Organisational Culture and Structure of a School - Report Example

Assignment Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………..3  Organisational Structure on Change……………………………………4  Organisational Culture on Change……………………………………...5  Does the culture and structure of a School Allow Change or Introduce Boundaries……………………………....................……………………6 Comparison of 3 Change Models………………………………………9  Applying a Change Model within a School………..………………….10  Conclusions …………………………………..………………………..14 Recommendation…………………………...………………………….15 Reference List…………………………………………………………16  Introduction In the modern business world, it is essential to understand the concept of organisational change as both the process used to change an organisation’s structure and culture as well as the effects of the changes on the organization (Parish et al 2009). The change itself is also complex and can occur over a wide range in the internal and external environments of an organisation and also over distinct time durations or over long, continuous periods (Jaskyte and Dressier 2010). Changes tend to occur both in the internal and external environment of an organisation and this means that it has to adapt frequently to any shifts in its environment in order to be able to survive the highly competitive world (Mitut, 2011). Any organisation is typically made up of a vision for the future, a mission for the present and a shared history. This combination of shared values, beliefs and norms constitute organisational culture. On the other hand, an organisational structure defines the hierarchy through which the organisation is run, typically constituted of the reporting channel, and is designed towards achieving organisational goals. These two are inextricably linked in the sense that the organisational culture is developed around the organisational structure, and changing the structure will require the culture to be changed (Parish et al 2009). It is through making changes a part of an organisation’s strategy that it can be able to achieve its mission and this helps through making sure that the organisation is able to deal with any changes comfortably as a result of strategies that are focused (Nag et al, 2007). From that perspective, this report will explore the effects, whether positive or inhibitive, of organisational culture and structure on change, aided by the critique of two theories on change models and then applied to an academic organisation. This report will attempt to look into how an academic organisation has to conform to change to enable the best results for staff and students as well as making a recommendation about how change may be implemented in the future. Organisational Structure on Change According to McLean (2010), an effective culture is a critical factor of change because it stipulates where the authority to make decisions within the organisation lies by setting forth responsibility levels and implementing communication networks. As the system that defines an organisations hierarchy, an organisational structure identifies all jobs and the functions associated with it as well as where that job reports to within the hierarchy (Yang et al 2009). Since the structure was designed, implemented and developed over time to determine organisational operations towards achieving goals and future growth, changes to it will always be difficult to implement because they will also be centered around several factors. The organisational structure impacts on the process of making decisions, the decision maker’s ability to decide and implement changes, the decision maker’s strategic responsibilities and their ability to make restructuring simple and acceptable (Jackson 2013). A CEO is the highest-ranking manager in a company, most are offered near-total autonomy in handling the day-to-day affairs of their organisations and all staff members work under their authority (Wetfeet 2015). Decision making will vary depending on the size or status of an organisation. This, as explained by Frank et al (2010), is because large businesses are mostly characterised by tall organisational structures that feature multiple layers of management while small business mostly have flat organisational structures that feature a single or two layers of management. Therefore, when it comes to implementing organisational change, these structures will have different impacts on their companies in terms of decision making, flexibility, strategy, and restructuring (Egelhoff et al 2013). According to Coryn et al (2011), neither the tall nor flat structures can facilitate or provide all organisations with the most appropriate means of implementing change. Rather, both have their own advantages and disadvantages in either inhibiting or promoting change. While the tall structure features a complex hierarchy with high potential of distorting communication, the flat structure falls short of the flexibility necessary to handle the effects of change. Coryn et al (2011) went on to explain that the tall structure does not facilitate open and cross-boundary communications, which creates a gap between senior management and employees, but nevertheless has sufficient resources and personnel to provide resiliency. Hierarchical structures that assume unequal power distribution will often feature change management strategies directed from top to bottom (Lehman et al 2007). Further, because members view unequal power distribution as a natural order, they will take on different roles in the change process with the possibility of slowing procedures due to poor coordination (Coryn et al 2011). Organisational Culture on Change  Studies have shown that culture has more implications than structure when viewed from the perspective of organisational change (Stachowiak 2010). Members of an organisation will be more prone to embrace change only in situations where the organisational culture is aligned with its goals and mission (Dawes and Prefontaine 2009). If the culture supports both operational and strategic goals, it will promote not only change but also differentiation. On the contrary, if it is in opposition to operations and strategies, it will inhibit change (Locock et al 2008). Therefore, through its symbols, norms, values and assumptions, organisational culture will determine the way in which reality is perceived within and around the organisation by its members and how it may be changed (Janicijevic 2012). From this observation, the author deduces that organisational culture impacts on organisational change and that the efficiency of the change process is promoted when organisational culture is matched to change strategy. Authoritarian cultures, such as the Military or Academic Institutions, will also be an indication that change will be a directive from the top of the hierarchy, with the rest of the members simply implementing (Heinzmann and Mand, D 2014). In contrast, democratic cultures are more focused on the need of equal distribution of power, which makes them participative and more accommodating to change (Stein and Valters 2012). Since change management strategies generally flow from the bottom to the top, the senior management will mostly guide change and provide resources, implying that the agents of change are spread within the entire organisation. This has the potential of promoting change, however, only if the strategies are focused on the interests of the customers, or external factors with equal importance as they are on internal factors by mutual agreement between senior management and employees (Poole et al 2011). According to Tushman, Smith and O’Reilly (2010), another way of looking at the impacts of organisational culture on organisational change is from the perspective of having to change the culture to suit the intended change. Although it has been shown earlier that Dawes and Prefontaine (2009) suggested that change will be more readily acceptable when aligned to organisational culture, there are situations in which the culture needs to align with the change. However, from its very nature and definition, it is not easy to change culture for any other purpose, much less to align it with changing times. Therefore, this relationship between culture and change will inhibit change because it will involve the leadership attempting to shift acceptance from one set of shared values to a new set, ideally meaning members must perceive the organisation differently (Johnson et al 2011). Does the Culture and Structure of an Academic Institution Allow Change or Introduce Boundaries? The Author has found that within the structure and culture of a school, change does not necessarily need to run from the top to the bottom and may be initiated at any level in which staff or management provide opportunities to improve the institution and outcomes. Therefore, it is imperative for academic institutions to constantly monitor their structure and culture in order to identify areas potentially in need of change and improvement (Balthazard et al 2006). However, it can be seen in this institution that the structures and cultures of such institutions may introduce barriers to change, rather than promoting it, with consequences ranging from loss of massive potential, human resource issues and financial waste. Structurally, the education framework is largely hierarchical, with every layer made up of individuals pursuing different goals and interests from different perspectives, albeit all for the same institution. According to Wiig et al, (2013), this will unavoidably introduce boundaries despite the fact that such a structure was intended to decentralise the running of operations. Essentially, it creates groups with different structures, cultures, policies and practices that ultimately determine whether change will succeed or not. For such a setup, as observed by Weick (2011), there will be at least three sets of intersecting core values apart from the organisational culture and they include individual values, group values and corporate values. These sets of values will also mean that change will be perceived differently by the senior management and the individual parts of the structure with the likely result of approaching the change concept in a piecemeal fashion. This fragmentation of views will hinder rather than promote change. According to Peterson and Behfar (2008), schools, more than any other organisation, characteristically baulk from changes perceived as difficult, cumbersome and inconvenient. This observation is usually the creation of teaching groups, often inward-looking in nature, as seen by the author throughout primary education but also within faculties at the secondary level. This can be explained from the understanding that organisational structures in schools are layered on multiple levels. First there is an individual classroom managed or supervised by one teacher. Then, there are groups of classrooms under the supervision of a head of department, and the complete school structure run by the Senior Leadership Team or head teacher. Externally, government schools were usually grouped into school local authorities however; academy status has seen a shift in focus and has been more aligned to independent schools which report to Boards of Directors. Other categories of schools, for example faith schools, can be overseen by regional authorities or diocese. Then at the top is either a state or national legislation that usually accompanies a ministerial corporate identity (Johnson, Tam & Johnson 2009). While each of these groups may institute changes at their own hierarchical levels, institutional (or organisational) change will present a different and more heightened set of challenges. These numerous structural and cultural levels present the challenge that not all stakeholders will understand and agree to the need and inferences for and of the change and ultimately fail to support or participate in it (Tuell et al 2013). According to the findings of Narine and Persaud (2008), the characteristics and processes indicating successful change are basically described by researchers as needing purpose clarity, information and input from those affected and the deployment of resources to facilitate the transition. However, they also point out that when it comes to schools, the seemingly straightforward needs are blotted out by the organisational structures and culture. This creates groups of participants that are not clear about their roles, impacts and purpose in the entire initiative. Bevan (2011) explains this by saying that the human mind is inherently resistant to change. From the cultural perspective of a shared history, questions abound among the members as to whether they will lose some of their colleagues, way of doing things or even have a new management team with a different vision imposed on them. Clearly, this is one aspect of organisational culture that creates boundaries to change. This situation is aggravated in schools with management teams that view change only as a way of driving growth for a given period rather than long-term strategies to innovate value chains, business models and business processes. In support of this observation, Jackson (2013) points out the fact that school managers fail to see it from the perspective of the functions of management. Comparison of Change Models  Theories on change models have been developed over the years to help organisations understand their positions and not only how they can change for the purpose of improvement, but also how they can manage the change. Two of these include the ADKAR (Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability and Reinforcement) model and Lewin’s change management model. Lewin’s model uses unfreeze-change-freeze concept to relate organisational change to altering the shape of a block of ice (Vogel 2012). Comparing an organisation requiring change to a block of ice that needs to be changed to, say, a cone, Lewin’s model suggests that the present organisational arrangement has to be prepared for change, synonymous to unfreezing the block of ice. Once unfrozen, the iced water is moulded into the desired shape and refrozen, similar to the way and organisation needs to make its changes (mould) and implement (refreeze) them (Nutt and Wilson 2010). The ADKAR model was founded on five sequential and cumulative objectives (Cameron and Quinn 2011). According to Bevan (2011), the ADKAR model has been used to conduct research on a huge number of companies who were in the process of making major change.  The theory of the ADKAR model suggests that change happens on two dimensions: the business dimension (vertical axis) and the people dimension (horizontal axis). Successful change happens when both dimensions of change occur simultaneously (Kiani and Shah 2012).  Comparing the two models, it can be seen that they both require the organisation to be aware of the need of change and prepare for it. Further, both acknowledge that change is a process and, more importantly, prone to resistance and failure. The ADKAR model is disadvantaged when evaluated against the Lewin model because it does not distinguish between step change and incremental change (Daniel and Davis 2009). Both the models, ADKAR and Lewin’s, do not distinguish between the functions and roles of management and leadership. Kiani and Shah (2012) criticised Lewin’s model because unlike the ADKAR, it does not address the needs of the emotional dimension. Lewin’s model is too simplistic by assuming that change will occur in three straight steps. Practically, it is not as straightforward as the model puts it to do away with (unfreeze) organisational structures and cultures and put in new ones. More specifically, transitioning to the change from unfreeze stage poses the greatest challenges because of the uncertainties the unfreeze stage causes (Tushman et al 2010). In order to select which model to apply to the school setting, it is imperative to consider that some members may genuinely be harmed by organisational change, especially those who function best within the status quo (Zell 2003). On the other hand, others will naturally take much longer than is appropriate for the organisation before they recognise the potential benefits they will gain from the change. An organisation can only change when enough people in it change. (Johnson 1998) The leadership and management must foresee such situations and manage them to suit the intended initiative. After consideration it is the view of the author that the five goals associated with the ADKAR model made it the most appropriate to apply to the school setting (Dobrijevic et al 2010). Applying a Change Model within a School In the school context in need of change, structure and culture may be viewed from the perspective of the beliefs and attitudes of individuals comprising the internal and external environments, and the institution itself. It is also important to remember that the school structure, as alluded to previously, is highly hierarchical and requires several layers to be addressed during change. The ADKAR model starts with creating awareness for the need of change to these aspects and initially acts as an enabler for communications from the management and input from stakeholders (Kiani and Shah 2012). First, the teachers, students and other members whose schedules will be affected must be made aware of the need to change. This will address the natural resistance to change and develop the desire to accept it as a necessary move to make things better for the entire community. Once the school begins implementing the change, it will be crucial to develop knowledge on the change as well as the ability to align with a new structure and culture. With its goal orientation, the ADKAR model allows change to be focused on these specific results (Kiani and Shah 2012). The following case is based on our school which was changing from local authority governed to academy status. The decision to convert was taken by the Governors in order to meet significant financial challenges being placed on it aligned with the chance to be fundamentally autonomous in the decision making process. Through its ability to predict changes, management can be able to plan and initiate changes beforehand and this enables it to be the main driver of all change initiatives within the organisation (Zaccaro 2007). Although the change had been in consultation for over a year and subsequently in planning for about six months, no one had anticipated the extra financial difficulties that came up during implementation. Although having carried out a consultation, not all problems had been foreseen and without further consulting the parents and teachers, the Governors and Headteacher arrived at the decision to make the transition without hiring new teachers but, instead, change the duty schedule of the current ones to fit the new setup. Essentially, that meant a change to the organisational structure and culture. Effective managers have to open up lines of communication with employees in order to ensure that resistance to change among them is minimal (Tracy et al 2006). The change to academy status was necessary in order to elevate the standard of the school, but teachers were reluctant towards being given additional roles that included being on duty at break times and lunch times. With full awareness of the issues yet faced with pressure to comply or face the prospect of staying on the same path for many years to come, which could see financial ruin, the Governors needed the Senior Team to adopt a different approach or strategy for change and the Senior Team evaluated options and the ADKAR model would pave the way (Robbins et al 2003). It was imperative for the teaching staff to understand why the change was necessary, and not just for meeting regulatory requirements but even for improving their own portfolios. Once awareness is made of the changes in the industry, teachers will be able to act as willing participants to the change and develop the desire to support the initiative (Weiner et al 2008). According to the ADKAR model, this desire will minimise the fear of loss of jobs and orient staff towards discontent with the current state. The desire will also develop the will to avoid the imminent negative consequences of not enhancing the proposed changes while highlighting hope in the future state of the institution. According to Kiani and Shah (2012), a key feature of ADKAR is its insistence on delivering knowledge on how to change (Kiani and Shah 2012). Therefore, the Board of Directors and the Headteacher will allow the teachers sufficient access to information and also offer training and education on the significance of change. Unlike Lewin’s model which mainly suggests moulding change, this training will put the staff in the right state to accept and embrace change. The knowledge will enable the Governors, subsequently the Board of Directors, to form alliances among the staff with common goals and tie them to proven practices (Kalra 2008). Knowledge and awareness on the need of change are the most significant aspects of the ADKAR model. As change leaders, the Board of Directors and the Headteacher are first able to learn what works for others and what does not, as well as what mistakes to avoid, then pass the knowledge to the affected members (O’Reilly et al 2009). It is imperative for the change leaders to let members know what the future state of the changed organisation promises them. The role of the “knowledge” component in the ADKAR model ensures that teachers and students understand what will remain the same and what will be different after the change, and for what benefits. The first step is to communicate the reasons why the change is necessary, since it will affect traditionally held beliefs and practices within the school community (O’Reilly et al 2009). Class teachers, the Headteacher and the support staff must reach an agreement that they are all working for the common interest of the students, besides the school being a business. In view of the financial constraints, the consequences will include the current teachers and other staff members working longer hours but they must be made to understand that potentially it is only a temporary measure that may well be compensated. The ADKAR model addresses individual matters, which means that different groups of stakeholders within the school setting will be addressed according to their interests (Galbraith 2013). For example, class teachers, headteachers, support staff and students will be placed on the change level that best addresses their positions in the setting. Because their skills and knowledge form the framework that, in turn, shapes the school culture and support the organisational structure, they must be allowed participatory roles in the change process, according to Lawler and Bilson (2004). Once the teachers have information regarding how soon the changes need to happen, its impact on them as individuals and the school as a community and how they will be trained to deal with the changes, implementation can effectively begin (Nicholls and McDermott 2002). Following the ADKAR model of change, it can be established that academic institutions are able to promote a significant change within the organisation and that use of theories or models will not inhibit change (Morrison et al 2006). Conclusion It has been shown that change must be understood from the perspective of organisational change and also the impacts of those changes on the organisation. It is equally important to consider that organisational change is informed by both internal and external factors. It has been shown that an organisation has a future vision, present mission and shared history that make up its culture and that the combination of shared values, beliefs and norms constitute organisational culture. The hierarchy through which it is run is defined by its organisational structure and is typically its reporting channels. With the dynamics of the business world, change is essential in order to survive and benefit from the trends of the environment. However and more importantly, when planning change, the organisation must always consider that culture and structure are linked and will impact on the outcome of their strategies. This is because members will only embrace changes that are aligned with organisational goals and mission, which typically form organisational culture. This implies that when culture supports operational and strategic goals, it promotes both change and differentiation but will inhibit them if it opposes operational and strategic goals. Change strategies also tend to be more successful when they focus on internal factors and external factors with equal importance. Organisational structure also has its own ways of impacting on change. Since it was designed, implemented and developed over time to determine organisational operations towards achieving goals and future growth, changes to it will be difficult to implement because they will also be centred on factors including decision-making. The significance of decision-making as a factor of change is that its process, speed and appropriateness will vary according to the size of the organisation. Even the elaborate tall or flat structures will not provide organisations the most appropriate change strategies, with each presenting different degrees of advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, this research project has shown that organisational culture and structure can inhibit change if they are opposed to operational and strategic goals but promote it if they are aligned with them. Recommendation Although organisational change is a necessity, organisational cultures and structures often pose both hindrances and support to change and, depending on the change model chosen, an organisation can successfully implement and sustain change. After comparing and contrasting the ADKAR model and Lewin’s change management model, it was established that ADKAR was the most suitable to apply to a school setting. With its five goals, a school can create awareness, the desire to change and knowledge on the change as well as use its resources to enhance ability to change. Further, the ADKAR model was suitable because even if it fails to distinguish between step and incremental change, the way in which it is broken down into modules enables it to address its own discrepancies. References Adisan, D & Emir, A 2013, ‘Characteristics of organizational structure of Bosnian and Herzegovianian companies: Economic review’, Journal of Economics and Business, vol. 11, no. 2pp. 1112-1119. Balthazard, P Cooke, R & Potter, R 2006, ‘Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organisation: capturing the behavioral norms that form organisational culture and drive performance’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 21, no. 8, pp. 709-732. Bevan, R 2011, ‘Keeping change on track’, The Journal for Quality & Participation, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 4-9. Cameron, K & Quinn, R 2011a Diagnosing and changing organisational culture: the competing values framework, Addison, Massachusetts. Coryn, C, Noakes, L & Westine, C 2011, ‘A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 199-226. Daniel, L & Davis, R 2009, ‘What makes high-performance teams excel’? Research Technology Management, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 40-45. Dawes, S & Prefontaine, L 2009. ‘Understanding new Models of collaboration for delivering government service’, Communications of the ACM, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 40-48. Egelhoff, W, Wolf, J & Adzic, M 2013, ‘Designing matrix structures to fit MNC strategy’, Global Strategy Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 205-226. Frank, K Zhao, Y & Borman, K 2010, ‘Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organisations’, Sociology of Education, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 148-171. Galbraith, J 2013, ‘Matrix management: structure is the easy part’, People & Strategy, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 6-14. Heinzmann, L & Mand, D 2014, ‘Organizational culture and stages of internationalization: a study in four companies in the Brazilian electrical-metal-mechanical segment’, Brazilian Business Review, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 33-61. Jackson, E 2013, ‘Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most’, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 95-110. Janicijevic, N 2012a, ‘The influence of organisational culture on organisational preferences towards the choice of organisational strategy’, Economic Annals, vol.57, no. 193, pp. 25-51. Jaskyte, K & Dressier, W 2010, ‘Organisational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organisations’, Administration in Social Work, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 23-41. Johnson, G, Whittington, R & Scholes, K 2011, ‘Exploring strategy: text and cases, Prentice, New York. Johnson, L, Tam, B & Johnson, S 2009. ‘Stakeholders’ views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration’, Exceptional Children, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 195-209. Karakas, F 2007, ‘The twenty-first century leader: social artist, spiritual visionary, and cultural innovator’, Global Business & Organisational Excellence, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 44-50. Kiani, A & Shah, M 2012, ‘An application of ADKAR change model for the change of management competencies of school heads’, Journal of Management Science, vo. 8, no. 1, pp. 77-95. Lawler, J & Bilson, A 2004, ‘Towards a more reflexive research aware practice: The influence and potential of professional and team culture’, Social Work & Social Sciences Review, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 52-69. Lehman, W, Creener, J & Simpson, D 2007, ‘Assessing organisational readiness for change’, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 197-209. Locock, L, Dopson, S & Gabbay, J 2008, ‘Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness’, Social Science and Medicine, vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 745-757. McLean, L 2010, ‘Organisational cultures influence on creativity and innovation: a review of the literature and implications for human resource development’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 226-246. Mitut, I. (2011), ‘The Role of Leadership in the Management of Crisis Situations’, Romanian Economic and Business Review, vol6, no. 3, pp. 20-33 Morrison, J, Brown, C & Smit, E 2006, ‘A supportive organisational culture for project management in matrix organisations: a theoretical perspective’, South African Journal of Business Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 39-54. Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C., & Chen, M.J., (2007). ‘What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field’. Strategic Management Journal, vol 28, no 9, pp.935-955. Narine, L & Persaud, 2008, ‘Gaining and maintaining commitment to large-scale change in healthcare organisations’, Health Services Management Resources, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 179-187. Nicholls, D & McDermott, B 2002, ‘Collaboration to innovation: facilitating the introduction of intensive child and adolescent psychiatry treatment teams’, Australasian Psychiatry, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 139-143. Nutt, P & Wilson, D 2010, Handbook of decision making, Wiley, West Sussex. O’Connor E & Fiol C 2006, ‘Creating readiness and involvement’, Physician Executive, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 72-74. O’Reilly, C, Harreld, J & Tushman, M 2009, ‘Organisational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging business opportunities’, California Management Review, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 75-99. Parish, J, Cadwallader, S & Busch, P 2009, ‘Want to, need to, ought to: employee commitment to organisational change’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1114-1121. Peterson, R & Behfar, K 2008, ‘The dynamic relationship between performance feedback, trust, and conflict in groups: a longitudinal study’, Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 92, no. 1-2, pp. 102-112. Poole, D, Ferguson, M & Schwab, A 2011, ‘Managing process innovations in welfare reform technology’, Administration in Social Work, vol. 49, no.1, pp. 101-106. Stachowiak, S 2010, Pathways for change: 6 theories about how policy change happens, Organisational Research Services, Seattle. Robbins, V, Collins, K & Call, J 2003, ‘Evaluating school readiness to implement positive behavioral supports’, Journal of Applied School Psychology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 41-66. Stein, D & Valters, C 2012, Understanding theory of change in international development, The Justice and Security Research Programme, London School of Economics, London. Taplin, D, Clark, H, & Colby, D 2013, Technical papers: a series of papers to support development of theories of change based on practice in the field, The Rockefeller Foundation, New York. Tracy, S.J., Myers, K.K. & Scott, C.W. (2006). ‘Cracking Jokes and Crafting Selves: Sensemaking and Identity Management Among Human Service Workers’. Communications Monographs, vol 73, no 3, pp.283-308. Tuell, J. Heldman, J & Wiig J 2013, Dual status youth-technical assistance workbook, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, Boston. Tushman, M, Smith, W & O’Reilly, C 2010, ‘Organisational designs and innovation streams’, Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1331-1366. Vogel, I 2012, Review of the use of ‘theory of change’ in international development, UK Department of International Development, London. Weick, K 2011, ‘Reflections: change agents as change poets on reconnecting flux and hunches’, Journal of Change Management, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 7-20. Weiner, B, Amick, H & Lee S 2008, ‘Conceptualization and measurement of organisational readiness for change: a review of the literature in health services research and other fields’, Medical Care Review, vol. 65, no. 7, pp. 379-436. Wiig, J, Tuell, J & Heldman, J 2013, Guidebook for juvenile justice & child welfare system coordination and integration, Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps, Boston. Yang, R. Zhuo, X & Yu, H 2009, Organisation theory and management: cases, measurements, and industrial applications, Yeh-Yeh, Taipei. Zell, D 2003, ‘Organisational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 73-96. Bibliography Armenakis, A & Harris, S 2007, ‘Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness’, Journal of Organisational Change Management, vol. 15, no.3, pp. 169-183. Cameron, E & Green, M 2004, Making sense of change management: a complete guide to the models, tools and techniques of organisational change, Kogan, London. Cameron, K & Quinn, R 2009b, Diagnosing and changing organisational culture, Jossey-Bass, California. Deal, T & Kennedy, A 2011, Corporate cultures: the rites and rituals of corporate life, Perseus, New York. Dobrijevic, G, Stanisic, M & Masic, B 2010, ‘Sources of negotiation power: an exploratory study’, South Africa Journal of Business Management, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 35-40. Earl, S, Carden, F & Smutylo, T 2010, Outcome mapping: building learning and reflection into development programs, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa. Fountain, J 2009, The knowledge economy in the information society, John Hopkins University Press, Maryland. Fullan, M 1993, The school as a learning organisation, in Changing forces: probing the depths of educational reform, Falmer, London. Funnell, S & Rogers, P 2011, Purposeful program theory: effective use of theories of change and logic models, Jossey-Bass, California. George, J & Jones, G 2009, Understanding and managing organisational behavior, Pearson, New York. Hofstede, G 2010, Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values, Sage Publications, London. Janicijevic, N 2011b, ‘Methodological approaches in the research of organisational culture’, Economic Annals, vol. 46, no. 189, pp. 69-100. Jones, G 2009, Organisation theory, design, and change, Addison, New York. Kalra, A 2008, Efficient school management and role of principals, APH Publishing, New Delhi. Kayser, K. Walker, D & Demaio, J 2009, ‘Understanding social workers sense of competence within the context of organisational change’, Administration in Social Work, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 1-20. Khademian, A 2002, Working with culture: how the job gets done in public programs, CQ Press, Washington, DC. Khaki, V & Safdar, R 2010, School education improvement practices: the role of head teachers, Oxford University Press, Karachi. Read More