Organisations, which have been developed over decades, embrace dynamic and complex elements and structures. Working in organisations requires leaders, managers and staff members to pay attention to these features in order to understand the organizational life and the way it works. In this paper, a review of the literature related to understanding organisations will be presented while the concepts of, and interrelationships between, organizational culture and change are going to be explored and examined.
Then two common themes growing from the literature will be critiqued, and finally I will draw on my insights from the literature to critique a current change initiative in my organization and reflect on the implication for future practice. UNDERSTANDING ORGANISATIONS Organisations are entities involving a diversity of workforce, cultures, roles, structures with dynamics and complexities within themselves and can be influenced by different factors. Hence, to have some insights into understanding organisations requires a critical scrutiny of that diversity.
Bolman and Deal (2008) recommend four frames for making sense of organisations, namely a structural frame, a human resource frame, a political frame, and a symbolic frame. A frame is deciphered as a mental model, which engages a group of assumptions and ideas (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The structural frame covers rules, roles, goals, policies, technology and environment while the human resource frame centers on needs, skills and relationships between the organisation and its workforce.
The political frame is concerned with power, coalitions of individuals and interest groups embraced by micro-politics in organisation, and the symbolic frame is known as a cultural element of the organisation (Bolman & Deal, 2008). The researchers further point out that thinking about these frames requires individuals to see a big picture of organisations since there is no isolated issue that truly and adequately makes an organisation understandable or manageable (Bolman & Deal, 2008). All the elements of organisations have to be interconnected to each other, in particular for leaders in institutions to be effective.
Cunliffe (2008) suggests that organisations should be thought of as a jigsaw puzzle in which every piece must be fitted together to form the whole picture. Theories provide a lens, and it is much helpful if different lenses are used because such lenses will provide different perspectives on what may be happening in organisations. Cunliffe (2008) stresses that using various lenses will assist individuals widen their understanding of the big picture of organisations. In a similar manner, Busher (2006) presents a similar approach to Bolman and Deal’s (2008) to view and make sense of organisations.
These include the structural; cultural; political; and personal approaches. The approaches respectively focus on organizational systems or processes; construction of meaning for actions of people in groups; power distribution between social groups; and interpretation and viewing of organisations of individuals (Busher, 2006). He also suggests that the main approach to perceive and comprehend educational organization is from a rationalist or from system perspective that stresses what works.
This links to the view that “organisations are real and distinct from the actions, feelings and purpose of people” (Greenfield, 1975, p. 71). The political approach, which includes power and influence, can assist with understanding of organisations. The work by Handy (1993) shows that nature of power and influence are one of key elements that help us better understand institutional life since they are a bridging path linking people of the organisation to its purpose. According to Handy, power and influence create a fine texture of organisations and all interactions.
To elaborate this, Handy (1993) explains that influence is a process, which a person look for in order to modify or change other person’s traits or attitudes, while power is a tool used to influence that person. Another approach that can be relied on when trying to understand organisational life is the evolution of management since it provides multiple ways of understanding organisations. These multiple ways had been divided into two approaches, classical approaches and the more current contemporary approaches (Bateman & Snell, 1999).
The basic approaches cover “systematic management, scientific management, bureaucracy, administrative management, human resource relations, quantitative management, and organisational behavior, while the more contemporary approaches involve system theory, contingency theory, and current and future revolutions” (Bateman & Snell, 1999, p. 37). Organisations learn things and to learn about organisations requires obtaining new knowledge, which can be done by discovering it or emulating the successful practices of others (Yukl, 2002).
Yukl (2002) indicates that discovering knowledge is well achieved in some organisations, but applying it effectively usually fails. Organisations have characteristics of complexity, surprise, deception and ambiguity. For these elements, Bolman and Deal (2008) point out that, in terms of complexity, it is not easy to predict individuals’ behaviour in organisations, particularly in large organisations because such organisations consist of a variety of persons, departments, technologies and goals.
Surprise can occur when people anticipate what will happen, but it is not what they expect. Deception means that mistakes and surprises are hidden and made unseen; and in terms of ambiguity, it is a mixture of complexity, unpredictability and deception that cause the organisations ambiguous. To support these views, the work by Argyris (1993), which involves organisational defensive routines, can expand some insights into organisational settings.
Argyris (1993) notes that government, educational and business organisations share similarities of defensive routines concerning actions or policy. The defensive policies and actions reside in individuals, groups, intergroups or organisations from facing embarrassing and threatening situations, and such routines of employees in organisational settings can, perhaps, result in anti-learning, over protectiveness and anti-productiveness of organisational potentials to learn and develop (Argyris, 1993).
Drawing from the literatures, it is essential for leaders of any organisational agencies to have multiple perspectives, views, frames or lenses in order to guide themselves through their leaderships in organisations because organisations are so complex and ambiguous. CONCEPTS OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGE Organisational Culture Culture has been connected with human beings for generations and individuals have applied it to guide themselves for their day-to-day living. McLeod (2003) states that where there is a group, there is a culture. In this sense, culture and people are tied together wherever they are.
Culture has an abstract meaning and concept while its forces and emotions in societies and organisations are very powerful (Schein, 2010). Cultural forces can assist people to overcome their confusion, anxiety and uncertainty, thus understanding them will help point out their frustrating and mysterious experiences in social and organisational life (Schein, 2010). To support this, Yukl (2002) confirms that a key function of culture is to help individuals understand the environment and identify how to respond to it, and therefore reducing uncertainty, anxiety and confusion.
Culture is described as basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by individuals or groups within organisation, and such aspects are often unspoken and unconsciously operated (Cunliffe, 2008; Stoll & Fink, 2001). It is the taken for granted assumptions, ideas, beliefs and meanings that members of the group or organisation hold as they continue organised activity (Alvesson, 2002; Schein, 2010). In some concepts, culture is referred to norms, values, forms of behaviour, traditions and rituals. However, in the concept of sharing, it has more critical and multiple elements.
Schein (2010) explains that this concept of culture has structural stability, depth, breath, and patterning or integration. These cultural aspects respectively embrace a level of structural stability in the group (identity of group); in terms of depth, it is often unconscious part of a group, which is less manifest and less tangible. Breath is concerned with influences over a group. This means that after it has developed, it covers functions of a group; and in terms of patterning or integration, it binds various characteristics of culture together and put them at a deeper level (Schein, 2010).
It is, perhaps, more concise and manifest if culture is seen through societal and organisational perspectives. In societies, culture is seen as overarching beliefs that endure and only develop gradually over a long time periods and it is not in the sphere of influence of the school leader (Dimmock & Walker, 2002). Societal cultures have a set of dimensions that represent key characteristic values underpinning societies, and such dimensions can be presented in every culture, but at different degrees (Dimmock & Walker, 2002).
Organisational culture is described as the basic assumptions, shared values, and beliefs of organisational members about the routines or activities of the organizations and the interpersonal relationships in those settings (Cunliffe, 2008; Mills, Dye & Mills, 2009; Yukl, 2002). Similarly, organisational culture can be seen as the ‘social glue’ that binds organisations together (Mills et al. , 2009; Prosser, 1999). This view is backed up by Bolman and Deal (2008) who describe culture as the superglue that holds and unites people, and boosts them to accomplish desired ends.
A culture that focuses on reliable, efficient operations without mistakes may reduce members’ encouragement in taking initiative in resolving problems while a culture with strong values for flexibility, learning, and participation can support workforce empowerment (Yukl, 2002). There are different ways of viewing and perceiving culture. One of the most common methods for analysing culture is Schein’s three-level model of culture, namely artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010).
To elaborate these cultural characteristics, he explains that artifacts involve structures and processes that are manifest, feelable, and observable but hard to decipher. The espoused values and beliefs are associated with ideals, goals, aspirations, ideologies and rationalisations while the third level includes unconscious, taken-for-granted values, beliefs that determine thought, feeling, perception and behaviour. In addition, an alternative model of looking at culture is from (Denison, 1990), the four-type model of culture.
The model includes bureaucratic cultures, which focus on consistency, control, reliability to rules and procedures; clan cultures emphasize commitment, involvement and participation; mission cultures are concerned with employees oriented towards accomplishing organisational goals, visions and values; and adaptability cultures centre on flexibility, empowerment and learning. Apart from the models, culture, in some manners, is a source of coercion and domination that are used to control or manage people (Ogbor, 2001).
Peterson and Deal (1998) informs that culture plays a very influential and significant role in any educational setting. In schools, culture is seen as a holistic entity that exists and influences everyone. School culture, in a deeper sense, is shared among teachers with their teaching. Therefore, it is called culture of teaching. By clarifying this view, Hargreaves (1994) describes that culture of teaching consists of beliefs, values, and assumptions of doing things among communities of teachers who had shared common sense to handle similar demands and constraints over decades.
Culture is an axis of organisations and is central to all elements of organisational life because it mirrors thought, feeling and acting, thus comprehending culture of organisations is a fundamental step to move towards effective leadership and management (Alvesson, 2002; Bush & Middlewood, 2003). It is important to note that a strong culture forms a strong organisation (Handy, 1993). It is also essential to point out that the success or the failure of changes within organisations can be depended on the shared values and beliefs of members who would take initiatives when it is about to launch.
If and when culture becomes dysfunctional and it needs to change, then leaders need to manage such cultural change, and if the leaders are not conscious of the cultures, those cultures will, in turn, manage them. Therefore, it is vital to understand cultures if leaders are to bring about change (Schein, 2010). Organisational Change Organisations in the new era of this millennium are different, and the pace of change is much faster. Change needs to exist in order to prepare better for situations (Rowling, 2003).
Change is a movement from the familiar to the unfamiliar; it involves the process of planned or unplanned transformations (Scott, 1999). It concerns learning to do new things, and interaction is the basis for social learning (Fullan, 2001). Change is uncertain, it can lead to unanticipated consequences and unsustainability when too many initiatives are commenced (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Bolman and Deal (2008) integrate change into four frames, and point out that change impacts individuals’ ability to feel effective, valued, and in control. t undermines the existing patterns of roles and relationships, while creates ambiguity as well as uncertainty. Moreover, change can create conflict between winners and losers, and cause loss of meaning for those who involve (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This may imply that careful management and implementation are required to handle change. Organisational change needs some change in the organisation culture and the direct impact from subordinates.
By changing the culture of an organisation, the motivation and behaviour of members in organisations can be indirectly influenced by top management (Yukl, 2002). Additionally, Schein (2004) indicates that changing culture can be difficult, time consuming and anxiety provoking. In the light of this, Hargreaves and Fink (2006) note that it is easy to propose change, but it is much harder to implement and to keep change sustained. Organisational change embraces a complex system, and it rarely functions to maintain individuals without altering roles of those who involve (Bolman & Deal, 2008).
In a further aspect, Piggot-Irvine (2005) tells us that change is a process consisting of illusiveness, complexity and multi-dimension in which people are involved individually or collectively, and in a voluntary, or an involuntary manner. Moreover, change occurs in a non-linear and chaotic ways, it is unpredictable, and things rarely happen the way they were intended (Cameron & Green, 2009; Fullan, 2003). Scott (1999) reveals change exists all around human beings and it is necessary for both individuals and institutions to take part in a continuous adaptation, enhancement and innovation, as this process is ongoing.
It is argued that such process is basically poor managed, thus educational leaders have to find ways in order to create learning environments for change to be achieved (Scott, 1999). In educational settings, like in other organisations, change is also complex since they are typically conservative and resistant to change, when change is put into effect, it often results in defensiveness and superficiality or at short lived pockets of success (Fullan, 1993).
Most changes can be conducted in phases, and some of these are identifying, planning, and considering change in order to conduct (Scott, 1999). The work by Kotter (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008) shows the eight steps found in most successful initiatives of change: 1. Creating a sense of urgency. 2. Pulling together a guiding team with needed skills, credibility, connections, and authority to move things along. 3. Creating an uplifting vision and strategy. 4. Communicating the vision and strategy through a combination of words, deeds, and symbols. . Removing obstacles, or empowering people to move ahead. 6. Producing visible symbols of progress through short term victories. 7. Sticking with the process and refusing to quit when things get tough. 8. Nurturing and shaping a new culture to support the emerging innovative ways. (as cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008. p. 394). A change can sustain if it dives deeply into the fabric of the organisation, from the surface level of materials or artefacts, to beliefs and values, and gradually becomes part of people’s underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010).
Change can result in loss, anxiety and struggle (Fullan, 2001), a significant change in an organisation may cause two conflicting responses as the first one is to hold on to aspects as they were, or to stay with the past while the other one is to ignore the loss and move to the future (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Changes within organisation provoke responses to either technical problems or adaptive difficulties. Dealing with technical problems needs skills and knowledge. For the challenges that cannot be solved in such way, it needs adaptation.
Fullan (2003) notes that leaders play a significant role in helping persons find out what problem is, then such individuals can recognize the importance of change and internalize it. Yukl (2002), however, points out that the most challenging and important responsibilities of leaders of change are to guide and facilitate the process of transforming a major change in an organisation. In the light of this, Yukl (2002) clarifies that individuals in organisations are more likely to resist a key change for the reasons of distrust, possibility of hange, benefit, economic loss, losing status and power, and the reason that change may not be congruent with values and underlying assumptions. This urges leaders of change to be supportive, courageous and self-aware, they have to take the right action at the appropriate time, and they need to form a team with well-thought and clear roles since leaders alone cannot operate change (Cameron & Green, 2009; Yukl, 2002). Leaders or managers connect with people around them, and when they are to lead change, it is their accountability to manage those individuals rather than resources (Fullan, 2001).
In implementing change, it is crucial to consider people’s response (Fullan, 2003), and change agents should have a clear vision and strategy because workforce need to have a vision of a better future that attractive enough to prove the contributions and complexity the change will require (Yukl, 2002). There are further issues and actions to deal with when trying to implement change. Williams (2002) recommends that the implementation requires understanding of how change is perceived and managed in an organisation, it needs greater empowerment of members, broader lateral communication, and it needs to recognize how change has been planned.
In this manner, communication in any change is extremely essential because it provides information or messages to staff members in the change process (Cameron & Green, 2009). Fullan (2001) stresses that open communication, trust, support, job satisfaction and morale have a close interrelationship in implementing change. Moreover, a commitment to communicate with internal and external audiences is crucial for educational leaders to implement changes in schools (Levin, 2008).
THE INTER-RELATIONSHIPS OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE AND CHANGE Organisational culture and change are deeply intertwined as they are brought and embedded in the organisation by various staff members. As mentioned earlier, in order to have organisational change, there is a necessity of some change of cultures or subcultures in that setting (Yukl, 2002; Schein, 2004). Bolman and Deal (2008) reveal that before implementing change, concerned parties must scrutinize and consider the cultural and symbolic effect of change since the meaning of an object or event can be greater powerful than it exists in reality.
Change, in the similarity to culture, occurs around people, its process is ongoing, and therefore change needs individuals to participate in such continuous adaptation and process (Scott, 1999). Culture, in a like manner, exists and grows with groups when they develop beliefs, values, practices and artifacts, which are likely to work, and transferred to new members (Bolman & Deal, 2008; McLeod, 2003; Schein, 2010). In the ultimate pace to operate change initiatives successfully, a new culture is necessary to be developed and shaped to assist the existing innovative ways (Kotter cited in Bolman & Deal, 2008).
Bolman and Deal (2008) and Fullan (2003) agree that changes from the top usually fail if there is no consideration by decision makers for the cultural environment and consequences of their actions. This implies that when implementing changes, decision makers have to be aware of cultures and the likely effects in the process of change. Cultural change happens in different ways, while evolutionary change occurs gradually over time, and the evolutionary change is implicit and unplanned. Some change may or may not be explicit as values, beliefs and norms are changed because of the sudden introduction of new initiatives.
Stoll and Fink (2001), however, points out that other kind of change like the transformative one is explicit and conscious and intentionally centre on bringing about change through adaptation of people’s norms, values, and beliefs. The leaders are to involve in negotiation rather than forcing new or revised initiatives. In this manner, the leaders find themselves as negotiators in order to make a change process functions, and they have to develop strategies and skills to work effectively with individuals and groups to assist them to identify their needs (Rust & Freidus, 2001).
In schools, culture influences most of aspects, including how teachers or staff members dress, talk, and their willingness to change (Fullan, 2003; Peterson & Deal, 1998). It is vital to recognise that school culture is a primary component of any change initiatives in schools. Such a culture may include an isolation that teachers experience, include help and support from leaders and colleagues, and time to study and reflect on their work (Lieberman, 2001). Communication and collaboration among teachers are essential.
In a sense, teachers must be provided time to develop and practice their newfound skills, share expertise, talk with colleagues, and work together in order to make changes (Lieberman, 2001). On the contrary, linking to Bolman and Deal (2008) if these elements of a culture become toxic or dysfunctional, it may bring about unsuccessful change. Moreover, it is the leader’s unique duty to manage cultural change in a way that the group survives in a changing environment (Schein, 2004).
It could be revealed that, from various views and concepts of organisational culture and change, the strong interrelationship between the two seems to be leadership that keeps culture and change on the right track and direction in a changing environment. Leaders of change are required to have a firm capability to monitor and diagnose the health of the culture as Schein (2004) suggests that making a trusting culture for change to be a smooth moving on is crucial if the change is to be internalised and embedded into the underlying beliefs and assumptions of the institutions.
The challenge for the leaders in organisations is how to change elements but maintain the right cultures. This requires an intimate understanding of the organisation’s culture, so that change can be culturally appropriate and therefore accepted and sustained. THEMES Base on information from the literature, two explicit and interrelated themes, organisational complexity and a clear communication that emerge, will be critiqued in the following sections. Organisational complexity
Organisations are complex entities consisting of multi-structures, a diversity of workforce, and functions (Bolman & Deal, 2008). These elements can, more or less, form a strong-interrelated web in organisations. It is clear from the literature that complexity in an organisation can be caused by factors including multi-layers of cultures and organisational structures as indicated by Schein (2010), the three-layer of cultures, artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions, have their distinct and unique aspects that can make organisations complicated and ambiguous.
This is because such levels of culture are less visible or even invisible, and their essence lies in the pattern of basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010). The way things are done may be incomprehensible and inefficient to the new member and change implementation may seem explicit and tempting for a new leader. The effects of culture do not impact only on leadership, but also on organisational performance and on the way members feel about their work and the organisation (Cunliffe, 2008).
It is essential to be aware that the seemingly unimportant artefact, ritual, ceremony can have powerful and significant symbolic meaning (Alvesson, 2002; Bolman & Deal, 2008; Schein, 2010). Linking back to Bolman and Deal’s organisational frames, complexity can arise from such frames. The structural frame embraces multi-elements ranging from organisational size, age, process, environment, goals and strategies to workforce characteristics (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This is to say that these components are associated with one another while creating interrelationships in organisations.
Bolman and Deal (2008) argue that the growth of size and age can cause complexity and problems if it is not congruent with the fine-tuning of roles and relationships. If the structure is overlooked, the organisation often misdirects its energy and resource, and this can lead to more complexities and less well-performances (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This argument can be well supported by Cameron and Green (2009) when they suggest that when designing, or restructuring organisations and cultural change initiatives can be very complicated when a large number of workforce are involved.
This is because such evolutions include too many persons, many layers of routines, fields of focus and several factors that cannot be pre-thought out that can cause individuals to struggle, argue and work their ways to an unpredictable outcome (Cameron & Green, 2009). Therefore, understanding the complexity and a variety of design feasibilities can help create formal prototypes that work for both individuals and collective objectives (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Moreover, the increasing rate of change in organisations needs leaders to be skillful and competent in order to deal with rapid, complex, unpredictable and nonlinear process of change.
Fullan (2001) suggests that leadership must be more sophisticated when the society becomes more complex, while Scott (1999) confirms that for the survival of educational institutions, it is vital for leaders to have capability to manage complexity of change quickly and effectively when its pressures are increasing. Although the change within organisations creates complexity, uncertainty, anxiety and ambiguity, it stimulates and motivates leaders to have cognitive complexity to identify the complex pattern of relationships and develop creative solutions to problems (Yukl, 2002; Williams, 2002).
Yukl (2002) further indentifies that high cognitive complexity enable a leader to see many shades of gray, and be able to identify complex pattern of relationships and predict future events from current trends. Since complexity roots from various factors in organisations, it is vital, or perhaps, crucial for leaders, principles, even teachers to be conscious of such factors. They must recognize the complicated, uncertain, unpredictable and changing situations in order to make consistent decisions on what and when to do next, what direction to lead, and how many opportunities to allow (Levin, 2008).
When these individuals begin to understand how complex process work, they can discharge themselves from overload managing, and begin to think about the different demands they should be fulfilling as leaders who encourage healthy, creative change to emerge (Cameron & Green, 2009). A clear communication Communication in an organisation is as equally important as another elements in forming the organisation that can comprehend, boost, and sustain effective change (Levin, 2008), it can be seen as one of the most requisite tools for leaders to apply in leading organisations to accomplishment.
Schein (2010) argues that leaders of organisations embed and transmit their beliefs, values and assumption to members or colleagues through a clear direction of communication. This argument can be meaningful for its own sense since in reality the key assumptions held by leaders are gotten across by messages. If the message is explicit, staff members will have a clear understanding of such assumptions they are to assimilate in the ongoing daily life of organisations (Schein, 2010).
It is essential for employees in an organisation to hear constantly from the management about the whole picture of the organisation because this can foster them to understand what is happening, and link their work to the broader plan (Cameron & Green, 2009; Levin, 2008). Referring to the viewpoint on communication among teachers of (Lieberman, 2001), it is true, in terms of change implementation, that teachers need times to discuss and share their specialization with their colleagues in order to bring about change.
This is because proposed change requires both internal and external communication if it is to be likely to occur (Levin, 2008). In addition, a major change in any form can provoke complexity, anxiety, and emotional responses when staff members receive ambiguous messages about visions and strategies of organisations (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Cameron & Green, 2009; Yukl, 2002). These effects can create stress and pain for individuals, particularly when there is a prolonged transformation, disruption and relocation (Yukl, 2002).
In this sense, it may be obvious that one approach of dealing with such anguish is to communicate and inform the involved persons with the progress of change, what success, what steps, and what improvements have been initiated and occurred (Mills et al. , 2009; Yukl, 2002). Regarding the approach, Bolman and Deal (2008) may be right for their argument that communications function best when there is a complicated task performed in a turbulent, rapid-changing environment. In this manner, literature drawn from Fullan( 2001) about interconnection of communication, trust and morale expose further signification in change implementation.
This is to reveal that effective leaders of change should have high capability of communication skills with clear direction, while they should not ignore the trust and the morale of the colleagues or people in their organisation (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Cameron & Green, 2009; Moran, 2004; Sergiovanni, 2005). Without trust and without clear direction from the leaders, it is hard to make individuals positively respond to their leading roles and responsibilities in change implementation (Mills et al. 2009; Moran, 2004; Sergiovanni, 2005). Such view is relevant to what pointed out by Yukl (2002) that it is vital and challenging for leaders to be responsive in communicating and facilitating the process of transmitting a major change in an organisation. In other word, leaders need to provide a clear, ongoing communication throughout the process of change. In the sphere of education, however, a clear communication plays a key role in sustaining public confidence.
Levin (2008) emphasizes that it is necessary for schools to provide a wide range of information about its performance to public, and keep public informed about their system performances. This comes to the point that school leaders at all levels must prioritize communication as a prerequisite activity to be conducted because school systems can only fulfill their goals if there is a broadening understanding of and support for their goals, while such support is carried out by effective, bilateral communications in a clear direction (Levin, 2008).
It is clear from the literature that a clear, effective communication is a bridging direction of all effective leadership in organisations, and it is embedded in almost everything that leaders do (Levin, 2008). This needs leaders to be seriously listening to what colleagues, subordinators, and workforce are saying about their ideas, their realities and their concerns in order to motivate, build trust, and create substantive work of improving effective change (Cameron & Green, 2009; Levin, 2008). REFLECTION ON PRACTICE The change initiative
Drawing on insights from the literature, my own context in the Research and Academic Service Office (RASO) in the National University of Laos (NUOL) has some clear issues regarding complexity and communication. As a whole picture, NUOL consists of 11 faculties, eight offices and two centres. This make NUOL complex in its structures and location since all faculties have many departments and units, and most of them are not situated on the same campus. Moreover, its diversity of workforce and students, who are from different parts of the country, from various cultures and ethnic groups, reates even more complexities. According to Bolman & Deal’s four frames, and Schein’s three-level of cultures in the literature, an organisation is complicated due to its multi-structures, staff members with different values, beliefs, and assumptions. In the narrower sense, my context in RASO, which is one of NUOL’s administrative offices, has launched change initiatives since the establishment of office in 2004. The initiatives of change are associated with enhancing roles and duties of research work in NUOL.
These are one of the overarching goals and strategies that NUOL targets to reach. The main roles cover the main areas of building and promoting research capacity and activities, allocating fund to researchers within the NUOL, disseminating research outcomes to the public and related ministries, managing and facilitating academic work. When such fundamental roles were indentified, teams of workforce were selected from faculties and offices to take part in the implementation. Then the initiatives were launched.
Although things were formed between three years (2004 to 2006), the change initiatives did not go smoothly, in fact nearly half of the proposed changes failed. I believe that the reasons for this failure rooted from various factors. First of all, the change initiatives were faced with resistances from most individuals involved. These changes included too many new initiatives that caused the selected persons fear of uncertainty, fear of losing their current status of position, power, benefits or promotion.
Interestingly, if looking back to the literature, it is right that when change consists of too many initiatives, and the change process is not well planned, it is less likely to be achieved (Cameron & Green, 2009; Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Another underlying factor can probably come from a multi-layer of culture in this organisation. To be precise, when the implementation was started, the leading committee and sub-committee in charge of change were not aware of the dynamic aspects of culture that dwelled in this organisation.
Its different values, beliefs and assumptions, which individuals hold, were not shared as a common goal and vision of the organisation; therefore, it is hard for the committees of the change to get their teams’ confidences and their dedicated contribution to the proposed change. It is worth to link back to the literature review. This is when the groups do not have a commitment or an engagement to the basic underlying assumption, values and beliefs in the goals and the visions of the organisation, it is not likely for the implementation of change to carry on in a smooth way (Alvesson, 2002; Cunliffe, 2008; Schein, 2010; Stoll & Fink, 2001).
The ultimate factor was believed to be a lack of clear communication within the leading committee, subcommittee and other related sectors. At the first start, the committees seemed to work collaboratively, the communication and relationships among them and persons involved were going on well and continuous. However, a year later when things began complex, staff members began to be confused of the process, while the weekly meeting were not constant, and the progress of work were not regularly informed.
From the situation, it can infer from the literature that leaders of any change process in an organisation are needed to perform a consistent communicational role to inform the progress, the improvement, the conducted initiatives to their colleagues and staff members in the way that understandable to the group (Mills et al. , 2009; Yukl, 2002). Leaders should not only be responsible for communicating and facilitating the change process, but also demand to be open and honest in order to build confidence and trust for their workforce in implanting change (Carnall, 1995; Mills et al. 2009; Yukl, 2002). Implications for future practice In order for NUOL, particularly for RASO to have experienced sustainability, the initiatives need to primarily consider the structural and symbolic frames Bolman and Dear (2008) suggest. It is essential that both human resource and the culture side of the organisation to be aware of when the change initiatives are to operate. Moreover, the multi-level of culture, artifacts, espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions proposed by Schein (2010) should not be ignored.
NUOL was probably too rapidly trying to establish the change initiatives in its new-established office in order to grasp its goals and strategies, but it failed to analyse and consider the importance of such frames and cultural elements before implementing. In future initiatives, NUOL requires awareness, sensitivity of excessive emotional response and the impact of change that may have on the structural and symbolic elements of the school (Bolman & Deal, 2008; Fullan, 2003). Furthermore, NUOL’s leading committees should take into consideration the clear, constant communication as Levin (2008) mentions.
It is vital for school leaders to see communication as a must-do activity in implementing change so that their goals can be accomplished when there is a widespread understanding, support of their goals (Cameron & Green, 2009; Levin, 2008; Carnall, 1995). Conclusion To conclude, it is essential to understand that culture is the central route of all aspects of organisational life in order to have successful and sustainable implementation of change (Bush & Middlewood, 2003; Schein, 2004; Stoll & Fink, 2001). Change causes emotional responses, and it needs time for people to come to acceptance.
Implementing change in the future will require a focus on the culture layers ranging from the level of artefacts to beliefs and values and eventually through social process that becomes embedded into the underlying beliefs and assumptions the fabric of the organisation or school mentioned by Schein (2010). From my personal perspective, in future initiatives of change, I would aim to be highly aware of such cultural characteristics. I would also attempt to form the firm foundations of trust through relationships over time, Sergiovanni (2005) encourages as the basis for preparing individuals’ readiness for attitudinal change.
REFERENCES
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organisational culture. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: a guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bateman, T. S. & Snell, S. A. (1999). Management: building competitive advantage (4th ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organisations: artistry, choice and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Bush, T. & Middlewood, D. (2003). Leading and managing people in education. London: Paul Chapman. Busher, H. (2006). Understanding educational leadership: people, power and culture. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Cameron, E. & Green, M. (2009). Making sense of change management (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited. Carnall, C. (1995). Managing change in organizations (2nd ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Cunliffe, A. L. (2008). Organizational theory. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Denison, D. R. (1990). Corporate and organizational effectiveness. New York: Wiley. Dimmock, C. & Walker, A. (2002). School leadership in context – societal and organisational cultures. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.). The principles and practice of educational management (pp. 70-85). London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer. Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces – with a vengeance. London: Routledge Falmer. Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In M. Hughes (Ed.), Administering education: international challenges (pp. 71-99). London: Athlone Press of the University of London. Handy, C. (1993). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). London: Clays Ltd and St Ives plc. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2006).
Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press. Lieberman, A. (2001). The professional lives of change agents: what they do and what they know. In F. O. Rust & H. Freidus (Eds.). Guiding school change. (pp.155-162). New York: Teachers College Press. McLeod, L. (2003). Organisational culture and the image of the child. New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 18, 51 – 73. Miller, S. J., Hickson, D. J., & Wilson, A. C. (1999). Decision-making in organizations. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. R. Nord (Eds). Managing organizations. (pp. 43-62). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Mills, J. H., Dye, K., & Mills, A. J. (2009). Understanding organizational change. London: Routledge. Moran, M. T. (2004). Trust matters. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ogbor, J. O. (2001). Critical theory and the hegemony of corporate culture. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14 (6), 590 – 608. Peterson, K. D. & Deal, T. E. (1998).
How leaders influence the culture of schools. Educational leadership, September, 28 – 30. Piggot-Irvine, E. (2002). The action research model used for guiding ICT in schools. Computers in New Zealand Schools, Vol. 14, No.3, pp.9-12. Prosser, J. (Ed.). (1999). School Culture. London: Paul Chapman. Rowling, J. R. (2003). Changing towards excellence. London: Bemorose Shafron(Printers)Ltd. Rust, F. O., & Freidus, H. (Eds.) (2001). Guiding school change. New York. Teachers College Press. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2004). Organisational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Scott, G. (1999). Change matters: making a difference in education and training. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (2001). Changing our schools: linking effectiveness and improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Williams, J. (2002). Professional leadership in schools. London: Kogan Page Limited. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
