express their highlights for the year
and their aspirations for the following year.
Additional strategies suggested that the Principal begin to delegate much of the work load
that now dominated his working day during school hours, and that he needed to spend
much more time with staff and students, and to be more “visible around the school”. He
needed to allocate time for parent interviews before and after the school day (to free up
school hours) resulting in more time being given to students and staff.
Some weeks after the final report was submitted, the Principal invited the researchers to
attend an interview to discuss the report. It was gratifying to leam that the suggestions
outlined above were taken very seriously by the Principal and in fact many suggestions
had already been implemented by him.
In agreeing with the overall thrust of the report, the College Principal claimed he had
carried out other surveys himself, and these findings had confirmed that the presented
report was extremely accurate and perceptive.
The Principal made it clear that he had told the staff at the start of the year that the staff
appraisal programme was a mandate from the board and that it was not negotiable.
However what was negotiable was the way the scheme was to be implemented. He
insisted that the pupils themselves were to be involved in the appraisal process and that
this led to the design of a pupil questionnaire, which he said he was very happy with and
that this was now in use.
He acknowledged that staff access was a problem and he had tried keeping his door open
for staff to drop in from recess to lunch (without appointments) but this was frequently
interrupted and thus staff were locked out again. This had failed in the eyes of staff who
clearly perceived that it was almost impossible to see him during the day. He said that it
would take some time to break down the parent cultural expectation that they “wanted to
see the Principal” and “nobody else but the Principal”.
SCENARIO ANALYSIS
During the LO Seminars at Jay College, participants were challenged to look at four
different possible future scenarios of education. The four scenarios were crafted from
Ogilvy’s (1996) work on “Education and the Community: four scenarios for the future of
public education”. Ogilvy (1996) suggested that the scenarios demonstrated that
community-related dimensions of uncertainty were at the core of educational issues.
Ogilvy (1996) indicated that two clear axes could be identified. One dimension of
uncertainty surrounding the nature of community was labelled hierarchical versus
participatory, capturing a contrast between various kinds of down-from-the-top,
authoritarian approaches to education on the one hand, and up-from-the-bottom,
grassroots approaches (captured, for example, in the enthusiasm for site-based-
management) on the other. Expressed in another way this axis could be described as
traditional (in place of hierarchical) as against radical (in place of participatory).
It was from this matrix Ogilvy’s scenario team had built four scenarios. The four scenario
narratives included: Orthodoxy, Hierarchical (traditional) Inclusive; Orthodoxies,
hierarchical (traditional) Exclusive; Wired for Learning, Participatory (radical)
Exclusive; The Leaming Society, Participatory (radical) Inclusive.
The results indicated that teachers generally did not set aside, in their normal working
day, sufficient time for “philosophical reflection” on whether they were adequately
preparing their students for the future that faced them. Preparing teachers for this new
mindset deserved far more attention than was available in the scope of this present study.
This has been recently further researched and refined (Laws & McLeod, 1996,
1997,1999, 2000)
LEARNING HISTORIES (LH’s)
Another important learning organisation methodology introduced at Jay College during
the seminar programme was the concept of “learning histories” (Laws & McLeod, 1998).
This involved an explanation of the theory behind and a practical application of leaming
histories. As an example, the evolution of a better system of taking the daily student
school roll using leaming histories was presented and discussed.
This simulation leaming histories document was well received by the College staff as this
problem was one that the staff had been working on over the past few days, and the
comments contained in the simulation learning histories document were considered to be
very felicitous. As follow up after the seminar on learning histories, the researchers
visited each KLA and pastoral care leader and discussed with each the specific
application of learning histories to their area.
As an example KLA leader No.7 had used learning histories to develop policy areas in
her Faculty so that the Faculty handbook could be completed. KLA leader No.7 reported
that:
Ata faculty meeting we discussed and listed
the policies we felt needed attention. It was a
long list. To sit and discuss each one and formulate
it through discussion would have been very time
consuming. We decided that two policies (student
welfare/discipline and differentiation) did require
this sort of discussion to write an effective policy ...
but for the others we decided to use learning histories.
KLA leader No.7 further commented that this was achieved by:
1. A member of staff took responsibility for 1-3 policy
areas.
2. The member of staff prepared a learning histories
document and circulated it for comment.
3. On receiving it back (this had been very efficient, taking
only 2-3 days for each document to get to 8 members of
staff), the author made some adjustments and
recirculated. This continued until the document was
publishable.
4. Staff were made aware that their comments would
be read by other members of the faculty, so therefore
to make any unpublishable comments direct to the author.
5. The final policy was then transferred onto a disk so
that it can be published in the faculty handbook,
which will be ready for publication later in the year.
KLA leader No.7 was very pleased with the success of the learning histories process for
her faculty. Another leader, KLA leader No.8, had also used an abridged version of
learning histories for policy development in her large faculty. The Religious Studies
Coordinator used learning histories to develop policy for Y ear 12 Religious Studies
instruction and the Accelerated and Enrichment Programme Coordinator reported some
positive feedback by using the learning histories technique to develop the “Inter Campus
Curriculum Support Team”.
Suitability of Learning Organisation Methodologies to assist school leaders, in achieving
cultural change
The evaluation documents also revealed that staff were able to comment on the
effectiveness of the new Principal with comments such as “I was pleased that an
opportunity was given to consider seriously the major issues affecting the school re:
leadership” and another who commented “it is hoped that some of the concems addressed
in discussion may be acted upon in the future”.
The planned strategy for the final seminar session was to allow staff as much time as
possible to discuss their impressions of the seminars and also to report back on their
attempts to implement dialogue, learning histories and give their impressions of scenario
analysis. However after staff had completed their reports the discussion was opened up
for staff to give their impressions of the year so far under the leadership of the new
Principal. This session was quite remarkable as staff finally felt free to engage in deep
dialogue. This allowed the seminar presenters to withdraw a little and allow the dialogue
to flow which prompted one staff member to comment, “I was disappointed that the
presenters did not seem to contribute much to the final session. What were they writing
all the time? Taking notes on teacher stress”?
All schools have different cultures and indeed within each school there are staff who are
at different levels within that culture. Perhaps this final comment is reflective of this:
I think our school is definitely a learning organisation
and the vast majority of staff who work here are
extremely intelligent, highly motivated and good
communicators. While I enjoyed the opportunity to
introspect and listen to others, I did not learn a lot
from this seminar.
The above comment indicates that not all staff perceived that they had benefited from the
seminars but at least this comment came from a member of staff who seemed proud of
the quality of professionalism shown by staff and was prepared to say so. However the
comment does confirm (as do many of the other comments) that staff were prepared to
share their deep emotions during the final seminar’s dialogue session.
Emotions play a large part in cultural change processes and Jay College staff were no
exceptions and they frequently spoke passionately, during the seminars and interviews,
about their teaching practice and dedication to the task of educating children. This is to be
highly commended and the processes of reflection on practice encouraged and supported
by the learning organisation methodologies sharpened staff awareness of the need for this
reflection to continue.
The above written comments from staff provided an excellent guide to the changing
nature of the culture at Jay College over the year. The researchers confirmed these data
results when a statistical analysis of the Organisational Diagnostic Survey was
undertaken.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF ORGANISATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC SURVEY
RESULTS
To assess the organisational culture that existed at Jay College at the time, it was decided
to administer the Organisational Diagnostic Survey (ODS) at the conclusion of the first
seminar. The aim of the ODS was to assess any changes in culture that could be
identified in the “mindsets” of staff, and thus allowed some evaluation of the
effectiveness of the OL methodologies, that had been introduced into Jay College through
the seminars and follow up meetings with staff.
The survey was designed with eight questions allocated to each sub-section as follows:
* Leadership;
* Culture and Professional Environment;
* Competence and Innovation;
* Professional Development and Recognition;
* Work Processes and Systems.
Responses were statistically analysed using t-test scores to determine if changes noted
were statistically significant. The sample populations of staff were considered to be
“correlated samples” (Huck and Cormier, 1996).
Before the t-test analysis was carried out it was decided to select 0.02 (2%) as an
appropriate level of significance for a “Two-tailed Test”. Returned survey responses
indicated the sample populations were 49 participants (n1) in May and 41 participants
(n2) in September for Primary and Secondary staff and 39 participants in May and 35
participants in September for the Secondary only analysis. This computed to degrees of
freedom (df), as (nl-1 and n2-1) or 88 and 72 respectively. On rare occasions participants
choose not to answer some questions and this resulted in some variations to the total
number of responses. The critical t-score and relevant “levels of significance”
(preselected at .02) for two tailed test with degrees of freedom to 88 and 72 was 2.390.
Analysis of the May and September Responses to the Survey
Leadership
The first eight questions of the survey focussed on leadership. One question raised the
issue were the “senior staff of this school... encouraging of and interested in the
aspirations of staff”. Here staff indicated a positive shift in their mindsets in the period
between May and September with a statistically significant response (t-score=2.434).
On amore pessimistic path, another question raised the issue of whether “senior staff of
this school facilitated working conversations which brought new knowledge and new
competencies” there was a statistically significant negative response from staff (t-
score=3.393).
This data were triangulated with the negative responses recorded in staff interviews as
well as the “watershed” dialogue session at the final seminar where supporting evidence
of fractured dialogue with school leaders overflowed. The Principal’s “monologues” at
staff meetings and his general inaccessibility were clearly frustrating to all staff. This
strong evidence of fractured dialogue between the school leaders and the staff was a key
focus of the final report presented to the Principal.
Culture and Professional Environment
Responses to this section of the survey indicated that the OL seminars had been effective
in commencing the dialogue processes necessary for the evolution of a clearly stated and
coherent shared vision for Jay College’s future. This was evident in one question, which
asked staff had the College a clearly stated and coherent shared vision of its future. A
statistically significant (t-score=5.147) shift in mindset was recorded.
Responses to another question indicated that Jay College staff acknowledged that they
were part of a school where people felt personally responsible for high quality teaching
(t-score=4.830).
At interviews staff had indicated that management and leadership at Jay College looked
down on staff and that if they did not perform they would be replaced. They also felt that
parents expected a great deal from staff but were at the same time prepared to deride and
undermine their performance if it did not match parent expectations. This feeling of staff
being “second class citizens” had existed for “a long time” at Jay College and staff were
not confident that things would improve in this area in the future.
Competence and Innovation
This sub-section of the survey recorded some very positive shifts in staff perceptions and
mindsets. In response to one question which asked if “staff communicated regularly and
creatively with one another about their picture of the future of the school”, there was a
statistically significant (t-score=5.298) shift in staff mindsets and to question 23 which
asked if Jay College staff “were continually focused on developing new and/or better
services and competencies by working co- operatively together’, there was also a
statistically significant (t-score=5.884) positive shift in the mindsets of staff.
More very strong positive professional views were expressed in response to the question,
“were staff continually working at improving their knowledge and skills” when 77% of
Secondary and 76% of Primary and Secondary staff agreed or strongly agreed with this
statement in May and 80% of Secondary and 70% of Primary and Secondary staff agreed
or strongly agreed with this statement in September.
This sub-section on competence and innovation also displayed other positive shifts in
culture. To the question, “were staff confident that if they made a mistake, they would not
be penalised but that it would be considered an opportunity for productive leaming”.
Here the response was 60% of Secondary and 60% of Primary and Secondary staff
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement in May and 46% of Secondary and
48% of Primary and Secondary staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement
in September.
Staff felt intimidated at times by senior management, and believed that mistakes made by
staff would be punished as had been the case in the past. This threat had stifled
innovation to some extent although the LO methodologies had been somewhat active in
overcoming this problem as evidenced above.
Professional Development and Recognition
This sub-section of the survey revealed some very positive statistically significant
changes in mindsets. For example one question asked if staff were “continually reviewing
the way they thought about bringing the best out in their pupils” and the response
indicated a very positive shift in mindset by staff over the year (t-score=7.730).
This is a most important result for any school cultural change intervention and that is the
impact the change has had on the daily classroom performance of the teacher and
subsequent improvement in the learning processes by the students.
Another question asked were “team based initiatives and solutions prized by this school”
and this received a statistically significant response (t-score=2.434) along with another
question which asked “when teams or work groups acquired new skills or created new
solutions to difficult problems, then this was celebrated both formally and informally”
and also received a a statistically significant response (t-score=4.268).
This sub-section on professional development and recognition revealed one clearly
negative response. Staff were asked if their career development was integrated into a long
term plan for each individual. This was an area that senior management of the school
needed to address as 71% of Secondary and 68% of Primary and Secondary staff
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement in May and 61% of Secondary and
59% of Primary and Secondary staff disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement
in September. The perception by staff at Jay College, of little or no long term career
development and promotion path, may also be the concem of teachers in many other
schools as well. This question required further research investigation.
Work Processes and Systems
This final sub-section of the survey revealed several statistically significant results. Staff
at Jay College were asked if they were aware of “the specific measures used to plot the
school’s progress towards shared goals”. Here the response displayed a clear shift in staff
mindsets from the position held in May and the methodologies adopted in the LO
seminars on the creation of shared vision had a significantly positive impact (t-score=
5.440).
Another question asked if “the systems used at Jay College ensured that work produced
was consistent with a clear picture of future directions shared by the staff”. Here results
(t-score=3.942) displayed a clear positive shift in mindset. The same applied to another
question (t-score=2.481)which asked if “normal procedures of work guided people to
look past their first impressions when looking for solutions to problems”
This sub-section of the survey, revealed that considerable progress had been
accomplished in the creation of shared vision, in process re-engineering and systems
thinking by the application of the three LO methodologies during and between the
seminars.
ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
The preceding analysis on the effectiveness of the learning organisation methodologies
that included dialogue, scenario analysis, and learning histories, clearly indicated that
such methodologies had been very effective in assisting Jay College becoming a learning
organisation.
From the data collected from the Organisational Diagnostic Surveys, it was clear that
progress had been made in terms of improved leadership at Jay College. Now staff
recognised that senior management were encouraging and interested in their aspirations,
however there was still evidence of fractured dialogue between the staff and senior
management and this resulted in an a lack of confidence by staff of senior management at
Jay College.
The cultural and professional environment questions in the survey revealed that dialogue
had helped in the processes of establishing a clearly stated and coherent shared vision for
Jay College and that staff were now more professionally responsible for high quality
teaching. The competence and innovation survey questions acknowledged that staff were
trying to communicate more effectively and creatively but there was still concem that
mistakes made by staff would be punished.
The professional development and recognition survey questions indicated that staff were
consciously trying to be more reflective on their practice and were also trying to improve
the quality of teamwork throughout the College. One concem that remained was that staff
still felt that their career development was still not integrated into a long term plan for
each individual in the College.
Finally the work processes and systems survey questions revealed that there had been
significant improvement in staff perceptions of the processes and systems used at Jay
College. The application of learning organisation methodologies that enhanced shared
vision and solved problems was positive and indicated that perhaps “double loop”
learning was starting to be practised at Jay College.
From the beginning, the researchers had suggested that their role was to only begin the
learning organisation processes, and that the role of College staff was to take up the
challenge and begin to approach their tasks with a new systems mindset, and to continue
practising the learning organisation methodologies in the future. It is hoped that Jay
College staff will continue to operate in this new systems paradigm in the future and that
the culture of Jay College will continue to change and adapt to the demands of the
College community and the environment.
CONCLUSION
The processes of systemic change and the establishment of systems thinking in schools is
a lengthy and time consuming exercise. There are no quick solutions and systemic change
is subject to many roadblocks in an education system that is characterised by a culture of
autonomous well-trained professionals, who generally feel that their way is the right way,
because they have thought about it, and they believe it to be right.
The adoption of systems thinking within any organisation is acknowledged as a difficult
task to achieve. It is interesting to note that, in a recent email discussion Forrester (1961,
1968) (acknowledged as one one of the founding fathers of systems thinking), effectively
declared that after 40 years of trying to influence senior management about the wisdom
of systems thinking, he had given up. At the age of 75 years, he now prefers to put his
considerable energy, into trying to achieve a generational change, through the education
of young children. Perhaps this view is a little pessimistic and reflects a lack of focus on
the issue of systems thinking ‘practice’, and the methodologies that facilitate this
practice.
The failure of the systems movement over that period to develop suitable methodologies
that can assist in this process is difficult to fathom. If systems thinkers are going to make
a difference in education, then vigorous amounts of energy and thought must be directed
toward the creation of effective methodologies and tools that educators can utilise in
schools to successfully change the mindsets of staff and thereby commence the journey
toward successful cultural change in schools.
The aim of this paper has been to test the suitability of the three learning organisation
methodologies for schools (dialogue, scenario analysis and leaming histories) and to
assess the effectiveness of these three methodologies, on the cultural change processes in
the case study school. In addition, an attempt was made to assess the importance that
school leaders placed on the three methodologies as effective tools, to assist in the
process of cultural change in schools.
The evidence from the case study school presented in this paper strongly indicates, that
these methodologies have not only been effective at Jay College but indeed are worthy of
strong consideration for use in many other schools and educational settings in the future.
These methodologies are still in their infancy and need to be further researched, fine
tuned and adapted to each school’s particular cultural needs.
Dialogue has come under close investigation and has provided some startling results.
Perceptive insights were gained from open and honest dialogue by both the Principal, his
executive team and the staff at Jay College. By supporting and reinforcing the processes
of dialogue at all levels in the school community, all participants gained from the process.
The new found openness and honesty that was experienced at Jay College provided a
rock solid platform for further cultural change. Such “high level honest and open
communication with appropriate structures” was one of the characteristics that the staff
considered most desirable when they delineated their “ideal leaming organisation” school
at the beginning of the LO seminars.
Dialogue was therefore a critical LO methodology that was essential for cultural change
to be effective as it underpinned the other methodologies. The success of dialogue at Jay
College manifest itself in the final seminar which was described as a “watershed”
meeting between the Principal, his executive, and the staff.
This dialogue session was almost like a cleansing ritual, as staff freely expressed their
deepest feelings and vexations, without fear of reprisal, within the presence of senior
management. During this session the researchers were able to take a “back seat” and
relax and watch the fruits of their labour.
In addition this “watershed” dialogue session was a gratuity for the Principal and the
executive team who were now privy to what staff really thought and what was really
happening in the College. The very clear and sincere message they received was that the
staff were not coping with all the changes and something had to be done to relieve the
pressure immediately. The Principal responded to that message by promptly reducing the
workload of the KLA leaders, by abrogating staff meetings thus giving them more time to
carry out their normal duties.
Ina similar fashion, scenario analysis changed the mindsets of those who attended the
LO seminars and provoked all staff to be more reflective on their teaching practice, and
to consider the future worlds that their students would be moving into, and to try to image
some of the possible future scenarios that will present themselves to their students over
the next ten to twenty years. This opportunity to be reflective, allowed the teaching staff
to become more perceptive of their own strengths and weaknesses, and thus be more
effective in planning their day to day teaching tasks, so as to better prepare their students
for the future worlds that they will move into.
The introduction of learning histories into the faculties, departments and middle
management at Jay College was a very rewarding experience for the whole school
community and the researchers as well. Staff were quickly able to see the advantages of
leaming histories in their daily work practices and the very positive prospects of saving
valuable time was most encouraging to staff. It is hoped that the practice of using
learning histories will flourish at Jay College and indeed any other school that is prepared
to apply this methodology.
The research presented above opens up a plethora of further questions that are deserving
of further research. Such questions will expound on additional learning organisation
methodologies that may be constructive in achieving cultural change in schools. The
opportunity, at Jay College, to research the effectiveness of this new systemic paradigm
for schools has been exploratory and has broken new ground in school management
research.
The key to successful cultural change in schools, that lies at the heart of this new learning
organisation paradigm, is concerned with the aspirations and emotions of the human
beings who make up the system. The model of cultural change in schools gave serious
consideration to the impacts of emotions on the cultural change processes of staff.
Emotions can be both supporting and debilitating to cultural change. At Jay College, the
learning organisation methodologies successfully negotiated the minefield of staff
emotions and unambiguously indicated that they have the armoury to deal with this
complex issue in a competent way.
Staff are a rich and precious resource that school leaders need to lean with and to learn
from. Staff allow their ever changing mindsets to govem their ever changing behaviours.
To make changes to these mindsets requires extremely sophisticated and complex change
agents. The learning organisation methodologies investigated in this thesis offer new
hope in achieving this most difficult of tasks.
This is therefore not the end, but only the beginning, of a new era of cultural change in
schools. It is time for those responsible for cultural change in schools to focus on a new
systemic management paradigm, that is a worthy recipient of greater research resources.
In the immediate years ahead, it will be an urgent task to commence to fine tune existing,
and discover new learning organisation methodologies, that will bring about effective
cultural change in schools. There are many young Australians, and future young
Australians, that are depending on it.
REFERENCES
Acker-Hocevar, M. (1996) Conceptual models, choices, and
benchmarks for building quality work cultures. NASSP
Bulletin. Vol.80. No.576. pp.78-87.
Barnett, S. (1997) Schools as learning organisations. Comments
made in LO14710 in reply to LO14416 on the Website for
Leaming Organisation Digest.
Bawden, R. (1998) Systems scenario workshop. Unpublished paper
delivered at the 4th Annual Australian and New Zealand
Systems Conference held in Sydney.
Benoit, C. A. & Mackenzie, K. D. (1994) A model of organisational
learning and the diagnostic process supporting it. The
Leaming Organisation. Vol.1. No.3. pp.26-37.
Betts, F. (1992) How systems thinking applies to education.
Educational Leadership. Vol. 50. No.3. pp.38-41.
Blake, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964) The managerial grid. Houston:
Gulf Publishers.
Cahill, D. J. (1997) The “real world” as classroom: the leaming
organisation and innovation. The Leaming Organisation.
Vol.4 No.3. pp.106-108.
Castle, D. K. & Estes, N. (1995) High-performance learning
communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cicmil, S. (1997) Achieving completeness through TQ principles
and organisational learning. The Leaming Organisation.
Vol.4 No.1. pp. 30-34.
Cleary, R. (1992) Models as effective research tools. In
D. M. Cavanagh, & G. M. Rodwell, (Ed’s.) Dialogues in
educational research. Darwin, NT: William Michael Press.
Day, G. S. (1990) Mental driven strategy: Processes for creating
value. New Y ork: The Free Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1998) Peter Drucker on the profession of
management. Boston: A Harvard Business Review Book.
Dye, T. R. (1992) Understanding public policy. Englewood Cliff, NJ.:
Prentice Hall.
Fineman, S. (1997) Emotion and management learning. Management
Leaming. Vol. 28 No.1 pp.13-25.
Forrester, J. W. (1961), Industrial dynamics. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Forrester, J. W. (1968), Principles of systems. Cambridge, MA:
Wright Allen Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1996) Trust: Social virtues and the creation of
prosperity. London: Penguin.
Fullan, M. (1996) Tuming systems thinking on its head. Phi Delta
Kappan. Vol.77. No.77. pp.420-424.
Garavan, T. (1997) The learning organisation: a review and
evaluation. The Learning Organisation. Vol.4 No.1. pp.18-29.
Garvin, D. (1993) Building a leaming organisation. Harvard
Business Review. July-August. pp.78-91.
Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. (1991) Knowledge flows and the
structure of control within multi-national corporations.
Academy of Management Review. Vol.16 No.4 pp.768-792.
Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing teachers, changing times:
Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. London:
Cassell.
Hart, S. L. (1992) An integrative framework for strategy-making
processes. Academy of Management Review. Vol.17 . April
pp.327-351.
Herzberg, F. (1974) Work and the nature of man. London: Crosby,
Lockwood and Staples.
Huck, S. W. & Commier, W. H. (1996) Reading statistics and research
(2nd Ed.). New Y ork: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Kanter, R. M. (1989) When giants learn to dance. New Y ork:
Simon & Schuster.
Kaplan, A. (1964) The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for
behavioural science. San Francisco: Chandler.
Keeves, J. P. (1997) Models and model building. In
J.P. Keeves (Ed.). Educational research, methodology,
and measurement: An intemational handbook. Second edition.
Cambridge, UK: Pergamon.
Kim, D. H. (1993) The link between individual and organisational
learning. Sloan Management Review. Fall. pp.37-49.
Langford, H. & Oliver, I. (1997) Wiping blood off the floor!
Understanding and managing the emotional chaos of change.
Paper presented at the Third Australia and New Zealand
Systems Conference held at the University of Queensland
(October 1-4).
Laws, K., Bailey, M., Smith, D., & McLeod, R. J. (1995) Want to be
leader forced to be boss: A dilemma for creative school
leaders. Paper presented at the ACEA International
Conference held in Sydney July.
Laws, K. & McLeod, R. J. (1996) Assisting educational institutions
to become better learning organisations: some preliminary
findings. Paper presented at the Second Australia and New
Zealand Systems Conference Learning through Systems
Thinking. Monash University Melboume.
Laws, K. & McLeod, R. J. (1997) Assisting schools to become
better Learning Organisations: some suggested
methodologies. Paper presented at the Third Australia
and New Zealand Systems Conference held at the University
of Queensland (October 1-4).
Laws, K. & McLeod, R. J. (1998) Schools, organisational learning
and the use of “learning histories”: Some research results.
Paper presented at the 4th Annual Australia and New Zealand
Systems Conference held at the University of Western
Sydney. October 7-10.
Laws, K. & McLeod, R. J. (1998) Schools, organisational leaning
and the use of “learning histories”: Some research results.
Paper presented at the 4th Annual Australia and New Zealand
Systems Conference held at the University of Western
Sydney. October 7-10.
Laws, K. & McLeod, R. J. (1999) Schools, Organisational Learning
and the use of “scenario analysis”: some research findings.
Paper presented at the Fifth Australia and New Zealand Systems
Conference held at Wellington New Zealand 1999
(July 20-23 1999).
Laws, K. & McLeod, R.J. (2000) Cultural change in organisations
using the leaming organisation methodology of “scenario analysis”:
some research findings. Paper presented at the Sixth Australia
and New Zealand Systems Conference held at Deakin University
Geelong Victoria (November 8-10 2000).
Marquardt, M. & Reynolds, A. (1994) Global leaming organisations.
New Y ork: Irwin.
Marshak, D. (1996) The emotional experience of school change:
Resistance, loss, and grief. NASSP Bulletin. Vol.80.
No.577. pp.72-78.
Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and personality. New Y ork: Harper.
McGill, M., Slocum, J. & Lei, D. (1992) Management practices in
learning organisations. Organisational Dynamics. V ol.21.
Summer. pp.5-17.
McGregor, D. (1960) The human side of enterprise. New Y ork:
McGraw Hill.
McLeod, R. J. (1997) The Management of change. Business Studies
Review. Vol.3. No.2. pp.1-7.
Meen, D. E. & Keough, J. (1992) Creating a learning organisation.
The McKinsey Quarterly. Vol.1. pp.58-81.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning. New
Y ork: The Free Press.
Morecroft, D. W. & Sterman, J. D. (1994) (Ed's.) Modelling for
learning organisations. Portland Oregon: Productivity Press.
Naman, J. L. & Slevin, D. P. (1993) Entrepreneurship and the concept
of fit: a model and empirical test. Strategic Management
Journal. Vol.14. No.2. pp.135-152.
Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. and Gould, J. M. (1995) Understanding
organisations as learning systems. Sloan Management
Review. Vol. 36. pp.73-85.
Ogilvy, J. (1996) Education and the community: four scenarios for
the future of public education. Deeper News, E-Mail version.
Robinson, T., Clemson, B. & Keating, C. (1997) Development of high
organisational learning units. The Leaming Organisation.
Vol.4 No.5. pp.228-234.
Roth, G. L. & Kleiner, A. (1995) Learning about organisational
learning. Paper prepared for the MIT Centre for
Organisational Learning. Cambridge, MA.
Schein, E. H. (1993) On dialogue, culture, and organisational
leaming. Organisational Dynamics. Vol. 22. No.2. pp. 40-51.
Schlechty, P. C. (1997) Inventing better schools. An action plan for
educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Senge, P. (1990a) The fifth discipline: The art and practice of
the learning organisation. Milsons Point, US: Random House.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994) Building community in schools.
Califomia: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Slater, S. F. & Narver, J. C. (1995) Market orientation and the
learning organisation. Jounal of Marketing.Vol.59. July.
pp.63-74.
Sykes, H. B. & Block, Z. (1989) Corporate venturing obstacles
sources and solutions. Journal of British Venturing. Vol.4.
No.3. pp.159-167.
Tatsuoka, M. M. (1968) Mathematical models in the behavioural and
social; sciences. In D. K. Whita (Ed.). Handbook of
measurement and assessment in behavioural sciences.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. L. & Griffin, R. W. (1993) Towards a
theory of organisational creativity. Academy of Management
Review. Vol.18. No.2. pp.193-321.
Back to the Top
