Knowledge Area Module 3: Principles of Social Systems

Student: William Molnar: william.molnar@waldenu.edu Student ID !3"#!$3 Speciali%ation: K&'( )eaders*ip +aculty Assessor: Dr. ,anice -arfield: .anice.garfield@waldenu.edu +aculty Mentor: Dr. Wade Smit* wade.smit*@waldenu.edu

Walden /ni0ersity Marc* '12 (!!"

A3S45A64 S3S+ 73'!: 489:5I9S :+ :5-A;I<A4I:;A) A;D S:6IA) S=S49MS

3readt* 4*e purpose of t*is KAM is to identify principles of t*eory relating to t*e art and practice of learning organi%ations. A critical analysis2 according to )udwig 0on 3ertalanffy2 Amitai 9t%ioni2 and Peter Senge2 of comple> organi%ations and t*e relations*ip of general systems t*eory to education pro0ides information on t*e components of organi%ations and e>plains *ow t*e organi%ational model fits t*e field of education. In addition2 t*e ?readt* contains a description of general systems t*eory and its application to education2 including an analysis of differences ?etween open and closed systems and suggestions regarding w*ic* system ?est descri?es t*e education system.

A3S45A64
9D/6 73(7: 6/559;4 59S9A568 I; :5-A;I<A4I:;A) @ S:6IA) S=S49MS K&'( 9D.

Dept* 4*e Dept* section re0iews current literature concerning t*e role of systems t*inAing2 general systems t*eory2 and open and closed systems. An analysis of t*e concept of systems t*inAing as it relates to education2 along wit* t*e general systems t*eory2 is applied to guide sc*ool leaders t*roug* t*e process of organi%ational c*ange. In pro?ing t*e recent literature2 t*e intended outcome is to find strategies to de0elop a ?etter learning en0ironment for students from low& income areas and determine *ow sc*ool leaders can ?etter address social issues as an o?stacle in t*e process of organi%ational c*ange.

A3S45A64 9D/6 7137: P5:+9SSI:;A) P5A64I69 I; K&'( 9D/6A4I:;A) :5-A;I<A4I:; Application 6oncepts learned in t*e 3readt* and Dept* components of t*is KAM are utili%ed to de0elop a PowerPoint demonstration for sc*ool administrators and staff s*owing t*e results of researc* on t*e second law of t*ermodynamics and its correlation to Peter SengeBs fift* discipline Csystems t*inAingD. 4*e PowerPoint will e>plain t*e laws of t*ermodynamics and t*eir use in ?usiness and industry. It will demonstrate t*e use of entropy and organi%ationEdisorgani%ation as laid out in t*e laws of t*ermodynamics. +ollowing t*is2 t*e demonstration will s*ow t*e impact of SengeBs systems t*inAing on ?usiness and industry. 4*e final section will demonstrate *ow t*e laws of t*ermodynamics and t*e fift* discipline can ?e applied in t*e field of education.

BREADTH....................................................................................................................1 SBSF 8310: THEORIES OF ORGANIZATIONAL AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS..........................1

4A3)9 :+ 6:;49;4S

Introduction................................................................................................................................' )earning :rgani%ations..............................................................................................................' W*at Is an :rgani%ationF...........................................................................................................1

Structure o t!e Le"r#$#% Or%"#$&"t$o#...........................................................' Te"( Le"r#$#%................................................................................................) Le"r#$#% D$*"+$,$t$e* $# Or%"#$&"t$o#*.............................................................8 C"-"c$t. to Le"r#..........................................................................................10

Society as an :rgani%ation.......................................................................................................'' Systems 4*eory........................................................................................................................'$

C,o*e/ "#/ O-e# S.*te(*.............................................................................1) T"*0 o Ge#er", S.*te(* T!eor....................................................................11 T!eor. o Hu("# Be!"2$or............................................................................30

Systems 4*inAing.....................................................................................................................(' 4*e +i0e Disciplines................................................................................................................(( 6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange...............................................................................................($ 4*ree Kinds of Power: A 6omparati0e Dimension.................................................................(G
Nor("t$2e 4o5er...........................................................................................3) Coerc$2e 4o5er.............................................................................................38 Re(u#er"t$2e 4o5er.....................................................................................31

4*e 9ducation System as a ;ormati0e :rgani%ational Structure............................................3! Summary..................................................................................................................................31

DE4TH 36 ED7C 8338: C7RRENT RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS........36

Annotated 3i?liograp*y...........................................................................................................3$ )iterature 5e0iew 9ssay..........................................................................................................G!

Sc!oo, "* " S.*te(.......................................................................................)0 Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e $# t!e 8or0 orce.......................................................)3 Or%"#$&"t$o#", Mer%er*.................................................................................)9 Or%"#$&"t$o#", Re",$t....................................................................................)' Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e $# t!e H$%! Sc!oo,....................................................)8 Le"/er*!$- "#/ Or%"#$&"t$o#", C!"#%e.........................................................86

:rgani%ational 6*ange and Sc*ool 5eform............................................................................7G

E#tre-re#eur$", Le"/er*!$-...........................................................................11

ii

Or%"#$&"t$o#", Cu,ture..................................................................................13

:rgani%ational 6*ange in 8ig*er 9ducation..........................................................................."1 Summary.................................................................................................................................."G

A44LICATION...........................................................................................................100 ED7C 8338: 4ROFESSIONAL 4RACTICE IN :;13 ED7CATION ORGANIZATION.........100

Introduction............................................................................................................................'!! 3acAground............................................................................................................................'!! Systems 4*inAing 4*eory......................................................................................................'!' Difficulties in Practicing Systems 4*inAing..........................................................................'!( 4*e Program...........................................................................................................................'!1 Second )aw of 4*ermodynamics..........................................................................................'!$ PowerPoint Demonstration....................................................................................................'!" Summary................................................................................................................................'!"
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................13)

iii

359AD48 S3S+ 73'!: 489:5I9S :+ :5-A;I<A4I:;A) A;D S:6IA) S=S49MS Introduction In t*is component2 I e>amine t*e roles of t*e learning organi%ation and t*e relations*ip of t*e general systems t*eory to t*e pu?lic education system. 4*e 3readt* component contains an analysis and e0aluation of t*e worAs of classical t*eorists )udwig 0on 3ertalanffy2 Amitai 9t%ioni2 and Peter Senge. A comparison and contrast of t*e ma.or t*eoretical concepts of t*ese aut*ors results in a summary of t*e ways in w*ic* t*eir t*eories impact t*e structure of t*e education system. Included in t*e 3readt* component is a discussion of *istorical and contemporary worAs to gi0e a ?road range of perspecti0es. )earning :rgani%ations Senge C'""!D stated t*at learning organi%ations are places Hw*ere people continually e>pand t*eir capacity to create t*e results t*ey truly desire2 w*ere new and e>pansi0e patterns of t*inAing are nurtured2 w*ere collecti0e aspiration is set free2 and w*ere people are continually learning to see t*e w*ole toget*erI Cp. 3D. If t*e mem?ers of an organi%ation worA as a group2 t*ey will direct t*eir efforts toward a s*ared goal or 0ision. It is t*roug* colla?orati0e effort t*at t*ey will continue to stri0e for t*eir 0ision. 4*eir success or failure is not t*e pointJ rat*er2 t*e point is t*at t*ey are worAing toget*er to reac* t*eir desired goal. 4*e ?asic rationale for suc* ?e*a0ior is t*at in situations of rapid c*ange2 only organi%ations t*at are fle>i?le2 adapti0e2 and producti0e will e>cel. +or t*is to *appen2 Senge argued t*at organi%ations need to Hdisco0er *ow to tap into peopleBs commitment and capacity to learn at all le0elsI Cp. 1D. 8e also commented: )earning organi%ations are possi?le ?ecause deep down we are all learners. ;o one *as to teac* an infant to learn. )earning organi%ations are possi?le ?ecause not only is it our nature to learn ?ut we lo0e to learn. :ne could argue t*at t*e entire glo?al ?usiness community is learning to

( learn toget*er2 we are ?ecoming a learning community. Cp. $D. Alt*oug* all people *a0e t*e capacity to learn2 t*e structures in w*ic* t*ey function may not ?e conduci0e to reflection and engagement. +urt*ermore2 people may lacA t*e tools and guiding principles to maAe meaning of t*e situations t*at t*ey face. :rgani%ations t*at e>pand t*eir capacity to ensure t*eir future reKuire t*at t*eir mem?ers e>perience a fundamental s*ift in t*eir mindset. Senge C'""!D e>plained:W*en you asA people a?out w*at it is liAe ?eing part of a great team2 w*at is most striAing is t*e meaningfulness of t*e e>perience. People talA a?out ?eing part of somet*ing larger t*an t*emsel0es2 of ?eing connected2 of ?eing generati0e. It ?ecomes Kuite clear t*at2 for many2 t*eir e>perience as part of truly great teams stand out as singular periods of life li0ed to t*e fullest. Some spend t*e rest of t*eir li0es looAing for ways to recapture t*at spirit. Cp. '3D :rgani%ations nurture new and e>plorati0e patterns of t*inAing2 ?elie0ing t*at indi0iduals s*ould looA at situations or pro?lems from different perspecti0es to find new solutions. 4*e desires of t*e group must ?ecome independent and li?erated2 and people must feel t*at t*ey *a0e c*oices in *ow t*ey intend to ac*ie0e t*eir goal. Sometimes2 t*is reKuires a c*ange in ways of t*inAing. As c*ildren2 people learnJ as adults2 t*ey continue to learn a?out new ideas2 t*oug*ts2 or processes. It is t*roug* t*is colla?orati0e learning organi%ation t*at people e>plore2 e>c*ange2 and ac*ie0e t*e desired goals. 4*e organi%ations t*at succeed will Anow *ow to support peopleBs commitment and t*eir capacity to learn at all le0els. )earning organi%ations are different from traditional and aut*oritarian2 controlling organi%ations. In aut*oritarian2 controlling organi%ations2 t*e Hw*oI is more important t*an t*e Hw*at.I :ne person can determine anot*erBs professional future2 and t*ere is little recourse to t*at determination. 4*e wielding of power o0er ot*ers is t*e essence of an aut*oritarian organi%ation. In aut*oritarian organi%ations2 t*e centrali%ation of aut*ority means t*at t*ose at

3 t*e top of t*e *ierarc*y will ?e far more influential t*an t*ose at t*e ?ottom2 e0en t*oug* ?etter solutions to e>isting pro?lems may actually lie in t*e *ands of t*ose wit* less aut*ority. Senge C'""!D used t*e terms enrollment and commitment to descri?e t*e indi0iduals w*o ?elong to learning organi%ations. 8e felt t*at people must enroll in a 0ision if t*ey truly ?elie0e in it. Systems2 not e>ternal forces or indi0idual mistaAes2 can sometimes precipitate t*eir own pro?lems. In *uman systems2 structure includes t*e perceptions2 goals2 rules2 and norms t*at people use to maAe decisions. Structure2 for e>ample2 produces ?e*a0ior. 4*e organi%ation can *a0e an influence on ?e*a0ior t*at is prompted ?y structure ?ecause t*e students are taug*t t*e goals and norms of t*e organi%ation. Perception2 goals2 and norms in an organi%ation are agreed upon ?y repetition and practice. 6*anging t*e structure can produce different patterns of ?e*a0ior. 3ecause structure in *uman systems includes perceptions2 goals2 rules2 and norms2 redesigning oneBs own decision&maAing ?e*a0iors redesigns t*e system structure. 4*e world does not comprise separate2 unrelated forces2 ?ut people sometimes *a0e difficulty seeing t*e w*ole structure. Systems t*inAing is a conceptual frameworA comprising a ?ody of Anowledge and tools t*at people *a0e de0eloped o0er t*e past $! years to clarify patterns and facilitate an understanding of *ow to c*ange t*ings effecti0ely and wit* t*e least amount of effort. 3asically2 systems t*inAing is a?out finding t*e le0erage points in any system. :ne of SengeBs C'""!D contri?utions to t*e fift* discipline2 or systems t*inAing2 is personal mastery2 t*e discipline of redefining and s*aping a personal 0ision. Personal mastery includes c*anneling energies2 practicing patience2 and seeing reality in a new way. 4*is discipline starts w*en people clarify w*at really matters to t*em and ?egin to seeA t*eir *ig*est aspirations.

1 3ecause of t*e pressure from people in positions of aut*ority2 indi0iduals at t*e lower le0el of an organi%ation feel constrained. Deeply ingrained assumptions2 generali%ations2 or images influence *ow t*ey understand and taAe action in t*e world. Inner reflection can *elp people to identify internal images of t*e world2 ?ring t*ese images to t*e surface2 and *old t*em up to scrutiny. W*en a pro?lem arises2 people often point a finger at ot*ers2 ?ut in order to ?ring a?out effecti0e c*ange2 t*ey need to identify t*e source of t*e pro?lem and reinterpret t*eir 0iews of w*at *appened. 90ery learning organi%ation *as a s*ared 0ision in w*ic* e0eryone is enrolled and committed to ac*ie0ing. 4*is 0ision is one t*at people are compelled to attain for t*eir own as well as t*e organi%ationBs impro0ement. If t*e organi%ation is seeAing a 0ision under t*e prete>t of compliance2 it is sure to fail ?ecause once t*is 0ision is accomplis*ed2 t*ere is not*ing else to attain. 5eal learning gets to t*e *eart of w*at it is to ?e *uman ?ecause it allows people to recreate t*emsel0es. 4*us2 for learning organi%ations2 it is not enoug* merely to sur0i0e. Senge C'""!D commented2 HSur0i0al learning or w*at is more often termed Ladapti0e learningB is important2 indeed it is necessary. 3ut for a learning organi%ation2 Ladapti0e learningB must ?e .oined ?y Lgenerati0e learning2B learning t*at en*ances our capacity to createI Cp. '1D. W*at Is an :rgani%ationF :rgani%ations are systems2 and li0ing organisms are essentially open systems ?ecause t*ey e>c*ange matter wit* t*eir en0ironment C3ertalanffy2 '"#"D. 6on0entional p*ysics and p*ysical c*emistry *a0e dealt wit* closed systems2 w*ic* are isolated from t*eir en0ironment2 and only in recent years *as t*eory included irre0ersi?le processes2 open systems2 and states of diseKuili?rium. P*ysical c*emistry e>plains t*e reactions2 t*eir rates2 and t*e c*emical eKuili?rium e0entually esta?lis*ed in a closed 0essel. 4*e laws of t*ermodynamics apply only to

$ closed systems. In particular2 t*e second principle of t*ermodynamics is t*at in a closed system2 a certain Kuantity2 entropy2 must increase to a ma>imumJ e0entually2 t*e process stops w*en it reac*es a state of eKuili?rium. 4*e second principle states t*at entropy is a measure of pro?a?ility. 4*us2 a closed system tends toward a state of most pro?a?le distri?ution2 for e>ample2 in a mi>ture of red and ?lue glass ?eads or in molecules t*at *a0e different 0elocities. 3ot* are in a state of complete disorder2 so separating all of t*e red ?eads from t*e ?lue ?eads in a closed space2 or placing2 for e>ample2 all fast molecules at a *ig* temperature on t*e rig*t side and all slow ones at a low temperature on t*e left in a closed container is a *ig*ly impro?a?le outcome. W*en applying t*e model of open systems to t*e p*enomena of animal growt*2 it ?ecomes clear t*at t*e t*eory refers not to p*ysical2 ?ut ?iological2 units. 4*e same is true in t*e fields of cy?ernetics and information t*eory2 ?ot* of w*ic* *a0e garnered so muc* recent attention. 90ery li0ing organism is essentially an open system. 4*e c*emical processes wit*in li0ing cells represent t*e fundamental p*enomenon of life: meta?olism. In principle2 t*e con0entional formulations of p*ysics are inapplica?le to t*e li0ing organism open system and steady state2 and one may well suspect t*at many c*aracteristics of li0ing systems t*at are parado>ical in 0iew of t*e laws of p*ysics are a conseKuence of t*is. ;ot only does t*e open system *a0e t*e a?ility to restore its steady state after a distur?ance2 ?ut it also s*ows eKuifinality. In most p*ysical systems2 t*e initial conditions determine t*e final state. +or e>ample2 t*e final concentrations of a c*emical eKuili?rium depend on t*e initial ones. If t*ere is a c*ange in eit*er t*e initial conditions or t*e process2 t*e final state is altered. Mital p*enomena s*ow a different ?e*a0ior in t*at t*e final state may ?e attained from

# different initial conditions and in different ways. Analysis *as s*own t*at closed systems cannot ?e*a0e eKuifinally. 3roadly speaAing2 3ertalanffy C'"G$D identified t*ree aspects of t*e open system t*at are not separa?le in content2 ?ut distinguis*a?le in intention. 4*e first is systems science2 t*e scientific e>ploration and t*eory of systems in t*e 0arious sciences and general systems t*eory as a doctrine of principles applied to all stems. 3ertalanffy stated2 H-eneral systems t*eory is Nt*eO scientific e>ploration of Lw*olesB and Lw*olenessB w*ic* not so long ago2 were considered to ?e metap*ysical notions transcending t*e ?oundaries of scienceI Cp. '$GD. System refers to t*e general c*aracteristics of a large class of entities2 con0entionally treated in different disciplines. 4*e interdisciplinary nature of general systems t*eory pertains to formal or structural communalities a?stracting from t*e Hnature of elements and forces in t*e systemI C3ertalanffy2 '"G$2 p. '$"D2 wit* w*ic* t*e special sciences are concerned. In ot*er words2 system&t*eoretical arguments pertain to and *a0e predicti0e 0alue insofar as general structures are concerned. Similar considerations apply to t*e concept of organi%ation. Atoms2 crystals2 or molecules are organi%ations. In ?iology2 organisms are2 ?y definition2 organi%ed entities. Alt*oug* t*ere is copious data on ?iological organi%ation from ?ioc*emistry2 cytology2 *istology2 and anatomy2 t*ere is no t*eory of ?iological organi%ation2 t*at is2 a conceptual model t*at e>plains t*e empirical facts. 4*e c*aracteristics of an organi%ation2 w*et*er of a li0ing organism or a society2 include t*e concepts of w*oleness2 growt*2 differentiation2 *ierarc*ical order2 dominance2 control2 and competition. Suc* notions do not appear in con0entional p*ysics. Structure of the Learning Organization 9t%ioni C'"#'D defined t*e learning organi%ation as Han organi%ation t*at is continually e>panding its capacity to create its futureI Cp. (D. 8e suggested t*at one s*ould not eKuate formal

G organi%ational acti0ities suc* as regulations and formal communications wit* t*e organi%ation as a w*ole. 9t%ioni referred to social organi%ation as Ha different class of sociological p*enomena2 encompassing all *uman ?e*a0ior t*at is socially regulatedI Cp. 3D. 9t%ioni also stated t*at if organi%ations are to reali%e t*eir goals2 t*ey must continually employ t*e means to do so2 suc* as positi0ely orientating t*e participants to t*e organi%ationsB power. Senge C'""!D argued2 as an introduction to systems t*inAing2 t*at people create t*eir own reality and t*at e0eryone fits into a larger entity called an organi%ation. 8e asserted t*at t*e fift* discipline2 w*ic* *e termed systems thinking2 is t*e cornerstone of any successful learning organi%ation. Systems t*inAing is discussed in more dept* later in t*is paper. Discipline of Team Learning 4*e discipline of team learning ?egins wit* dialogue t*at allows t*e mem?ers to suspend t*eir assumptions2 engage in free&flowing communication to disco0er insig*ts not attaina?le indi0idually2 and recogni%e t*e patterns of interaction in teams t*at undermine learning. Patterns of defensi0eness often are deeply engrained in team operations. /nrecogni%ed or unacAnowledged patterns undermine learning2 ?ut if t*ey are recogni%ed and allowed to surface creati0ely2 t*ey can accelerate learning. 4eam learning is t*e process of aligning and de0eloping t*e capacity to create t*e results t*at t*e mem?ers truly desire. It ?uilds on personal mastery. 4alented teams comprise talented indi0iduals2 ?ut *a0ing a s*ared 0ision and talent are not enoug* to assure t*at t*e team will ac*ie0e its goal. 4*e world is full of teams of talented indi0iduals w*o s*are a 0ision2 yet t*ey fail to learn. People w*o need one anot*er in order to act are ?ecoming t*e Aey learning units in organi%ations. 9ac* indi0idual is an e>pert in a discipline2 a ?ody of t*eory and tec*niKue t*at people must study and master to put into practice. Most people can de0elop proficiency t*roug*

7 practice2 ?ut to practice a discipline2 one must ?ecome a lifelong learner. 4*e more t*at people learn2 t*e more aware t*ey ?ecome of t*eir ignorance. An awareness of oneBs ignorance will aid a person in ?ecoming a team player in t*e team learning process. )earning Disa?ilities in :rgani%ations 4*roug* learning2 people can recreate t*emsel0es2 do somet*ing t*at t*ey could not do pre0iously2 percei0e t*e world and t*eir relations*ip to it2 and e>tend t*eir capacity to ?e part of t*e generati0e process of life. 4*ese components are t*e ?asic meaning of a learning organi%ation2 w*ic* is continually e>panding its capacity to create its future. 8owe0er2 most organi%ations learn poorly. 4*eir design and management2 t*e definitions of peopleBs .o?s2 and t*e way in w*ic* people t*inA and interact *a0e created fundamental learning disa?ilities in organi%ations. /ndetected learning disa?ilities in c*ildren are tragic2 ?ut t*ey are no less tragic in organi%ations. 4*e first step in addressing learning disa?ilities in organi%ations is to identify t*e se0en learning disa?ilities CSenge2 '""!D. I Am My Position: W*en people in organi%ations focus only on t*eir position2 t*ey *a0e little sense of responsi?ility for t*e results produced w*en all positions interact. 4*e 9nemy Is :ut 4*ere: 4*ere is in eac* of us a propensity to find someone or somet*ing outside oursel0es to ?lame w*en t*ings go wrong. Some organi%ations ele0ate t*is propensity to a commandment: 4*ou s*alt always find an e>ternal agent to ?lame. 4*e enemy is out t*ere syndrome is actually a ?y&product of HI am my position2I and t*e nonsystemic ways of looAing at t*e world t*at it fosters. W*en we focus only on our own position2 we do not see *ow our own actions e>tend ?eyond t*e ?oundary of t*at position. 4*e Illusion of 4aAing 6*arge: Managers freKuently proclaim t*e need for taAing c*arge in facing difficult pro?lems. W*at t*is typically means is t*at we s*ould face up to

" difficult issues2 stop waiting for someone else to do somet*ing2 and sol0e pro?lems ?efore t*ey grow into crises. 4*e +i>ation on 90ents: 4*e primary t*reats to our sur0i0al2 ?ot* of our organi%ations and of our societies2 come not from sudden e0ents ?ut from slow2 gradual processesP.t*e erosion of a societyBs pu?lic education system2Presults from slow2 gradual processes. 4*e Para?le of t*e 3oiled +rog: If you place a frog in a pot of ?oiling water2 it will immediately try to scram?le out. 3ut if you place t*e frog in room temperature water2 and donBt scare *im2 *eBll stay put. ;ow2 if t*e pot sits on a *eat source2 and if you gradually turn up t*e temperature2 somet*ing 0ery interesting *appensP.t*e frog will do not*ing. In fact2 *e will s*ow e0ery sign of en.oying *imself. As t*e temperature gradually increases2 t*e frog will ?ecome groggier and groggier2 until it is una?le to clim? out of t*e pot. 4*oug* t*ere is not*ing restraining *im2 t*e frog will sit t*ere and ?oilP?ecause t*e frogBs internal apparatus for sensing t*reats to sur0i0al is geared to sudden c*anges in *is en0ironment2 not to slow2 gradual c*angesP.)earning to see slow2 gradual processes reKuires slowing down our frenetic pace and paying attention to su?tle as well as t*e dramatic. 4*e Delusion of )earning from 9>perience: 4*e most powerful learning comes from direct e>perience. We learn ?est from e>perience ?ut we ne0er directly e>perience t*e conseKuences of many of our most important decisions. 4*e Myt* of t*e Management 4eam: 4*e management team2 t*e collection of confident2 e>perienced managers w*o represent t*e organi%ationBs different functions and areas of e>pertiseP.are supposed to sort out t*e comple> cross&functional issues t*at are critical to t*e organi%ation. 4eams in ?usiness tend to spend t*eir time a0oiding anyt*ing t*at

'! will maAe t*em looA ?ad personally and pretending t*at e0eryone is ?e*ind t*e teamBs collecti0e strategy2 t*us maintaining t*e superficial appearance of a co*esi0e team. Most management teams ?reaA down under pressureP.4*e team may function Kuite well wit* routine issues. 3ut w*en t*ey confront comple> issues t*at may ?e em?arrassing or t*reatening2 t*e LteamnessB seems to go to pot. CArgyris2 as cited in Senge2 '""!2 pp. '7& ($D . People in t*e same system tend to produce similar results. 4*e systems perspecti0e reKuires t*at people looA ?eyond indi0idual mistaAes2 personalities2 e0ents2 or e0en ?ad lucA to understand important pro?lems. 4*ey must looA into t*e underlying structures t*at s*ape indi0idual actions and create t*e conditions w*ere certain types of e0ents ?ecome liAely. Capacity to Learn In a learning organi%ation2 t*e leaders are t*e designers and t*e teac*ers w*o are responsi?le for ?uilding organi%ations t*at allow people to e>pand t*eir capa?ilities to understand comple>ity2 clarify 0ision2 and impro0e s*ared mental models. 4*ey are responsi?le for learning. )earning organi%ations will remain merely a good idea until people taAe a stand for ?uilding suc* organi%ations and inspiring t*eir 0ision. +or Senge C'""!D2 real learning allows people and organi%ations to recreate t*emsel0es. +or a learning organi%ation2 it is not enoug* to sur0i0e. Senge agreed t*at sur0i0al learning2 or adapti0e learning2 is important2 ?ut for a learning organi%ation2 Hadapti0e learning must ?e .oined ?y Lgenerati0e learning2B learning t*at en*ances our capacity to createI Cp. '1D. 8e contended t*at t*e a?ility of t*e systems t*eory to compre*end and address t*e w*ole2 and to e>amine t*e interrelations*ip ?etween and among t*e parts2 is t*e way to integrate t*e fi0e disciplines.

'' People often looA to actions t*at produce impro0ements in a relati0ely s*ort time. 8owe0er2 from a systems perspecti0e2 s*ort&term impro0ements may in0ol0e significant long& term costs. +or e>ample2 cutting ?acA on researc* and design can ?ring KuicA cost sa0ings2 ?ut t*ey also can se0erely damage t*e long&term feasi?ility of an organi%ation. Part of t*e pro?lem is t*e nature of t*e feed?acA pro0ided. Some of it is Nself&Oreinforcing2 wit* small c*anges ?uilding on t*emsel0es. HW*ate0er mo0ement occurs is amplified2 producing more mo0ement in t*e same direction. A small action snow?alls2 wit* more and more and still more of t*e same resem?ling compound interestI CSenge2 '""!2 p. 7'D. Society as an :rgani%ation Almost 3! years ?efore Senge2 9t%ioni C'"#'D tooA a similar approac* to organi%ational structure. In '"#'2 *e defined an organi%ation as a social unit de0oted primarily to t*e attainment of specific goals. In '"#12 *e asserted t*at society is an organi%ation and t*at people are educated ?y organi%ations. Modern society places a *ig* moral 0alue on rationality2 effecti0eness2 and efficiency. 9t%ioni felt t*at modern ci0ili%ation depends on organi%ations as t*e most rational and efficient form of social grouping. 8e 0iewed organi%ations as powerful social tools. :rgani%ations are not a modern in0ention. 4*e p*arao*s of 9gypt used organi%ations to ?uild t*e pyramids2 t*e emperors of 6*ina used organi%ations to construct great irrigation systems2 and t*e first popes created a uni0ersal c*urc* to ser0e a world religion. 9t%ioni C'"#1D stated2 HModern organi%ations *a0e more organi%ations fulfilling a 0ariety of societal and personal needsI Cp. (D. Modern society *as so many organi%ations t*at it reKuires a w*ole tier of second&order organi%ations to organi%e and super0ise t*em. ;ot all t*at en*ances rationality reduces *appiness2 and not all t*at increases *appiness reduces efficiency. :rgani%ations use *uman resources to ac*ie0e t*eir goals2 so t*e less t*at

'( organi%ations alienate t*eir personnel2 t*e more efficient t*e employees ?ecome. 8appiness *eig*tens efficiency in organi%ationsJ inefficient organi%ations cannot sustain a producti0e standard of li0ing2 an ele0ated le0el of culture2 and a democratic society. In many ways2 organi%ational rationality and *uman *appiness are engaged in a sym?iotic relations*ip t*at pro0ides ?enefits to ?ot*. 4*e pro?lem wit* modern organi%ations2 according to 9t%ioni C'"#1D2 is t*at t*ey must construct *uman groupings t*at are as rational as possi?le w*ile producing a minimum of undesira?le side effects and a ma>imum of satisfaction. 9t%ioni noted2 H:rgani%ations are social units deli?erately constructed and reconstructured to seeA specific goals. Sc*ools are an e>ample of an organi%ationI Cp. 3D. :rgani%ations *a0e di0isions of la?or2 power2 and communication responsi?ilities t*at are not random or traditionally patterned. 4*ey are deli?erately planned to en*ance t*e reali%ation of specific goals. :rgani%ations *a0e one or more power centers t*at control t*e concerted efforts of t*e organi%ations and direct t*em toward t*eir goals. 9t%ioni C'"#1D stated: 4*e goals of organi%ations are to pro0ide orientation ?y depicting a future t*at organi%ations want to reali%e. 4*ey set down guidelines for organi%ational acti0ity. -oals ser0e as standards ?y w*ic* mem?ers of an organi%ation and outsiders can assess t*e success of t*e organi%ation2 t*at is2 its effecti0eness and efficiency. Cp. $D 9t%ioni also asserted t*at anot*er goal is t*e state t*at organi%ations attempt to reali%e2 e0en t*oug* t*e attempt may not ?e successful. If t*e goals are reac*ed2 t*ey are assimilated into t*e organi%ations or t*eir en0ironment. 8owe0er2 w*ose image of t*e future does t*e organi%ation pursue: t*at of top e>ecuti0es2 t*e ?oard of directors2 t*e trustees2 or t*e ma.ority of t*e staAe*olders. Actually2 organi%ations do not ascri?e to any of t*ese images. 4*e organi%ational goals are t*e future state t*at organi%ations stri0e to reali%e collecti0ely.

'3 4*ere are two reasons t*at t*e leaders of organi%ations mig*t seeA goals t*at are different from t*e ones t*at t*ey actually pursue. :ne is t*at t*e leaders may ?e unaware of t*e discrepancy ?ecause t*ey are unaware of t*e true situation. 4*e *eads of some sc*ool districts2 particularly t*e superintendents2 recei0e inaccurate information a?out outcomes to t*e districtBs product: its graduates. 4*erefore2 department *eads and staff in t*e field of science2 for e>ample2 mig*t ?elie0e t*at t*eir departments are training future scientists2 w*ereas in practice2 t*ey operate mainly to pro0ide t*e industry wit* fairly capa?le students. 4*e second reason is t*at organi%ational leaders consciously e>press goals t*at are different from t*ose actually pursued ?ecause suc* masAing will ser0e t*e goals t*at t*e organi%ation actually pursues. 4*erefore2 an organi%ation w*ose real goal is to maAe a profit mig*t ?enefit if it can pass as an educational2 nonprofit organi%ation. All organi%ations *a0e a formal2 e>plicitly recogni%ed2 and sometimes legally mandated o?ligation to set t*e initial goals and ensure t*e possi?ility of appropriate amendments. In some organi%ations2 t*e stocA*olders 0ote to set t*e goalsJ in ot*ers2 suc* as education2 t*e mem?ers 0ote. :rgani%ations are meant to ?e effecti0e and efficient social units. 4*e degree to w*ic* an organi%ation reali%es its goals determines its effecti0eness. 4*e efficiency of an organi%ation is measured ?y t*e resources t*at it needs to produce a unit of output. :utput is related2 ?ut not identical2 to t*e organi%ational goals. +or e>ample2 t*e education system produces educated or trained indi0iduals Cits outputD2 ?ut its goal is not t*e output itself ?ut t*e unit of output in a measura?le Kuantity e>pressed in terms of students. 9fficiency increases as costs decrease. 4*e same issue arises w*en measuring efficiency and t*e related concepts of output2 producti0ity2 and costs. It is possi?le to compare *ow muc* it costs to maAe a car in one factory to t*e cost of producing t*e same car in anot*er2 ?ut t*e process ?ecomes 0ague w*en comparing

'1 t*e efficiency of two sc*ools. :ne sc*ool may ?e more efficient t*an anot*er only if it produces t*e same product at a lower cost. 4*is is difficult to esta?lis*. +reKuent measuring in education can distort t*e organi%ational efforts ?ecause as a rule2 some aspects of a sc*oolBs output are more measura?le t*an ot*ers. 8ig* sc*ools2 w*ic* measure t*e Kuality of t*eir curricula ?y t*e num?er of students w*o pass t*e 5egents 9>am in t*e State of ;ew =orA2 find t*at some teac*ers neglect t*e c*aracter de0elopment of t*eir students and2 instead2 spend time preparing t*em for t*e tests. 4*ere are solutions to t*is pro?lem. :rgani%ations do t*eir ?est to recogni%e t*at many measures are far from accurate. Attri?uting too muc* importance to some indicators of organi%ational success and not enoug* importance to ot*ers may distort t*e organi%ationBs goals and undermine t*e 0ery efficiency and effecti0eness t*at t*e organi%ation seeAs. An e>ample of t*e application of general systems t*eory to *uman society is a general model of organi%ation and states Anown as Hiron laws2I w*ic* pertain to any organi%ation. +or e>ample2 t*e Malt*usian law states t*at t*e increase of a population is greater t*an t*at of its resources. 4*is law is applica?le to ur?an areas2 w*ere inner&city sc*ools are una?le to supply t*e resources needed for t*e increased population. 4*ere also is t*e law of optimum si%e of organi%ations2 w*ic* states t*at t*e larger an organi%ation ?ecomes2 t*e longer it taAes for communication to flow t*roug* t*e organi%ation. Depending on t*e nature of t*e organi%ation2 t*is slowdown of communication limits t*e a?ility of t*e organi%ation to grow ?eyond a certain critical si%e. According to t*e law of insta?ility2 many organi%ations are not in a sta?le eKuili?riumJ rat*er2 t*ey *a0e cyclic fluctuations t*at are t*e result of t*e interactions of su?systems.

'$ Systems 4*eory Senge was not t*e first to identify organi%ations as systems. A 8ungarian ?iologist2 )udwig 0on 3ertalanffy2 de0eloped t*e general systems t*eory2 w*ic* was esta?lis*ed as a science in t*e '"$!s. Systems t*eory studies t*e structure and properties of systems in terms of t*e relations*ips from w*ic* new properties or w*oles emerge. Systems t*eory unites t*e t*eoretical principles and concepts of ontology2 science2 p*ysics2 ?iology2 and engineering. 4*e t*eory *as ?een applied in geograp*y2 sociology2 political science2 organi%ational t*eory2 management2 psyc*ot*erapy2 economics2 and more. It is fitting to discuss 3ertalanffyBs general systems t*eory ?ecause it *as made a significant contri?ution to organi%ational t*eory and management2 t*e two foci of t*is paper. 3ertalanffy worAed to identify structural2 ?e*a0ioral2 and de0elopmental features common to particular classes of li0ing organisms. According to )as%lo Cas cited in 3ertalanffy2 '"G$D2 3ertalanffy opened up Somet*ing muc* ?roader and of muc* greater significance t*an a single t*eoryJ *e created a new paradigm for t*e de0elopment of t*eories. 4*ese t*eories are and will ?e system&t*eories2 for t*ey deal wit* systemic p*enomena&organisms2 population2 ecologies2 groups and societies. Cpp. '(&'3D 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D researc* e0ol0ed into t*e general systems t*eory. 8e defines a general system as any t*eoretical system t*at is of interest to more t*an one discipline. 8e ?ased t*is new 0ision of reality on an awareness of t*e essential interrelatedness and interdependence of all p*ysical2 ?iological2 psyc*ological2 social2 or cultural p*enomena. 4*e systems 0iew percei0es t*e world as relations*ips and integrations. Systems are integrated w*oles2 w*ose properties cannot ?e reduced to t*ose of smaller units. Instead of concentrating on ?asic ?uilding ?locAs or su?stances2 t*e systems approac* emp*asi%es t*e principles of organi%ation. 90ery

'# organism is an integrated w*ole and2 t*us2 a li0ing system. In 3ertalanffyBs 0iew2 *uman sur0i0al was t*e paramount purpose for *is de0elopment of t*e general systems t*eory. 3ecause of a lacA of et*ical and ecological criteria for *uman affairs2 people seem to ?e concerned only wit* t*e management of larger profits for a small minority of pri0ileged *umans. 3ertalanffy C'"#"D commented: 4*e need for a general system consciousness was a matter of life and deat*2 not .ust for us ?ut also for all future generations on our planet. 8e ad0ocated a new glo?al morality2 an et*os t*at does not center on indi0idual 0alues alone2 ?ut on t*e adaptation of manAind2 as a glo?al system2 to its new en0ironment. Cp. >>iD Models2 principles2 and laws apply to generali%ed systems or t*eir su?classes2 irrespecti0e of t*eir particular Aind2 t*e nature of t*eir component elements2 and t*e relation or forces ?etween t*em. It seems legitimate to asA for a t*eory2 not of systems of a more or less special Aind2 ?ut of uni0ersal principles applying to systems in general. In t*is way2 3ertalanffy postulated a new discipline called general systems t*eory2 w*ose su?stance is t*e formulation and deri0ation of t*e principles t*at are 0alid for systems2 in general. An organi%ation is a system2 so t*e general systems t*eory is applica?le to it. 6oncepts similar to t*at of an organi%ation are alien to con0entional p*ysicsJ *owe0er2 t*ey appear e0eryw*ere in t*e ?iological2 ?e*a0ioral2 and social sciences2 and t*ey are indispensa?le for dealing wit* li0ing organisms or social groups. A ?asic pro?lem facing modern science is a general t*eory of organi%ation. -eneral systems t*eory is2 in principle2 capa?le of pro0iding definitions for suc* concepts and putting t*em up to Kuantitati0e analysis. -eneral systems t*eory is a general science of w*oleness: '. 4*ere is a general tendency towards integration in t*e 0arious sciences natural and social.

'G (. 3. Suc* integration seems to ?e centered in a general t*eory of systems. Suc* t*eory may ?e an important means of aiming at e>act t*eory in t*e nonp*ysical fields of science. De0eloping unifying principles running 0ertically t*roug* t*e uni0erse of t*e indi0idual sciences2 t*is t*eory ?rings us nearer to t*e goal of t*e unity of science. 4*is can lead to a muc* needed integration in scientific education. C3ertalanffy2 '"#"2 p. 37D

Closed and Open Systems 6on0entional p*ysics deals only wit* closed systems2 meaning t*at t*ey are isolated from t*eir en0ironment. 8owe0er2 some systems are not closed systems simply ?ecause of t*eir nature and definition. 90ery li0ing organism is essentially an open system t*at maintains itself in a so& called steady state. It is only in recent years t*at an e>pansion of p*ysics in order to include open systems *as taAen place. 4*e t*eory of open systems *as s*ed lig*t on many o?scure p*enomena in p*ysics and ?iology and *as led to important general conclusions. 3ertalanffy C'"#"D e>plained: A general model of an Lopen systemB causes a contradiction ?etween t*e t*ermodynamics of li0ing organisms and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics. An open system t*at imports free energy or negati0e entropy from t*e outside can legitimately proceed toward states of increasing order. Cp. $(D

'7 4*e t*eory of open systems deals wit* t*e laws go0erning reactions in closed systems2 w*ic* do not e>c*ange matter wit* t*eir en0ironment. 4*ese laws are solely concerned wit* reactions and steady states e0entually reac*ed in suc* closed systems. 3ertalanffy C'"G$D stated: I t*erefore *ad to ela?orate some principles for reaction Ainetic in open systems and t*ey produced some surprising results. 4*is de0elopment was facilitated during t*e last ($ years ?y an e>pansion of t*ermodynamics2 w*ic* now includes irre0ersi?le processes and open systems in a generali%ed t*ermodynamic approac*. Cp. 11D 4*e ?iop*ysics of open systems is important for t*e simple reason t*at t*e con0entional t*eory of closed systems is not applica?le to li0ing organisms. Suc* studies of open systems *a0e promoted important generali%ations of p*ysical t*eory so t*at including li0ing systems into science *as led to new formulations of p*ysical laws not pre0iously co0ered ?y con0entional p*ysics. 4*ese generali%ations *a0e concerned pro?lems considered ?eyond scientific e>planation and p*ysical laws. 4*e t*eory of open systems teac*es somet*ing completely different. It s*ows t*at an eKuifinal process is always ?ound to occur w*ene0er an open system is approac*ing its steady state following a distur?ance. A li0ing organism2 suc* as an organi%ation2 maintains itself in a state of *ig*est organi%ation in a state of fantastic impro?a?ility. 3ertalanffy C'"G$D commented: 4*e apparent 0iolation of p*ysical laws in t*e animate world disappears wit* t*e generali%ation of t*ermodynamics and its application to open systems. +or in an open system2 we o?ser0e not only entropy production t*roug* irre0ersi?le processes2 ?ut also a transport of entropy2 w*ic* may 0ery well ?e negati0e. W*ile t*e entropy c*ange in a closed system is always a positi0e2 t*e entropy ?alance in an open system can ?e negati0e. +or t*is reason2 a li0ing system in steady state can maintain an impro?a?le state of *ig* organi%ation. It may e0en de0elop and reac* le0els of *ig*er *eterogeneity and organi%ation2 as it *appens in em?ryogenesis and p*ylogenies. Cp. 1#D

'" 3ertalanffy also contended t*at ci0ili%ations are not organisms liAe plants or animals. 4*e concept and model of a system *as ?een central to recent de0elopments in t*e social sciences2 as s*own ?y American functionalism in sociology. Prosaic p*enomena suc* as ur?an de0elopment appear to flow as life cycles and system laws t*at can ?e represented ?y mat*ematical eKuations. Task of General Systems Theory 4*e tasA of t*e general systems t*eory is to study t*e c*aracteristics of general systems and to concentrate on t*ose aspects of reality t*at are inaccessi?le to con0entional scientific treatment: organi%ation2 *ierarc*y2 and competition. Starting wit* t*e formal concept of system as a comple> of interacting components2 and wit* t*e *elp of relati0ely simple mat*ematical met*ods2 one may not only de0elop a?stract t*eorems ?ut also apply t*em successfully to concrete p*enomena Ce.g.2 t*e educational organi%ationD. 5esearc*ers are only at t*e ?eginning of t*is new de0elopment2 and a strict systemati%ation depends on future researc*. 4*e goal of general systems t*eory is clearly circumscri?ed. It aims to ?e a general t*eory of w*oleness of entire systems in w*ic* t*e many 0aria?les interact and w*ose organi%ation produces strong interactions. -eneral systems t*eory does not deal wit* isolated processes2 wit* relations ?etween two or a few 0aria?les2 or wit* linear causal relationsJ t*ese are t*e domain of classical science. Suc* a t*eory ?ecame possi?le only after researc*ers *ad o0ercome mec*anistic pre.udices and *ad a?andoned mec*anistic metap*ysics. 4*e distinction ?etween t*e specific c*aracteristics of open and closed systems plays a special role in general systems t*eory2 w*ose applications range from t*e ?iop*ysics of cellular processes to t*e dynamics of populations2 from t*e pro?lems of fis*eries to t*ose of ?e*a0ioral science2 and from t*e pro?lems of psyc*iatry to t*ose of political and cultural units. -eneral systems t*eory is symptomatic of a

(! c*ange in world0iew: 4*e world is no longer a ?lind play of atoms2 ?ut rat*er a great organi%ation Theory of Human Behavior 4*ere *a0e ?een few attempts to apply general systems t*eory in a narrow sense to t*e t*eory of *uman ?e*a0ior. Personality t*eory is an area of contrasting and contro0ersial t*eories. All t*eories of ?e*a0ior lacA scientific proof2 and t*e general systems t*eory cannot ?e e>pected to pro0ide solutions. 4*e t*eory will *a0e s*own its 0alue if it can open new perspecti0es and 0iewpoints capa?le of e>perimental and practical application. 3ertalanffy C'"#"D2 w*en asAed w*et*er general systems t*eory is essentially a p*ysicalistic simile inapplica?le to psyc*ic p*enomena2 responded: 4*e system concept is a?stract and general enoug* to permit application to entities of w*ate0er denomination. System t*eorists agree t*at t*e concept of LsystemB is not limited to material entities ?ut can ?e applied to any Lw*oleB consisting of interacting components. Cp. '!$D 3ertalanffy C'"#"D also stated t*at in t*e field of p*ilosop*y of *istory2 one mig*t2 per*aps2 speaA of t*eoretical *istory2 admittedly in its ?eginnings. 4*is term e>presses t*e aim of linAing science and t*e *umanities2 particularly t*e social sciences and *istory. 4*e researc* tec*niKues in sociology and *istory are entirely different2 ?ut t*eir o?.ecti0e is essentially t*e same. Sociology is concerned wit* *ow *uman societies are2 w*ereas *istory seeAs to determine *ow societies de0eloped and continue to e0ol0e. -eneral systems t*eory *as contri?uted to t*e e>pansion of scientific t*eory2 *as led to new insig*ts and principles2 and *as identified new pro?lems t*at reKuire furt*er e>perimental or mat*ematical study. 4*e limitations of t*e t*eory and its applications in different fields are e0ident2 ?ut t*e principles are essentially sound.

(' 4*e *ierarc*ical structure of mind de0elopment *as its roots in 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D general systems t*eory. 4*e structure of mind de0elopment can ?e fully grasped from t*e perspecti0e of *is t*eory. 3ertalanffy ?ecame dissatisfied wit* reducti0e e>planations for t*e ?e*a0ior of li0ing organisms. 8is answer to t*ese o?ser0ations was t*at life is primarily a system of self&organi%ation2 a de0elopmental unfolding at progressi0ely *ig*er le0els of differentiation and organi%ed comple>ity. 4*ese w*oles are not reduci?le to t*eir parts ?ecause t*e factor of life depends upon t*e interaction of t*e parts as a systemJ t*erefore2 t*e w*ole is more t*an t*e sum of its parts CSenge2 '""!D. 4*e organi%ation is dynamic2 not static2 and open2 not closed. It searc*es spontaneously and acti0ely for stimulation rat*er t*an waiting passi0ely to respond. It is not difficult to apply 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D t*eory to t*e organi%ational structure of t*e pu?lic education system2 w*ic* is an open system ?y design. 9ducation comprises many parts2 yet t*e w*ole education system is more t*an t*e sum of t*ese parts. Systems t*inAing plays a dominant role in areas ranging from industrial enterprise and armaments to esoteric topics of pure science. Professions and .o?s *a0e appeared as systems design2 systems analysis2 and systems engineering2 to name ?ut a few. Systems 4*inAing Practicing a discipline is different from emulating a model. ;ew management inno0ations are t*e promising practices of leading firmsJ *owe0er2 suc* a description may do more *arm t*an good2 leading to piecemeal copying and catc*&up strategies. Systems t*inAing is t*e fift* discipline ?ecause it integrates t*e ot*er disciplines of a s*ared 0ision2 mental models2 team learning2 and personal mastery2 and fuses t*em into a co*erent ?ody of t*eory and practice. In systems t*inAing2 t*e w*ole can e>ceed t*e sum of its parts. A 0ision wit*out systems t*inAing lacAs t*e deep understanding of t*e forces necessary to mo0e forward.

(( Systems t*inAing integrates t*e disciplines of a s*ared 0ision2 mental models2 team learning2 and personal mastery to reali%e its potential. Mental models identify s*ortcomings in t*e manner in w*ic* people see t*e world. 4eam learning de0elops t*e sAills of people so t*at t*ey can looA for t*e representation t*at lies ?eyond indi0idual perspecti0es. Personal mastery fosters t*e moti0ation of people to learn *ow t*eir actions affect t*e world. Systems t*inAing defines t*e su?tlest aspects of t*e learning organi%ation2 a place w*ere people can disco0er *ow t*ey can create and c*ange t*eir reality. 4*e +i0e Disciplines W*at distinguis*es learning organi%ations from more traditional organi%ations is t*e mastery of certain ?asic disciplines2 or component tec*nologies. 4*e fi0e disciplines t*at Senge C'""!D identified as con0erging in inno0ati0e learning organi%ations are systems t*inAing2 personal mastery2 mental models2 a s*ared 0ision2 and team learning. Senge added t*at people are agents w*o can act upon t*e structures and systems of w*ic* t*ey are a part. 8e asserted t*at all of t*e disciplines are in t*is way Hconcerned wit* a s*ift of mind from seeing parts to seeing w*oles2 from seeing people as *elpless reactors to seeing t*em as acti0e participants in s*aping t*eir reality2 from reacting to t*e present to creating t*e futureI Cp. #"D. I will pro0ide a ?rief e>planation of eac* discipline later in t*is document. :ne of t*e Aey c*allenges in organi%ational management is t*e application of simplistic frameworAs to comple> systems. People *a0e tended to focus on t*e parts rat*er t*an on t*e w*ole2 and in so doing2 t*ey *a0e failed to 0iew t*e organi%ation as a dynamic process. A ?etter appreciation of systems may lead to t*e implementation of more appropriate action. Senge C'""!D asserted2 HWe learn ?est from e>perience ?ut we ne0er directly e>perience t*e conseKuences of many of our most important decisionsI Cp. (3D. People also *a0e tended to t*inA

(3 t*at cause and effect are related. 8owe0er2 an appreciation of systems t*inAing *as led people to recogni%e t*e use of2 and pro?lems wit*2 suc* reinforcing feed?acA. Anot*er Aey aspect of systems t*inAing *as ?een t*e e>tent to w*ic* it in0ol0es delays2 or Hinterruptions in t*e flow of influence w*ic* maAe t*e conseKuences of actions occur graduallyI CSenge2 '""!2 p. 7!D. Along wit* systems t*inAing are t*e ot*er four disciplines mentioned pre0iously. Senge C'""!D 0iewed a discipline as a series of principles and practices t*at people study2 master2 and integrate into t*eir li0es. Senge ?elie0ed t*at t*e fi0e disciplines can ?e approac*ed at one of t*ree le0els: HPractices: w*at you doJ Principles: guiding ideas and insig*tsJ 9ssences: t*e state of ?eing of t*ose wit* *ig* le0els of mastery in t*e disciplineI Cp. 3G3D. 9ac* discipline pro0ides a 0ital dimension2 and eac* is necessary to t*e ot*ers if organi%ations are to learn. +ollowing is a ?rief description of eac* discipline: Personal mastery: Senge C'""!D stated2 H:rgani%ations learn only t*roug* indi0iduals w*o learn. Indi0idual learning does not guarantee organi%ational learning. 3ut wit*out it no organi%ational learning occursI Cp. '3"D. 8e also contended Hpersonal mastery is t*e discipline of continually clarifying and deepening our personal 0ision2 of focusing our energies2 of de0eloping patience2 and of seeing reality o?.ecti0elyI Cp. GD. Personal mastery goes ?eyond competence and sAills2 alt*oug* it in0ol0es t*em. It also goes ?eyond spiritual opening2 alt*oug* it in0ol0es spiritual growt*. Mastery is a special Aind of proficiency. It is not a?out dominance2 ?ut rat*er a?out calling. Mision is 0ocation rat*er t*an .ust a good idea. Personal mastery can ?e 0ery adapta?le in t*e teac*ing field. 4eac*ers are constantly clarifying personal 0isions for t*eir students and focusing on energies ?y constantly moti0ating t*em to learn. 4eac*ers also need to de0elop patience w*en students do not fully grasp t*e concepts t*at t*ey are teac*ing. Mental models: Senge C'""!D asserted t*at t*ese are Hdeeply ingrained assumptions2

(1 generali%ations2 or e0en pictures or images t*at influence *ow we understand t*e world and *ow we taAe actionI Cp. 7D. 4eac*ers are always maAing assumptions a?out w*at students s*ould already Anow and deducing generali%ed statements. 4eac*ers understand *ow to taAe action ?ecause t*ey Anow w*at students need to learn to succeed in t*e world. A s*ared 0ision: Senge C'""!D argued t*at if any one idea a?out leaders*ip *as inspired organi%ations for t*ousands of years2 it is t*e capacity to *a0e a s*ared picture of t*e future. Suc* a 0ision can ?e upliftingJ it can encourage people to e>periment and to ?e inno0ati0e. It can foster a sense of t*e longer term2 somet*ing t*at is fundamental to t*e fift* discipline2 or systems t*inAing. Senge C'""!D also stated: W*en t*ere is a genuine 0isionP2 people e>cel and learn2 not ?ecause t*ey are told to2 ?ut ?ecause t*ey want to. 3ut many leaders *a0e personal 0isions t*at ne0er get translated into s*ared 0isions t*at gal0ani%e an organi%ationP.W*at *as ?een lacAing is a discipline for translating 0ision into s*ared 0ision&&not a LcooA?ooAB ?ut a set of principles and guiding practicesP.4*e practice of s*ared 0ision in0ol0es t*e sAills of uneart*ing s*ared Lpictures of t*e futureB t*at foster genuine commitment and enrollment rat*er t*an compliance. In mastering t*is discipline2 leaders learn t*e counter& producti0eness of trying to dictate a 0ision2 no matter *ow *eartfelt. Cp. "D In education2 0isions e>tend as t*e result of t*e reinforcing process. Increased clarity2 ent*usiasm2 and commitment positi0ely impact ot*ers in t*e organi%ation. As people communicate2 t*e 0ision grows clearer2 and as it ?ecomes clearer2 peopleBs ent*usiasm for its ?enefits grow. 4*ere are limits to growt*2 ?ut ?y de0eloping t*e Aind of mental models descri?ed earlier2 people can significantly impro0e t*e functioning of t*e organi%ation. 4eam learning: Senge 0iewed suc* learning as Ht*e process of aligning and de0eloping t*e capacities of a team to create t*e results its mem?ers truly desireI Cp. (3#D. It ?uilds on personal mastery and s*ared 0ision2 ?ut people also need to ?e a?le to act toget*er. Senge suggested t*at w*en teams learn toget*er2 t*ere are good results for t*e organi%ation.

($ 6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange Almost 3! years after 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D first pu?lication2 Senge C'"""D identified nine c*allenges or forces t*at oppose profound c*ange. 8e ?roAe t*em down into t*ree categories: 6*allenges of Initiating 6*ange: 6*allenge of 6ontrol o0er :neBs 4ime: t*e c*allenge of finding enoug* time to de0ote to reflection and practice. 6*allenge of InadeKuate 6oac*ing2 -uidance and Support: t*e support needed for inno0ation wit*in groups and of ultimately de0eloping internal resources for ?uilding capacity to c*ange. 6*allenge of 5ele0ance: maAing a case for c*angeJ articulating an appropriate ?usiness focus and s*owing w*y new efforts suc* as de0eloping learning capa?ilities are rele0ant for ?usiness goals. 6*allenge of )eaders*ip 6larity and 6onsistency: pre0enting a mismatc* ?etween ?e*a0iors and espoused 0alues2 especially for t*ose c*ampioning c*ange. 6*allenge of +ear and An>iety: getting ?eyond t*e feeling t*at t*is is a waste of time or t*at t*ings are out of control. 6*allenge of negati0e Assessment of Progress: t*e lacA of connection ?etween t*e traditional ways of measuring success2 ?ot* metrics and time *ori%on and t*e ac*ie0ement of a pilot group. 6*allenge of t*e Pre0ailing -o0ernance Structure: t*e conflict of pilot groups seeAing greater autonomy and managers concerned a?out greater autonomy leading to c*aos and internal fragmentation.

(# 6*allenge of Diffusion: w*en people cannot easily transfer Anowledge across organi%ational ?oundaries2 maAing it difficult to ?uild on eac* ot*erBs success around t*e system. 6*allenge of Strategy and Purpose: t*e c*allenge of re0itali%ing and ret*inAing t*e organi%ationBs intended ?usiness focus2 its contri?ution to t*e community and its identity. Cpp. (G&31D Senge C'"""D also stated: In ?usiness today2 t*e worA HleaderI *as ?ecome a synonym for top manager. W*en people talA a?out Lde0eloping leadersB t*ey mean de0eloping prospecti0e top managers. W*en t*ey asA Lw*at do t*e leaders t*inAFB t*ey are asAing a?out t*e 0iew of top managers. 4*ere are two pro?lems wit* t*is. +irst2 it implies t*at t*ose w*o are not in top management positions are not leaders. 4*ey mig*t aspire to L?ecomeB leaders2 ?ut t*ey do not Lget t*ereB until t*ey reac* a senior management position of aut*ority. In education2 a teac*er must go t*roug* t*e ranAs to ?ecome a ?uilding administrator and t*en a district administrator. Second2 it lea0es us wit* no real definition of leaders*ip. If leaders*ip is simply a position in t*e *ierarc*y2 t*en2 in effect2 t*ere is no independent definition of leaders*ip. We ?elie0e2 specifically2 t*at leaders*ip actually grows from t*e capacity to *old creati0e tensionJ t*e energy generated w*en people articulate a 0ision and tell t*e trut* a?out current reality. Cp. '$D If top management in organi%ations *as limited power2 w*y do people in organi%ations continue to cling to t*e ?elief t*at only t*e top can dri0e c*angeF 4*is ?elief *olds t*e top management responsi?le for c*ange. Alt*oug* t*at 0iew mig*t ?e disempowering on one le0el2 it pro0ides a con0enient strategy if t*e real goal is to preser0e t*e status Kuo. :nly top management can implement different types of c*ange2 suc* as reorgani%ing or creating a new corporate strategy. Senge C'"""D asserted2 H)eaders are people w*o LwalA a*ead2B people genuinely committed to deep c*anges in t*em and in t*eir organi%ation. 4*ey naturally influence ot*ers t*roug* t*eir credi?ility2 capa?ility2 and commitment. And t*ey come in many s*apes2 si%es2 and positionsI Cp. '"D.

(G Three inds of !o"er# $ Comparative Dimension In '"#'2 9t%ioni defined power as An actorBs a?ility to induce or influence anot*er actor to carry out *is directi0e or any ot*er norms *e supports. In organi%ations2 enforcing t*e collecti0ity norms is liAely to ?e a condition determining t*e power&*olderBs access to t*e means of power. Cp. $D People in positions of power regularly *a0e access to t*e means of t*at power2 for e>ample2 principals *a0e access to sc*ool superintendents. Power 0aries according to t*e p*ysical2 material2 or sym?olic means employed to maAe t*e su?ordinates2 t*e educators in t*e education system as one e>ample2 comply. 4*ere are t*ree types of power: normati0e2 coerci0e2 and remunerati0e. ;ormati0e power relies on t*e allocation and manipulation of sym?olic rewards and depri0ation t*roug* t*e employment of leaders2 t*e manipulation of t*e mass media2 t*e allocation of esteem and prestige sym?ols2 t*e administration of ritual2 and t*e distri?ution of acceptance and positi0e response. In coerci0e power2 t*e power rests on t*e application or t*reat of coercion2 or on suc* p*ysical sanctions as t*e infliction of pain2 deformity2 or deat*. 5emunerati0e power is t*e control o0er material resources and rewards t*roug* salaries and wages2 commissions and contri?utions2 and fringe ?enefits. C9t%ioni2 '"#'2 p $D %ormative !o"er 9ducation is a normati0e power. 4*ere are two Ainds of normati0e power. :ne is ?ased on t*e manipulation of esteem2 prestige2 and ritualistic sym?olsJ t*e ot*er is ?ased on t*e allocation and manipulation of acceptance and positi0e response. 9t%ioni C'"#'D referred to t*e first Aind as pure normati0e power and t*e second as social power. Pure normati0e power is more useful to t*e organi%ation ?ecause it follows directly along t*e *ierarc*y. Social power ?ecomes organi%ational power only w*en t*e organi%ation can influence t*e groupBs powers2 suc* as w*en a teac*er uses t*e class climate to control a de0iant c*ild. Most organi%ations tend to emp*asi%e only one means of power and rely less on t*e ot*er two. Applying force2 for

(7 instance2 usually results in so muc* alienation t*at t*e successful application of normati0e power ?ecomes impossi?le. 4*is is one of t*e reasons teac*ers in progressi0e sc*ools oppose corporal punis*ment. :rgani%ations must continually encourage t*e positi0e orientation of t*e participants to t*e organi%ational power if t*ey are to reali%e t*eir goals. 4*ere are t*ree %ones along t*e in0ol0ement continuum: support C*ig* alienation %oneD2 morale C*ig* commitment %oneD2 and calculati0e Ctwo mild %onesD. 6ontrolling lower le0el participants is muc* more pro?lematic t*an controlling *ig*er le0el participants ?ecause t*e lower t*e indi0iduals are in t*e organi%ational *ierarc*y2 t*e fewer are t*e rewards t*at t*ey o?tain. 4*eir positions are more depri0ed2 and organi%ational acti0ities *a0e less importance to t*em. W*o are t*e lower le0el participantsF 4*ey can ?e t*e employees w*o reflect different positions on at least t*ree analytical dimensions. :ne is t*e nature of t*eir in0ol0ement in t*e organi%ationJ 4eac*ers fall into t*is category. In inner&city sc*ools2 t*e clients Ci.e.2 studentsD designate teac*ers wit* alimentati0e or calculati0e in0ol0ement. Coercive !o"er 6oerci0e organi%ations use coercion to control t*eir lower&le0el worAers2 and *ig* alienation c*aracteri%es t*e orientation of t*e lower le0el worAers to t*e organi%ation. 4*ese organi%ations use force as t*e ma.or means of control to ensure t*e fulfillment of tasAs. As an e>ample2 teac*ers would not ?e a?le to control many of t*eir students if t*e organi%ation were to remo0e restraints regarding mo0ement in t*e sc*ool. In regard to inner&city sc*ools2 t*e second ma.or tasA of t*e education system2 w*ic* is a coerci0e organi%ation2 is to discipline t*e students t*roug* t*e potential for or t*e actual use of force. ,ust as teac*ers can use coercion to control t*e effect of ot*er factors2 suc* as t*e initial alienation t*at students ?ring wit* t*em to t*e

(" sc*ool setting2 one also mig*t e>pect to find *ig*er le0els of alienation in organi%ations w*ose management style applies coercion to control t*e worAers. /tilitarian organi%ations2 or industries2 use remuneration as t*e ma.or way to control lower&le0el participants2 and calculati0e in0ol0ement c*aracteri%es t*e orientation of lower le0el participants C9t%ioni2 '"#'D. Industrial organi%ations can ?e classified as t*ose w*ose lower le0el participants are predominantly ?lue&collar worAers2 w*ite&collar employees2 or professionals. Is education a utilitarian organi%ationF 4*ere are two sc*ools of t*oug*t on t*is: Some t*eorists *a0e suggested t*at education is a utilitarian organi%ation2 ?ut 9t%ioni categori%ed education as a normati0e organi%ation ?ecause in a normati0e organi%ation2 t*e process of de0eloping a normati0e culture in a sc*ool first focuses on t*e 0ision of its leaders2 and t*en aids t*e community to *one a mission t*at is understood and rele0ant at all times to e0ery teac*er2 student2 and parent. 4*e degree to w*ic* t*is mission is e>perienced in e0ery program acti0ity will determine t*e degree to w*ic* a program creates a safe2 caring en0ironment t*at nurtures growt* and2 ultimately2 academic performance. &emunerative !o"er 5emuneration is t*e predominant way for organi%ations to control ?lue&collar worAers. It may not ?e a fundamental factor in determining t*eir orientation to worA in general2 or t*eir c*oice of a particular line of worA2 ?ut it is central in t*eir orientation to particular .o?s and to t*e organi%ation as a control structure. :t*er factors2 including t*eir ?asic 0alues2 degree of unioni%ation2 intrinsic satisfaction from worA2 prestige and esteem deri0ed from t*e worA2 and some social relations on t*e .o?2 also influence worAersB .o? orientation and performance.

3! W*ite&collar worAers suc* as teac*ers are predominantly controlled ?y remunerati0e means2 ?ut less so t*an ?lue&collar worAers. ;ormati0e controls2 alt*oug* secondary2 play a more important role among w*ite&collar employees. 9t%ioni C'"#'D contended t*at normati0e organi%ations are :rgani%ations in w*ic* normati0e power is t*e ma.or source of control o0er lower participants w*ose orientation to t*e organi%ations is c*aracteri%ed ?y *ig* commitment. )eaders*ip2 ritual2 manipulation of social and prestige sym?ols and resociali%ation are among t*e more important tec*niKues of control. Cp. 1!D 4*e 9ducation System as a ;ormati0e :rgani%ational Structure Alt*oug* t*ere are only ( common types of coerci0e organi%ations Ce.g.2 prisons and custodial mental *ospitalsD and ( types of utilitarian organi%ations Ce.g.2 ?lue&collar and w*ite& collar industriesD2 t*ere are at least " types of normati0e organi%ations. +i0e of t*ese organi%ations *a0e a pronounced normati0e pattern and ot*er patterns t*at are relati0ely minor: religious organi%ations2 including c*urc*es2 orders2 and monasteriesJ a su?category of political organi%ations2 w*ic* *a0e a strong ideological programJ general *ospitalsJ uni0ersitiesJ and 0oluntary associations. )ess typical in t*e sense t*at coercion plays an important secondary role2 are sc*ools2 w*ere remuneration plays an important part. 9t%ioni C'"#'D stated: 9ducational organi%ations employ normati0e controls wit* coercion as a secondary source of compliance. ;ormati0e controls in sc*ools include manipulation of prestige sym?ols suc* as *onors2 grades2 and citations2 personal influence of t*e teac*er HtalAsI wit* t*e principal2 scolding and sarcasm demanding apologies and similar means w*ic* are ?ased on appeals to t*e studentBs moral commitments and on manipulation of t*e class or peer groupBs climate of opinion. 6oercion *as declined in significance o0er t*e last decades for modern education de&emp*asi%ed HdisciplineI as a goal and stresses internali%ing of norms. Cp. 1$D ;ormati0e controls are common in elementary sc*ools. A?out *alf of t*e controls manifest as censure2 w*ic* includes scolding2 sarcasm2 demand for an apology2 ridicule2 and

3' similar forms of discipline. Depri0ation2 anot*er means of control2 is normati0e ?ecause it consists of suc* sym?olic punis*ments as sending t*e c*ild to anot*er seat2 or sending *im or *er to t*e corner. Mer?al appeal2 e>planation2 and coercion are ot*er means of control. Sc*ools are not 0oluntary organi%ations. A gap e>ists ?etween t*e acti0ities t*at would fulfill teac*ersB internali%ed need dispositions and t*e acti0ities in w*ic* t*ey must participate. Parents2 truant officers2 police departments2 and ot*er staAe*olders coerce c*ildren w*o attend sc*oolJ sc*ools maAe studentsB participation in desired acti0ities contingent upon adeKuate performance in ot*ers. 8ence2 one mig*t e>pect to find more alienation in sc*ools t*an in typical normati0e organi%ations. In most sc*ools2 a small minority of students reKuire t*e large ma.ority of coerci0e measures t*at sc*ools support. 9t%ioni C'"#'D found t*at #!Q of t*e 12(G! teac*ers w*om 6utts and Mosely Kueried identified less t*an 'Q of t*eir students as trou?lemaAers. Mocational sc*ools were a response to disciplinary pro?lems in students w*o were alienated from regular *ig* sc*ool programs ?ecause of t*eir social ?acAground and career prospects. 3ecause 0ocational sc*ools rarely can accommodate t*eir studentsB needs2 and ?ecause t*eir function often is more custodial t*an educational2 t*ey e>perience *ig*er le0els of alienation t*an do regular sc*ools. Special sc*ools *a0e a *ig* concentration of disciplinary cases. 6oercion plays a more important role in t*ese special sc*ools t*an in ot*er sc*ools. Some ot*er sc*ools regularly *a0e police officers on t*e premises. Wit*in my sc*ool district2 police officers patrol t*e premises of an elementary sc*oolJ in addition2 a special sc*ool Anown as %ero tolerance accepts students w*o *a0e ?een suspended numerous times in order to Hget t*eir act toget*er.I 9t%ioni C'"#1D suggested t*at multipurpose organi%ations tend to ?e more effecti0e t*an single&purpose ones ?ecause ser0ing one goal often impro0es2 al?eit wit*in limits2 t*e ser0ice

3( rendered to anot*er goal. In addition2 multipurpose organi%ations generally *a0e more recruitment appeal t*an single&purpose organi%ations2 in part ?ecause multiple ser0ices and *ig* Kuality often go toget*er. It is difficult to t*inA of many e>amples of single&purpose organi%ations t*at *a0e more prestige t*an t*eir multipurpose counterparts. 4*ere are limits to an organi%ationBs a?ility to meet multipurpose goals. )oss of effecti0eness occurs w*en all organi%ations of a specific category are multipurpose. In professions suc* as teac*ing t*at *a0e a cluster of associated acti0ities2 many of t*e mem?ers prefer to participate in a com?ination of t*ese acti0ities. 5unning an organi%ation as a speciali%ed and essential acti0ity generates pro?lems t*at may not relate to t*e professed or original goals of t*e organi%ation. 4*e day&to&day ?e*a0ior of t*e group t*en ?ecomes centered on specific pro?lems and appro>imate goals t*at *a0e internal rele0ance. 9t%ioni C'"#1D commented: A common succession of goals e>ists w*en t*e ser0ice of t*e old one is *ig*ly unsuccessful lea0ing t*e organi%ation to find a new goal to ser0e if it is to sur0i0e. It is e0en more common for an organi%ation in suc* a situation to set additional goals or e>pand t*e scope of t*eir old ones. In doing t*is2 t*e organi%ation acts to increase t*e dedication of its mem?ers and encourage t*e recruitment of new mem?ers. /ndergraduate colleges o0er t*e last *undred years tooA on t*e goal of graduate training2 a goal t*at is different from t*eir original goal of producing gentlemen w*o could read and write and stay out of .ail. Cp. '3D An organi%ationBs self&interest may lead not only to secondary goals displacing primary goals2 ?ut also to t*e organi%ationBs acti0ely seeAing new goals or acKuiring additional goals. Many organi%ations *a0e two or more goals. Some add more goals to t*e original ones2 ?ut many organi%ations *ad more t*an one goal initially. Many multipurpose organi%ations tend to ser0e eac* of t*eir goals separately2 and all of t*em toget*er more effecti0ely and efficiently t*an single&purpose organi%ations of t*e same category.

33 9t%ioniBs C'"#1D systems model descri?es t*e relations*ips t*at allow organi%ations to operate. 4*ere are two ma.or su?types of systems models. :ne is t*e sur0i0al model2 w*ic* reKuires t*at a set of reKuirements ?e fulfilled to allow t*e system to e>ist. In t*is model2 eac* relations*ip is a prereKuisite for t*e functioning of t*e system. If one of t*em is remo0ed2 t*e system ceases to operate. 4*e second su?type is t*e effecti0eness model2 w*ic* defines a pattern of interrelations among t*e elements of t*e system t*at would maAe it t*e most effecti0e w*en compared to ot*er com?inations of t*e same or similar elements. 4*e sur0i0al model does not record significant c*anges in organi%ational operations2 ?ut only t*at t*e organi%ation is meeting its ?asic reKuirements. 4*e effecti0eness model e0aluates c*anges t*at *a0e occurred in t*e organi%ation and t*eir effect on t*e a?ility of t*e organi%ation to ser0e its goal w*en compared to its earlier state or ot*er organi%ations of its Aind. In classical t*eory2 or scientific management2 t*e worAers are percei0ed as ?eing moti0ated ?y economic rewards2 and t*e organi%ation is c*aracteri%ed ?y a clearly defined di0ision of la?or ?etween *ig*ly speciali%ed personnel and a *ierarc*y of aut*ority. :ut of t*is tradition came t*e c*aracteri%ation of t*e formal organi%ation. In contrast to classical t*eory2 t*e sc*ool of *uman relations emp*asi%ed t*e emotional2 unplanned2 nonrational elements of organi%ational ?e*a0ior. It identifies t*e significance of friends*ip and social groupings of worAers for t*e organi%ation. It also points out t*e importance of leaders*ip in t*e organi%ation and of emotional communication and participation. +rom t*ese o?ser0ations arose t*e de0elopment of t*e concept of informal organi%ation. In t*e structuralist approac*2 comparati0e analysis made a con0ergence of organi%ational t*eory considera?ly more sop*isticated. 4*e earlier sc*ools of t*oug*t focused t*eir attention on factories and pu?lic administration2 and it was only later t*at researc*ers adapted t*eir use to t*e

31 study of ot*er organi%ations. 4*e scope of t*e structuralist approac* was muc* ?roader to ?egin wit* in terms of t*e Ainds of organi%ations and cultural ?acAgrounds considered. Summary 4*e organi%ational systems of 9t%ioni and t*e learning organi%ational c*anges of Senge s*owed *ow organi%ations intertwine and *ow organi%ational systems can affect t*e field of education. I discussed t*e application to organi%ations of 3ertalanffyBs general systems t*eory2 along wit* *is principles of open and closed systems. 4*e leaders*ip c*allenge of t*is era lies in addressing core issues for w*ic* *ierarc*ical aut*ority is inadeKuate. 6ontemporary society is afflicted wit* serious pro?lems2 including en0ironmental degradation2 t*e decline of community and family structures2 and t*e deterioration and ineKuity of t*e pu?lic education system. ;one of t*ese pro?lems resulting from t*e industriali%ation process is easy to address. 4*e primary agents of t*e industriali%ation process are people and t*eir collecti0e decision&maAing process2 mediated t*roug* t*e large institutions of t*e industrial era: corporations2 education systems2 and go0ernmental institutions. I ?elie0e t*at t*ese institutions will gradually redisco0er *ow t*e natural world operates and will t*en ?egin to understand *ow to reorient institutions to em?ody t*is Anowledge.

D9P48 9D/6 73(7: 6/559;4 59S9A568 I; :5-A;I<A4I:;S A;D S:6IA) S=S49MS Annotated 3i?liograp*y Aw?rey2 S. M. C(!!1D. -eneral education reform and organi%ational c*ange: Integrating cultural and structural c*ange. 'ournal of General (ducation) *+C'D2 '&('. Summary 4*e role of culture in organi%ations *as fascinated researc*ers w*o *a0e studied t*e life of t*e organi%ation as well as t*e effecti0eness of t*e organi%ation. 4*ere is no specific definition of organi%ational culture ?ecause culture consists of deeply em?edded patterns of organi%ational ?e*a0ior and t*e s*ared 0alues2 assumptions2 ?eliefs2 or ideologies of t*e mem?ers a?out t*e organi%ations or its worA. In ot*er words2 culture is t*e way in w*ic* t*e organi%ationBs mem?ers enact t*eir s*ared perceptions of reality. :rgani%ational culture gi0es t*e mem?ers a way of understanding and maAing sense of e0ents and sym?ols. :rgani%ational culture is powerful in guiding organi%ational ?e*a0ior. )earning wit*in organi%ations *as ?een studied e>tensi0ely2 and researc*ers *a0e agreed t*at t*ere are le0els of organi%ational learning. 6*ange t*at e>tends only to t*e formal operational le0el usually is s*ort&li0ed. Sometimes2 c*ange is transformati0e in t*at it alters t*e structure of t*e organi%ation and t*e way in w*ic* it is conceptuali%ed ?y its mem?ers. As mem?ers of t*e organi%ation reac* deeper le0els of learning2 t*ey are more open to self& e>amination2 and t*e c*ange t*ey initiate ?ecomes more sustaina?le ?ecause it is em?edded in t*e culture t*roug* dialogue. In t*is 0iew2 culture is not somet*ing an organi%ation hasJ rat*er2 it is somet*ing an organi%ation is. 6ultural inKuiry *elps t*ose in0ol0ed in reform to recogni%e t*at resistance can also e>ist as a group p*enomenon and t*at it can operate ?elow t*e le0el of

3# conscious awareness resulting in w*at is termed organizational defense mechanisms2 w*ic* can manifest as re.ection2 procrastination2 indecision2 sa?otage2 and regression. Critical $nalysis 4*e study conducted ?y Aw?rey pro0ided details regarding t*e application of t*e t*ree& le0el model to illustrate *ow academic culture interacts wit* c*ange initiati0es suc* as general education reform. Aw?rey also illustrated *ow deeper le0els of cultural c*ange may ?e ac*ie0ed ?y e>amining t*e 0alues2 ?eliefs2 and assumptions of t*e reformers as well as t*eir decisions a?out general education. 4*e ma.ority of t*e article discussed t*e impediment to effecti0e organi%ational c*ange and general education reform. :nly a small portion of it discussed t*e t*ree&le0el model of c*ange initiati0es. More researc* needs to ?e implemented to 0alidate t*e aut*orBs conclusions. &elevance 4*e article pro0ided a pleasant approac* to *elping administrators maAe reforms and organi%ational c*ange to general education. -i0en t*e nature of organi%ational culture2 faculty and administrators form a useful picture of institutional culture. 4*is article was ?ased on decades of researc*2 culminating in one of t*e most useful models for cultural inKuiry. 4*e model presented in t*e article s*owed *ow academic culture interacts wit* c*ange initiati0es and encourages reformers to systematically un0eil cultural perspecti0es prior to undertaAing any discussion of structural c*ange. Administrators may ?enefit from t*is article2 w*ic* offered information on *ow to undertaAe cultural inKuiry and integrate cultural and structural c*ange from t*e outset of a systemic c*ange initiati0e. Administrators also may ?e a?le to analy%e organi%ational and system c*ange related to education in t*e inner&city sc*ool system.

3G 3ac*2 S.2 Kessler2 I.2 @ 8eron2 P. C(!!GD. 4*e conseKuences of assistant roles in t*e pu?lic ser0ices: Degradation or empowermentF Human &elations) ,-C"D2 '(#G&'("(. Summary 4*is article considered *ow s*ifts in t*e di0ision of la?or in t*e conte>t of organi%ational c*ange could lead to t*e empowerment or degradation of worAplace roles. Periods of organi%ational c*ange pro0ide a significant opportunity to e>plore issues of degradation and empowerment. 4*e impact of organi%ational c*ange on t*e structure of t*e worAforce *as ?een particularly apparent in t*e 3ritis* pu?lic ser0ice o0er t*e last decade. A central component of t*e organi%ational restructuring of t*is sector *as ?een alterations in worAplace roles2 including an increase in t*e num?er and prominence of assistants. 4o w*at e>tent are t*ese outcomes sensiti0e to organi%ational conte>tF Against suc* a general ?acAdrop2 notions of empowerment and degradation *a0e emerged as particular c*aracteri%ations of generic management approac*es to worA organi%ation designed to secure employee consent. In analytical terms2 t*e enduring nature of t*is organi%ational dilemma *as ?een apparent in sc*olarly attempts o0er t*e years. 4*e la?or approac* to alterations in worA organi%ations *as ?een 0ulnera?le to accusations t*at it *as ?een partial in its 0iew of managerial processes. 4*us2 degradation *as ?een percei0ed as a management control strategy at t*e e>pense of t*e relations*ip ?etween worA organi%ation and t*e searc* for managerial control. 4*e la?or process t*eory *as ?een used to frame de?ate on de0elopments in worA organi%ations in t*e pu?lic ser0ice. 4*is ipmlies a sense of arrested de0elopment2 in w*ic* pu?lic ser0ice managers *a0e only recently adopted management practices. 4*ese trends freKuently *a0e ?een associated wit* t*e emergence of new pu?lic management. Alt*oug* t*ere are a num?er of 0ariants of new pu?lic management2 a prominent interpretation eKuates it wit*

37 t*e application of a form of worA organi%ation t*at undermines professional autonomy and en*ances management control. Successi0e wa0es of pu?lic ser0ice reform *a0e ?een represented as ena?ling a s*ift to more decentrali%ed organi%ational structures alongside e>plicit attempts at culture c*ange2 wit* employees ?eing granted en*anced autonomy to direct t*eir worA and meet t*e needs of customers. :utcomes can ?e considered a worA&center dimension related to t*e organi%ation of worA in terms of t*e tasAs undertaAen ?y t*e respecti0e groups. 4*e emergence of t*e assistant role in t*e 3ritis* pu?lic ser0ice *as pro0ided an opportunity to e>plore w*et*er and *ow s*ifts in t*e di0ision of la?or2 particularly wit*in t*e conte>t of ?roader organi%ational c*ange2 lead to t*e degradation or t*e empowerment of worAplace roles. 4*is article soug*t to contri?ute to related de?ates in many ways+irstit e>plored *ow t*e de0elopment of a specific role mig*t influence ot*er related occupational groups. 4*is issue *as not ?een dealt wit* in a sensiti0e way ?y la?or process t*eory2 and alt*oug* touc*ed upon in t*e pu?lic management literature and more e>plicitly in t*e professionali%ation literature2 *as rarely placed t*e su?ordinate occupation of assistant at t*e center of t*e analysis. 4*e focus on pu?lic ser0ice assistants *as ?een considered an effecti0e way to e>amine t*e interaction ?etween roles as t*e di0ision of la?or ?egins to s*ift. It is a role typically found alongside t*at of t*e professional2 so its de0elopment is liAely to impact not only assistants ?ut also t*e ad.acent professionals. Second2 tg*ere is a reKuirement to consider employee and managerial responses to different control strategies. 4*e percie0ed failure to fully account for agency *as ?een a persisten criticism of 3ra0emanBs worA2 for in most critics2 la?or process t*eory pro0ides little or not contir?ution to an understanding of eit*er employee co&operation or restistance. Interest in

3" agency *as ?een apparent in a focus on t*e missing su?.ect suggesting t*at fuller account needs to ?e taAen of manager and particularly worAer perceptions of worA organi%ation. 4*ired2 t*ere is a need for analysis of management control strategies to ?e more sensti0e to conte>t. If suc* strategies 0ary2 it ?ecomees important to e>plore t*e circumstances w*ic* lead to different approac*es. In practice2 muc* of t*e la?or process de?ate *as ?een cast in narrow terms wit* a predominant focus on worA reorgani%ation in manufacturing. More recentlyA2 t*ere *as ?een recognition of t*e significance and distinti0eness of conte>t. Critical $nalysis In focusing on t*e su?sector rat*er t*an t*e organi%ational le0el2 t*is study *ig*lig*ted t*e influence of structure and institutions rat*er t*an agency in s*aping outcomes. 4*e differences ?etween education and social care *ig*lig*ts t*e pat* dependent de0elopment of assistant roles and t*e ways in w*ic* institutional infrastructure affects t*e c*aracter and impact of t*ese roles in t*eir respecti0e su?sectors. It *as ?een stressed t*at social worA assistants2 for instance2 *a0e long ?een integral to t*e social care worAforce2 wit* institutionali%ed e>pectations and systems in place to manage t*eir performance management and career de0elopment. In contrast2 teac*ing assistants *a0e ?een tied more closely to la?orBs moderni%ation agenda2 wit* t*e new systems designed to pro0ide career opportunities. &elevance 4*is article descri?ed t*e use of organi%ational c*ange in t*e di0ision of la?or and in t*e empowerment of worAplace roles. It also s*owed t*e impact of organi%ational c*ange on worAforce structure in t*e 3ritis* pu?lic ser0ice o0er t*e last decade. /sing t*is article as a spring?oard into education will *elp t*e researc*er to gain insig*t into t*e use of organi%ational

1! c*ange in t*e pu?lic sector and offer ideas and opportunities regarding t*e application of t*ese c*anges to t*e educational system. 3onner2 M.2 Koc*2 4.2 @ )angmeyer2 D. C(!!1D. :rgani%ational t*eory applied to sc*ool reform. School !sychology /nternational) 0*C1D2 1$$&1G'. Summary 4*is article descri?ed an e>perience wit* organi%ational c*ange2 specifically a sc*ool reform initiati0e spanning fi0e years. :0er t*e $&year period2 numerous initiati0es and strategies were implemented. 4*ese initiati0es were aligned wit* a sc*ool strategic plan t*at focused on t*e de0elopment of an inclusi0e sc*ool and were consistent wit* t*e 0ision and t*e e>pressed goals and o?.ecti0es of t*e district strategic plan. 4*is description t*at follows is not intended to ?e compre*ensi0e2 ?ut rat*er to con0ey critical e0ents2 Aey among t*em a focus on a model for special education ser0ice deli0ery In t*e first year of t*e c*ange process2 t*e sc*ool initiated t*e inclusion of students wit* disa?ilities on a small scale. 6*ildren pre0iously educated in speciali%ed educational settings were included as participating mem?ers in t*e sc*oolBs Kindergarten classrooms. 4*e intent was t*at t*is inno0ation would gradually grow as t*e c*ildren progressed t*roug* t*e system. In t*e first year2 t*ere was an initiation of ser0ice model c*ange. Inclusion of students wit* signifacant disa?ilities in dinergarten ?egan at t*e sc*ool. :pen forums occurred to encourage staff discussion of t*e c*anging ser0ice. 6onnections wit* t*e /ni0ersityBs Institte on 6ommunity Integration esta?lis*ed as a way to use H?est practiceI resrources to inclusi0e education. In t*e second year2 t*e sc*ool e>panded its capacity to pro0ide support for all c*ildren ?y strengt*ening already e>isting resources wit*in t*e ?uilding. Sc*ool&wide staff de0elopment focused upon student&centered decision maAing. 4*ese student&centered decision&maAing efforts were aimed at supporting t*e inclusion of students wit* disa?ilities more effecti0ely. 4*e second

1' year e>panded efforts ?y ?uilding&le0el Inclusion 6ommittee geginnining wit* an initial forcus on dissemination of information related to Ser0ice Deli0ery Initiati0e. A formal definisition of 0ision of student&centered decision&maAing processes t*at included an emp*asis upon parentsB e>periences and instructional modification were put into operation. During t*e t*ird year2 a series of actions furt*er defined and e>panded t*e inclusi0e education initiati0e. Additional staff de0elopment continued t*e emp*asis on student&centered decision maAing. Staff mem?ers engaged in discussions a?out identifying specific responsi?ilities and duties related to studentsB instructional needs. 4*e sc*ool ?egan to e>pand its functional definition of a student support team to include any adult w*o played a role in a studentBs lif. 4*e t*ird year creatred actions to furt*er define and de0elop ser0ice model concept of staff de0elopment ?roadened to include a colla?orati0e focus t*roug* trainings offered to ?ot* parents and teac*ers. 4*e sc*ool mission statement de0eloped wit* goals t*at reflect c*ild& centered and team colla?oration p*ilosop*ies was de0eloped. In t*e fourt* year2 t*e leaders*ip promoted and e>panded t*e ser0ice deli0ery model. 4*e leaders*ip group looAed for and encouraged acti0ities t*at would e>pand t*e sc*oolBs capacities to use and sustain t*is inclusi0e ser0ice deli0ery model. 4*e model promoted t*e central role of t*e general education classroom. In year four2 sc*ool&wide efforts continued. 9>panded staff de0elopment targeted t*e support of student di0ersity and meeting t*e needs of all learners t*roug* adapti0e instruction. Sc*ool and 6ommunity in Partners*ip CS6IPD was formed t*at included a +amily 5esoource 6enter and ot*er community agencies to support families. 4*e fift* year of t*e c*ange process ?roug*t a?out an opportunity to test t*e sustained status of t*e inclusi0e education initiati0e. 4*e sc*ool leaders*ip pursued a federal grant aimed at studying and supporting inclusi0e education. 4*e leaders acti0ely engaged in

1( reading2 discussing2 and applying contemporary c*ange literature from different perspecti0es2 as e0idenced ?y t*e preceding descripti0e *istory. In t*e fift* year2 federal grants were funded to furt*er suppport and study t*e sc*ool&wide inclusi0e practices t*at connected wit* t*e sc*oolBs ?roader inclusi0e refrom efforts. 4eac*er inter0iews and support staff sur0eys occurred in order to e0aluate t*e ser0ice deli0ery model. :rgani%ational c*ange is comple>2 and 3onner et al. found t*eoretical insig*t from past literature in organi%ation de0elopment and organi%ational psyc*ology to ?e timeless in 0alue. 4*e goal of s*aring t*eir story and lessons from reflecti0e practice was to awaAen t*ose interested in organi%ational c*ange in sc*ools to t*e interdisciplinary Anowledge t*at needs to ?e incorporated. Critical $nalysis :rgani%ational c*ange2 as manifested ?y sc*ool reform practices2 is comple>. 4o *elp guide t*e actions of an indi0idual2 3onner et al. found t*eoretical insig*t from past literature in organi%ation de0elopment and organi%ational psyc*ology to ?e timeless in 0alue. 3y s*aring t*e lessons learned2 t*e researc*er *opes to influence t*e nature of future researc* and practitioner reflection in t*ese areas. &elevance 4*is article clearly outlined *ow to conduct organi%ational c*ange wit*in a sc*ool o0er a period of fi0e years. 4*e c*anges and initiati0es were aligned wit* t*e sc*oolBs strategic plan and focused on t*e de0elopment of an incisi0e sc*ool t*at was consistent wit* t*e 0ision and t*e goals and o?.ecti0es of t*e districtBs strategic plan. 4*is article may *elp administrators to prepare a strategic plan for organi%ational c*anges ?y following t*e guidelines in t*is article.

13 3oyce2 M. 9. C(!!3D. :rgani%ational learning is essential to ac*ie0ing and sustaining a c*ange in *ig*er education. /nnovative Higher (ducation) 01C(D2 ''"&'3#. Summary Knowledge a?out organi%ational c*ange in *ig*er education emerges in t*e intersection of sociology and organi%ation t*eory. 5esearc* *as suggested t*at continued organi%ational learning is essential to sustaining institutional c*ange. 6olleges and uni0ersities are distincti0e organi%ations. WeicA C'"G#2 '"7(D is an organi%ational t*eorist w*ose description of educational organi%ations as loosely coupled systems was t*e starting point for Kualtiy researc* and discussion a?out colleges and uni0ersities. 4*eories of open systems CMiller2 '"G7J Scott2 '"7'D pro0ided t*e ?acAground for WeicABs C'"7(D o?ser0ations of colleges and uni0ersities as social systems. WeicA C'"7(D suggested t*at organi%ational c*ange s*ould ?e centrali%ed w*en su?unitsB ad.ustments can *a0e discontinuous long&term effects at considera?le e>pense2 and decentrali%ed w*en ad.ustments *a0e continuous a??re0iated ine>pensi0e effects. 3erKuist C'""(D asserted t*at organi%ational c*ange is necessary in eac* of t*e t*ree domains of institutions: structure2 process2 and attitude. :rgani%ational t*eory pro0ides a lens for t*eory and researc* in organi%ational t*eory2 strategy2 organi%ation c*ange2 and organi%ational learning. Indi0iduals and groups pro0ide e>planations for e0ents from t*eir perspecti0es2 and t*ey construct images of t*e organi%ation rat*er t*an s*are a unifying perception of organi%ational reality. InKuiry and dialogue ena?le t*e mem?ers of t*e organi%ation to e>amine assumptions and strategies and to plan2 implement2 and sustain organi%ational c*ange. 8uff and 8uff C(!!!D de0eloped a four& stage model of strategic organi%ational c*ange: C stage 'D H?usiness as usual2I wit* incremental adaptation wit*in an accepted frameworAJ Cstage (D t*e process of deciding to consider second& order c*angeJ Cstage 3D t*e stage of en0isioning second&order c*ange alternati0esJ and Cstage 1D

11 t*e *oneymoon for a new strategic frameworA. :rgani%ational c*ange occurs e0ery day. 8ow2 t*en2 is institutional c*ange sustainedF Dialogue *as ?een ?eneficial in promoting t*e collecti0e interpretation of meaning in an organi%ation C3erKuist2 '""(J Di>on2 '""1D. Senge C'""!D articulated t*e significance of dialogue in facilitating organi%ational c*ange and learning. Action inKuiry is an organi%ational practice t*at generates sustained organi%ational c*ange and learning C-arratt2 '"7GJ 5e0ans2 '"GG2 '"7(D. 4*e action learning literature spans *ig*er education and ?usiness organi%ations. 4*e literature re0iewed *ere made an e>plicit connection ?etween organi%ational learning and organi%ational c*ange. It suggested t*at continued learning is necessary to sustain c*ange. 4*ese ideas *a0e pro0oAed a focus on organi%ational learning t*at used to organi%ational learning t*at is social2 cogniti0e2 and structural. 5esearc*ers looA for organi%ational learning mec*anisms t*at can ?e em?edded in a learning culturet*at seem perip*eral to institutional c*ange in *ig*er education.:rgani%ational c*ange and organi%ational learning are ine>trica?ly linAed. Critical $nalysis 4*e literature *as demonstrated t*at organi%ational c*ange and organi%ational learning are linAed. 4*e c*allenge of successful c*ange is less in t*e planning and implementation and more in t*e de0elopment and sustaining of new ways of seeing2 deciding2 and acting. Successful c*ange is a?out learning collecti0ely so t*at institutional conseKuences2 outcomes2 and inKuiry c*ange. Sustaining c*ange in *ig*er education is dependent upon sustaining t*e conditions of learning in an institution. In s*ort2 t*ose in *ig*er education w*o are committed to successful institutional c*ange s*ould ?e rigorous in inKuiry2 sAillful in dialogue2 and fearless in e>amining t*e institution in t*e conte>t of its en0ironment.

1$ &elevance 4*is article pointed out t*at organi%ational c*ange often is temporary or unsuccessful. 8ere one can see a connection ?etween education and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics ?y relating t*e idea of entropy to organi%ational c*ange. 9ntropy relates to a measure of energy in a system t*a is una0aila?le to do worA. a connection to t*e second law of t*ermodynamicsF. 4*is literature re0iew of organi%ational c*ange in *ig*er education e>plored researc* in *ig*er education2 sociology2 and organi%ational studies2 focusing on t*e pro?lem of sustaining successful c*ange. Indicators of successful c*ange were distilled from t*e recent researc*. 9sta?lis*ing conditions for continued organi%ational learning in a college or uni0ersity was identified as an essential aspect of sustaining successful organi%ational c*ange. More researc* needs to ?e conducted on t*e application of t*e open systems t*eory to *ig*er education. 9yal2 :.2 @ KarA2 5. C(!!1D. 8ow do transformational leaders transform organi%ationsF A study of t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip. Leadership and !olicy in School) 2C3D2 (''&(3$. Summary 4*is article studied t*e relations*ip ?etween different leaders*ip styles and alternati0e entrepreneurial strategies in t*e not&for&profit pu?lic sc*ool system :rgani%ations including sc*ools are functioning in a *ig*ly competiti0e glo?al en0ironment t*at is c*aracteri%ed ?y rapidly c*anging tec*nologies. 4*e increase in comple>ity and competiti0eness2 t*e paucity of resources2 and t*e need for continual c*ange in nonprofit and for&profit organi%ations *a0e made entrepreneurs*ip a 0ital asset for organi%ational growt* CDamanapour2 '""'J 8owell @ 8iggins2 '""!D. 6orporate entrepreneurs*ip *as ?een recogni%ed as an organi%ation&le0el p*enomenon. 9ntrepreneurs*ip is an organi%ationBs constant tendency to initiate and implement radical inno0ations in its internal and e>ternal en0ironments including relations*ips wit* customers2

1# stAe*olders2 suppliers2 partners and colla?orators. 9ntrepreneurs*ip s*ould ?e e>amined in terms of t*e internal and e>ternal organi%ational en0ironments C3aron2 (!!(J 6aruana2 9wing2 @ 5amases*an2 (!!(D 4*ere is a significant relations*ip among leaders*ip2 organi%ational c*ange2 and entrepreneurs*ip. 4ransformational leaders are2 according to 6onger and Kamungo C'""7D2 entrepreneurial and organi%ational&c*ange oriented ?y nature. 4ransformational leaders*ip also *as ?een linAed to t*e promotion of c*ange and inno0ation in organi%ations. :ne could argue t*at transformational leaders*ip is associated wit* a ?asic component of corporate entrepreneurs*ip mentioned in t*e researc*: organi%ational inno0ati0eness. Indi0idual acts wit*in a comple> organi%ational frameworA facilitate or limit t*e actions of t*e mem?ers of t*e organi%ation. 9ntrepreneurs*ip is regarded as an organi%ational p*enomenon. Alt*oug* a multidimensional conception of organi%ational entrepreneurs*ip *as ?een used in earlier researc*2 measurements usually *a0e ?een unidimensional. 8owell and 8iggins C'""!D descri?ed organi%ational c*ampions as entrepreneurs w*o use informal organi%ational mec*anisms to garner support for inno0ations. W*ile doing so2 8owell and 8iggins related t*e concept of transformational leaders*ip to t*e literature on organi%ational c*ampions2 suggesting t*at organi%ational c*ampions support and ad0ance inno0ations at t*e price of confronting o?stacles presented ?y organi%ational officials CS*ane2 '""1D. :rgani%ational c*ampions function as transformational leaders2 de0eloping a clear organi%ational 0ision t*at may ?e used in order to disco0er opportunities. -o0ernment efforts to control sc*ooling and sc*ool reliance on pu?lic funds2 as a structural arrangement2 *a0e made sc*ools slow&c*anging organi%ations. In t*is frameworA2 sc*ools are considered conser0ati0e organi%ations t*at retain t*eir ?asic c*aracteristics across time2 place2 and culture CDrucAer2

1G '"7$J WeicA2 '"G#D. 4*eir patterns *a0e ?een esta?lis*ed and legitimi%ed2 and t*ey are Anown to represent t*e most efficient way of organi%ing education C6u?an2 '"71D. Critical $nalysis 4*e results t*at 9yal and KarA found may ?ridge t*e gap ?etween t*e literature on transformational leaders*ip and t*e entrepreneurs*ip literature. 4*ese results also may s*ed lig*t on t*e processes ?y w*ic* transformational leaders ac*ie0e superior results as t*e agents of c*ange capa?le of transforming sc*ools. +uture researc* would en*ance t*e researc*&?ased Anowledge presented in t*is study ?y s*owing t*at transformational leaders*ip sets t*e most fa0ora?le managerial circumstances for organi%ational entrepreneurial acti0isism. 9>amng t*e impact of leaders*ip style on t*e components of entrepreneurs*ip against t*e ?acAdrop of ot*er conte>tual factors mig*t affect t*ese 0aria?les2 suc* as en0ironmental *ostility2 competiti0eness2 and uncertainty. More researc* is needed to understand t*e relations*ip ?etween t*e social capital of leaders and t*eir organi%ational power and a?ility to use certain entrepreneurial strategies. 4*is issue is significant ?ecause social capital can facilitate t*e identification of opportunities and attainment of goals. It is important t*at future researc* e>amine t*e relations*ips ?etween t*e different entrepreneurial strategies and 0arious organi%ational outcomes ?ecause t*e leadersB use of t*e different strategies identified in t*is study may *a0e a ma.or effect on t*e functioning of t*e organi%ation and its outcomes. &elevance 4*is article focused on t*e organi%ational strategies necessary to compete in a glo?al en0ironment t*at is ?eing ?om?arded ?y rapidly c*anging tec*nologies. 9ducational leaders can use t*e model of entrepreneurs*ip to facilitate t*e process of maAing necessary c*anges wit*in t*e sc*ool en0ironment. 9ntrepreneurs*ip will allow t*e educational leader to

17 initiate inno0ations in t*e internal and e>ternal en0ironment. 9yal and KarABs findings on t*e relations*ip ?etween passi0e&a0oidant leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip mirrored t*e results for t*e relations*ip ?etween transformational leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip. 4*e relations*ip ?etween eac* component and t*e leaders*ip styles s*owed t*at alt*oug* t*e passi0e&a0oidant leaders*ip style is negati0ely related to principal proacti0e and organi%ational inno0ati0eness2 its negati0e relations*ip wit* principal proacti0ity is greater. 9ntrepreneurs*ip s*ould ?e considered as long as it is used to ad0ance pupilsB welfare and promote t*eir well&?eing. 4*e conceptual frameworA de0eloped in 9yal and KarABs study may ?e a meaningful and effecti0e tool t*at may ?e used ?y sc*ool leaders in de0eloping2 actuali%ing2 and assessing sc*ool entrepreneurs*ip in order to contri?ute to ?etter sc*ooling and education.

-lei?s2 I. 8.2 Mummenday2 A.2 @ ;oacA2 P. C(!!7D. Predictors of c*ange in postmerger identification during a merger process: A longitudinal study. 'ournal of !ersonality and Social !sychology) 3*C$D2 '!"$&'''(. Summary 4*is study replicated and e>tended past results ?y re0ealing predictors of c*ange in organi%ational identification for mem?ers of t*e dominant and su?ordinate organi%ations t*roug*out a merger process. Merging is a strategy designed to increase competiti0eness2 reduce costs2 create synergy2 and meet c*anging financial and demograp*ic c*allenges. -i0en t*e pre0alence of organi%ational mergers and t*eir relati0ely low success rate2 it is important to understand w*at maAes a merger succeed or fail. Pro?lems regarding mergersB success or failure often are ascri?ed to resistance to c*ange ?y t*e organi%ationBs mem?ers w*o are in0ol0ed in t*e merger. Aside from identifying t*e factors descri?ing indi0idual reactions to a merger2 one can understand t*e organi%ational mem?ersB reactions ?y focusing on t*e processes arising at t*e

1" group le0el and ?y considering mergers as an intergroup situation. Pro?lems may arise ?ecause t*e mem?ers percei0e intergroup differences or conflicting corporate identities wit*in t*e new organi%ation. 3y adopting an intergroup perspecti0e on organi%ational mergers2 one can focus on identification processes and apply a social identity approac*. Social identification is related to t*e indi0idualBs role in an organi%ational setting in affecting attitudes toward t*e organi%ation2 commitment to t*e organi%ation2 and support for t*e organi%ation. :nly a few mergers are mergers of eKuals. /sually2 one merger partner is t*e dominant2 or t*e acKuiring force. 4*e dominant merger partner mig*t seeA to assimilate t*e ot*er organi%ation and impose its own premerger identity on t*e newly merged organi%ation. 4*is situation was applica?le to t*e merger discussed *ere2 and one can e>amine specific patterns of reactions toward c*ange according to organi%ational dominance in t*e merger. 4*is article e>amined t*e patterns of c*ange in postmerger identification among organi%ational mem?ers of t*e dominant and su?ordinate merger partners t*roug* a merger process. An analysis also was conducted to determine if t*ese associations c*ange o0er time and if t*e patterns are different for organi%ational mem?ers of t*e dominant merger partner compared to mem?ers of t*e su?ordinate merger partner. Critical $nalysis 4*is study was restricted to one particular merger process and a student sample. :n t*e one *and2 t*e specific sample could ?e seen as a limitation. -lei?s2 Mummenday2 and ;oacA acAnowledged t*at employee or staff reactions toward a merger mig*t ?e different. 4*e organi%ational mem?ers w*o are more directly in0ol0ed are e>pected to identify more strongly wit* t*eir pre0ious organi%ation and e>perience additional t*reats and uncertainty. Staff mem?ers mig*t ?e confronted wit* t*e fear of .o? loss2 restructuring of t*e organi%ationBs

$! worAflow2 and a new senior management le0el. Academic staff mig*t e>perience c*anges in terms of 0arious roles and in administration2 researc*2 and teac*ing. &elevance 9ducational leaders s*ould consider conducting future studies designed in suc* a way t*at t*e reactions of students and staff are assessed simultaneously2 t*us focusing on *ow students are different from staff. It is important to acAnowledge t*e potential differences ?etween staff and student samples. Additionally2 furt*er studies s*ould ?e conducted in suc* a way t*at t*ey pro0ide a ?asis for autoregressi0e laatent tra.ectory models to answer comple> Kuestions a?out sta?ility and c*ange as well as growt*. 4*us2 a sufficient sample si%e and four to fi0e measurement points would ?e ad0isa?le as well as furt*er impro0ements reducing drop out to a minimum. 4*is leads to anot*er important point for future researc*. 3ecause t*e present study was conducted wit*in only one merger stage2 it mig*t me interesting to conduct a study o0er se0eral merger stages2 prefera?ly wit* a premerger measurement point and a follo&up study taAing place a considera?le amount of time after t*e merger implementation. )eaders also can apply furt*er studies as t*e ?asis for latent tra.ectory models to answer comple> Kuestions a?out sta?ility and c*ange as well as growt*. 4*us2 a sufficient sample si%e and furt*er impro0ements 8arris2 A. C(!!$D. )eading from t*e c*alA&face: An o0er0iew of sc*ool leaders*ip. Leadership) 4C'D2 G3&7G. Summary 4*is article was an o0er0iew of t*e main t*eoretical perspecti0es into t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip practice and organi%ational c*ange. 4*e purpose of t*e study was to determine w*at type of leaders*ip promotes positi0e organi%ational c*ange and impro0ement.. 90ers and )aAomsAi C(!!'D Kuestioned w*et*er leaders*ip&&as a distinct concept wit*in

$' organi%ational c*ange&&is meaningful. 90ers and )aAomsAi argued t*at leaders*ip as traditionally concei0ed is of little *elp in e>plaining c*ange in organi%ations. 8arris proposed t*at a more producti0e approac* is to de0elop furt*er t*e current models of t*e learning organi%ation and introduce a new t*eory of organi%ation learning and practice. In t*e last two decades2 t*ere *as ?een an increasing emp*asis on t*e linA ?etween leaders*ip and organi%ational culture CDalin2 '""#D. )eit*wood and -ouis C'"""D argued t*at leaders *a0e t*e potential to alter t*e cultural conte>t in w*ic* people worAJ t*at is2 leaders can affect t*e commitment and capacity of t*e organi%ationBs mem?ers. Sergio0anni C(!!'D stated t*at in organi%ational leaders*ip2 leaders and followers are united in pursuit of *ig*er le0el goals t*at are common to ?ot*. 3ass C'""GD defined organi%ational leaders*ip as an amalgam of c*arisma2 intellectual stimulation2 and indi0iduali%ed consideration. 3urns C'"G7D descri?ed transformational leaders*ip as ?eing concerned wit* t*e e>ploration of con0entional relations*ips and organi%ation understandings suc* t*at t*e leaders and t*e followers encourage one anot*er to *ig*er le0el of moti0ation and morality. Distri?uted leaders*ip means multiple sources of guidance and direction2 following t*e contours of e>pertise in an organi%ation2 made co*erent t*roug* a common culture. Distri?uted )eaders*ip is w*ere leaders*ip and organi%ational growt* collide and is dispersed. A Kuestions need to ?e answered.+irst2 relati0ely little is Anown a?out t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and long&term organi%ational c*ange. 4*e Ainds of leaders*ip reKuired in sustaining sc*ool de0elopment and impro0ement o0er time remains in Kuestion. Also2 *ow leaders*ip is affected ?y cycles of organi%ational c*ange remains une>plored. 5esearc* *as suggested t*at different stages of organi%ational c*ange reKuire different forms of leaders*ip C8opAins2 8arris2 @ ,acAson2 '""GD. 4*e new organi%ational groupings of colla?oration2

$( partners*ip2 and networAing among sc*ools will mean new and potentially different forms of leaders*ip practice. Distri?uted leaders*ip t*eory in its analytical and normati0e forms offers a powerful and alternati0e way of e>ploring and understanding t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and organi%ational c*ange. Critical $nalysis 4*is o0er0iew *ig*lig*ted t*e main t*eoretical perspecti0es on sc*ool leaders*ip t*at are currently influencing and s*aping policy2 practice2 and researc*. Alt*oug* t*e sc*ool leaders*ip literature is 0ast and increasing2 its empirical ?ase remains underde0eloped. W*et*er and *ow leaders*ip is affected ?y cycles of organi%ational de0elopment and c*ange remains anot*er under&e>plored area. 8onig2 M. I. C(!!3D. 6rafting co*erence: 8ow sc*ools strategically manage multiple2 e>ternal demands. (ducational &esearcher) 22C7D2 '#&3!. Summary Sc*ools t*ri0e w*en t*ey implement multiple organi%ational c*anges ?ecause eac* e>ternal demand ?rings additional resources. A point of 0iew was taAen on t*e institutional studies of organi%ational&en0ironmental relations*ips and learning. :rgani%ations t*at strategically manage t*eir e>ternal demands de0elop internal simplification systems t*at ena?le t*em to draw resources from t*eir e>ternal en0ironments wit*out ?ecoming o0erw*elmed wit* t*e comple>ity of information reKuirements and ot*er features of a resource&ric* en0ironment CMarc*2 '""1D. Simplification systems also *elp organi%ational systems understand *ow to use e>ternal demands in ways t*at ad0ance organi%ational production. Suc* systems operate on more t*an one organi%ational le0el. :n an organi%ational le0el2 simplification systems pro0ide rules and decision frames t*at *elp organi%ational actors suc* as teac*ers and principals translate comple> pro?lems into managea?le forms. :n an organi%ational le0el2 simplification systems

$3 pro0ide a set of familiar and tangi?le acti0ities t*at gi0e concrete form to am?itious comple> reform approac*es. 4*ese systems guide organi%ational actorsB c*oices a?out day&to&day acti0ities and pro0ide t*e ?asis for organi%ational c*ange. :rgani%ations sur0i0e and increase production and efficiency w*en t*e organi%ational actors are a?le to ad.ust t*ose goals and strategies as t*ey recei0e feed?acA on performance and as en0ironmental demands c*ange. )iterature on organi%ational relations*ips traditionally *as suggested t*at sc*ools2 as su?ordinate or *ig*ly dependent organi%ations in *ierarc*ical systems2 s*ould ?e e>pected to operate as relati0ely passi0e agents of t*eir en0ironments. :rgani%ations can and do play more acti0e roles in using e>ternal demands to ad0ance t*eir own goals and strategies C:li0er2 '""'D. 5esearc* on t*e diffusion of inno0ations *as suggested t*at organi%ations influence e>ternal demands ?y acting on t*em early. :rgani%ations ?ridge t*eir e>ternal demands in se0eral ways. +or e>ample2 on t*e *ig* end2 t*ey pull t*e en0ironment in ?y incorporating mem?ers of e>ternal organi%ations into t*eir own organi%ational structures. 3y HcapturingI t*ose indi0iduals w*o are e>erting e>ternal pressure2 organi%ations ?lur t*e ?oundary ?etween Horgani%ationI and en0ironment2 *eig*ten interactions ?etween t*e two2 and increase opportunities to use e>ternal demands to ad0ance internal goals and strategies. In conclusion2 one must start from t*e premise t*at at a minimum2 suc* strict central&office support roles in0ol0e new forms of information management2 specifically t*at central offices will not support sc*oolsB goals and strategy&setting process unless t*ey *a0e information a?out t*e sc*oolsB. :rgani%ational learning t*eory pro0ides an initial set of concepts consistent wit* suc* en0ironmental supports. 8ow sc*ool district central offices manage to participate in t*ese acti0ities in ways t*at *elp sc*ools esta?lis* and use goals and strategies producti0ely is an important arena for future researc*.

$1 Critical $nalysis 4*is article drew upon t*eoretical and empirical researc* rele0ant to ?ut outside t*e education sector. 4*e acti0ities presented in t*is article t*at were deri0ed primarily from t*e e>perience of pri0ate firms also apply to pu?lic sector organi%ations suc* as sc*ools and sc*ool district central offices. 4*e aut*or demonstrated *ow t*ese acti0ities play out in t*e sc*ool conte>tJ in particular2 under w*at conditions do sc*ools de0elop and use sc*ool&wide goals and strategies as simplification de0icesF W*en sc*ools and sc*ool district central offices engage in t*e acti0ities presented *ere2 t*ere is an impact on sc*ool management2 teac*ing2 and ot*er outcomes often considered in studies of policy co*erence. &elevance 4*is article *as se0eral implications for policy and practice. +irst2 policy efforts and pu?lic and pri0ate in0estments in policy co*erence typically *a0e focused in part on t*e o?.ecti0e alignment of particular components of sc*ooling. Second2 t*e definition of co*erence2 including its acti0ities2 capacity2 and conditions2 reKuires confirmation from direct empirical studies of t*e relations*ip ?etween t*ese aspects of crafting co*erence and impro0ed sc*ool performance. ;eit*er sc*ools nor sc*ool districts acting alone will ?e a?le to remedy t*e effects of multiple e>ternal demandsJ accordingly2 district central&office administrators and sc*ools mig*t c*oose to e>plore new relations*ips t*at support sc*oolsB goals and strategy&setting processes. Kele*ear2 <. C (!!3D. Mentoring t*e organi%ation: 8elping principals ?ring sc*ools to *ig*er le0els of effecti0eness. %$SS! Bulletin) 15C#3GD2 3$&1G. Summary +ullan C'""32 (!!'aDJ Patterson C'""32 '""GDJ and Sarason C'""32 '""#D made some of t*e more compelling arguments t*at for aut*entic and significant systemic c*ange in

$$ organi%ations2 leaders can anticipate at least a 3& to $&year effort. -i0en t*at t*e a0erage tenure of todayBs superintendents is two to t*ree years2 it is no wonder t*at sc*ools *a0e difficulty maintaining c*ange initiati0es. Supporting c*ange in sc*ools is fraug*t wit* many c*allenges and o?stacles. 4*ere is a way2 *owe0er2 to impro0e t*e c*ange for success. 4*is effort is called mentoring the organization. :ne assumes t*at t*e organi%ation&&t*at is2 t*e sc*ool&&is a li0ing organism of many indi0iduals w*o maAe contri?utions to2 as well as demands on t*e general *ealt* of t*e group. All t*e indi0iduals *a0e forces ?earing on t*em t*at foster t*e way t*ey 0iew t*e world at t*at moment in time and for t*at gi0en situation or e0ent. :rgani%ations2 as collections of indi0iduals2 encounter similar p*ases of c*ange. :rgani%ations2 *owe0er2 reKuire more time and effort t*an indi0iduals to c*ange ?ecause t*ey comprise indi0iduals w*o are worAing at a continuum of conceptual le0els. 4*e role of stress in c*ange and t*e resulting frustration associated wit* t*ose transitions necessarily affects an indi0idualBs capacity to manage c*ange. 3y e>tension2 organi%ations undergoing c*ange will manage c*ange in0ersely in relation to t*e lacA of sta?ility present. 9ac* time t*at adults encounter somet*ing new2 t*ey go t*roug* a process called eKuili?ration CPiaget2 '"#G2 '"G(D2 w*ic* descri?es t*e force for arri0ing at an ad.ustment to a new e>perience or learning. 4*is ad.ustment comes in t*e form of eit*er assimilating or accommodating a new e0ent. In t*e second law of t*ermodynamics2 t*is process would ?e a form of entropy. 4*e second law states t*at entroopy is an isolated system always increasing and t*at w*en two systems are .oined toget*er2 t*e entropy of t*e com?ined system is greater t*an t*e sum of t*e entropies of t*e indi0idual systems. /ndergoing c*ange results in entropy If t*e new encounter is similar to an earlier e0ent in an adultBs life2 t*en it can ?e assimilated to an e>isting understanding. Wit* t*e researc* on stages of concern2 conceptual le0els and eKuili?ration as a

$# foundation2 it is possi?le to see t*e c*ange process for organi%ations in a new lig*t. :ne of t*e criticisms against mentoring t*e organi%ation is t*at principals

*a0e little time to ad.ust pro.ects and plans to indi0idual needs. 4*ere is .ust too muc* going on in t*e principalBs world. Critical $nalysis In order for leaders*ip to orc*estrate t*e management of inno0ation2 t*at same leaders*ip must ?e functioning at a certain conceptual le0el. In order to ?e in touc* wit* t*e needs of ot*ers2 to tolerate t*e am?iguities of *uman processing2 and to listen to t*e concerns of ot*ers and t*e myriad ot*er reKuirements of effecti0e leaders*ip2 t*e mentoring principal needs to function at a *ig* le0el. 6on0ersely2 t*e demands of sc*ool leaders*ip are liAely to reKuire t*at all leaders function at t*e same le0el at some time or anot*er. Sc*ool leaders*ip needs to e>ist wit* a clear 0ision3ecause t*e tenure of superintendents is so s*ort and anticipated c*ange is great2 it is 0ery difficult to determine t*e results of organi%ational c*ange initiati0es. 4*e idea of mentoring t*e organi%ation may *elp to lengt*en t*e amount of time allotted for organi%ational c*ange to occur. &elevance 4*e focus of t*is researc* was mentoring t*e organi%ation. 4*e Aey to mentoring an organi%ation t*roug* t*e c*ange process can ?e narrowly defined as t*e leaderBs a?ility to ?alance any gi0en situation. 4*e way to Anow t*e appropriate ?alance is in understanding t*e worAforceBs current stage of concern and conceptual le0el. In coupling t*e researc* on organi%ational c*ange wit* mentoring2 organi%ational mentoring offers leaders a prescripti0e model t*at captures t*e power of t*e group2 ?ut does not lose touc* wit* t*e indi0iduals w*o are t*e essence of t*at group.

$G Koli?a2 6. ,.2 @ )at*rop2 ,. C(!!GD. InKuiry as inter0ention: 9mploying action researc* to surface intersu?.ecti0e t*eories&in&use and support an organi%ationBs capacity to learn. $dministration 6 Society) 23C'D2 $'&G#. Summary 4*ose in0ol0ed in Koli?a and )at*ropBs C(!!GD case study pro0ided t*e reader wit* an important e>ample of t*e possi?le relations*ip t*at can ?e de0eloped ?etween action researc* and organi%ational learning. 4*e action researc* process2 ?eginning wit* t*e early stages of negotiating entry to t*e construction of inter0iew Kuestions2 to t*e inter0iews and analysis2 ultimately led t*e organi%ational actors to approac* t*eir e0eryday assumptions a?out t*e organi%ational reality in a more rigorous fas*ion. 9ac* organi%ational t*emerepresented in t*e t*ematic report pro0ided a snaps*ot of some aspect of t*e sc*oolBs intersu?.ecti0e t*eories in use. H4*e more comple> t*e pro?lem and t*e greater t*e num?er of 0alue perspecti0es ?roug*t to ?ear2 t*e greater was t*e need for locali%ed solutions for 0alue inno0ations2 ?ot* of w*ic* call for ?road&?ased participation in t*e decision&maAing processI CKorton2 (!!'2 as cited in Koli?a @ )at*rop2 (!!G2 p. 17$D. A series of ot*er actions were undertaAen wit*in t*e sc*ool o0er t*e course of t*e ne>t two years. Some of t*ese actions were ascri?ed directly to t*e action researc* process. :t*er actions were indirectly related to t*e process. :rgani%ational life in general is made up of a series of many actions2 t*e o0erw*elming ma.ority of w*ic* would *a0e occurred w*et*er t*e action researc* process was undertaAen2 or not. 4*e action researc* process supports an inter0ention in0ol0ing t*e researc*ers as organi%ational consultants. It is certain t*at pu?lic sc*ools are su?stantially different from ot*er organi%ational settings. In many respects2 sc*ools are comple> pu?lic organi%ations wit* more di0erse constituencies and more am?iguous o?.ecti0es t*an ot*er organi%ations. 5egardless of t*ese

$7 differences2 t*e lessons learned from t*e analysis of t*is sc*ool can ?e e>trapolated to ot*er organi%ational settings. Wit*in t*e organi%ational t*emes are uni0ersal issues relating to super0ision and employee moti0ation2 t*e place and purpose of t*e organi%ational mission2 and t*e importance of communication in t*e pursuit of collecti0e action. 4*is action researc* design pro0ided an e>ample of *ow social science can aid in transforming pri0ate c*allenges into pu?lic issues t*at can inform *ow an organi%ation can learn somet*ing a?out itself and t*en use t*is learning to transform itself. Critical $nalysis 4*e case study of t*is action researc* process pro0ides us wit* an important e>ample of t*e possi?le relations*ip t*at can ?e de0eloped ?etween action researc* and organi%ational learning. 3y focusing on met*odological rigor2 triangulation2 and feed?acA to impro0e 0alidity2 and ?y paying careful attention to t*e construction of intersu?.ecti0e t*emes relating to t*e sc*oolBs t*eories&in&use2 we *a0e responded to t*e aut*orBs call for more e>amples of t*e ways in w*ic* indi0idual learning can ?e translated into organi%ational learning. &elevance 4*e action researc* process at t*e sc*ool in t*is article was not tied to any long& term e>ternal support for organi%ational c*ange. Koli?a and )at*rop C(!!GD suggested t*at situating t*e action researc* process wit*in a wider sc*ool renewal initiati0e t*at includes t*e action researc* process as t*e first stage of structured inter0ention. 4*e action researc* process may *elp to identify t*e ?est inter0ention tools to ?e used2 gi0en t*e c*allenges facing t*e organi%ation. Some of t*ese tools include staff retreats2 strategic planning2 professional de0elopment opportunities2 and organi%ational c*ange coac*es. Maninger2 5. M.2 @ Powell2 D. C(!!GD. 4*e )incoln middle sc*ool paradigm s*ift. 'ournal of Cases in (ducational Leadership) 4-C'D2 ((&3'.

$" Summary -raduate students in educational administration presented t*is case study for use. 4*e goal was to furt*er t*e studentsB a?ility to deal wit* organi%ational c*ange. :ne of t*e primary roles of t*e ?uilding principal is to ?e t*e instructional leader and to create a sc*ool climate t*at is conduci0e to learning. 4*e sc*ool district designed for t*is program is in a large ur?an sc*ool system ser0ing more t*an 7!2!!! students. 4*e population of t*e city is et*nically di0erse ?ut *as ?ecome more and more segregated wit*in itself. 4*e city prides itself on its country appeal2 e0en t*oug* its population is rapidly growing. 4*is sc*ool district is suffering from t*e same pro?lems of similar districts in si%e2 namely2 ?elow&standard test scores2 a decline in t*e attendance rate2 and a rise in t*e dropout rate. 4*is case pro0ided a contemporary looA at t*e comple>ities of organi%ational c*ange and t*e c*allenges faced ?y a new middle sc*ool principal in t*is s*ifting social conte>t. 4*e case also offered an in&dept* looA at t*e c*allenges facing an administrati0e team w*ile it attempts to ?ring a?out impro0ement in state&mandated testing scores. 4*e instructor of an educational administration class may c*oose one of se0eral approac*es for t*e practical application of t*is case study. 8e or s*e mig*t consider a case study discussion approac*2 w*ic* could include a *omeworA assignment of reading t*is case study along wit* ot*er selected articles2 plus ot*er worAs t*at discuss dealing wit* organi%ational c*anges in sc*ools2 teac*er super0ision2 relations*ip de0elopment2 and t*e ?uilding of a strong administrati0e team. :ne also may consider ?rainstorming possi?le solutions to Kuestions listed ?elow. 4*e following Kuestions in organi%ational c*ange may ?e used as a spring?oard to engage students in discussion: CaD If you were t*e principal2 w*at would you doF W*at could you do to ensure t*e ?est possi?le learning atmosp*ere for t*e studentsF C?D 3ased on t*e literature2 w*at

#! do cultures of effecti0e sc*ools looA liAeF W*at could you do as t*e principal to create positi0e organi%ational c*ange wit*in t*e culture of your sc*oolF CcD4*e literature *as suggested t*at organi%ational c*ange is t*e most producti0e w*en Aey staAe*olders are in0ol0ed in defining t*e 0ision. W*at factors must ?e addressed ?efore organi%ational c*ange can ?ecome a possi?ilityF and CdD If you were t*e principal2 w*at specific tasAs would you ?e willing to delegate wit*in t*is organi%ational c*ange of culture to ?ecome a campus t*at is effecti0eF W*at Aind of c*ain&of& command issues mig*t arise from t*e delegation of t*ese items2 and *ow would you address t*emF Critical $nalysis 4*is case was a contemporary looA at t*e comple>ities of organi%ational c*ange and t*e c*allenges faced ?y a new middle sc*ool principal in t*is s*ifting social conte>t. 4*e case also offered an in&dept* looA at t*e c*allenges t*at face an administrati0e team w*ile it attempts to ?ring a?out impro0ements in state&mandated testing scores. After all2 t*e principal must create an en0ironment w*ere students and teac*ers continually grow and learn toget*er. W*ere principals are effecti0e instructional leaders2 student ac*ie0ement escalates. &elevance 4*is article may *elp to guide an instructor of *ig*er education in teac*ing future administrators *ow to deal wit* culture c*anges in sc*ool2 teac*er super0ision2 relations*ip de0elopment2 and t*e ?uilding of a strong administrati0e team. 4*e instructor could t*en focus on t*e scenario gi0en in t*e article and offer pertinent Kuestions to e0oAe intelligent discussion. Masci2 +. ,.2 6uddapa*2 ,.2 @ Pa.aA2 9. +. C(!!7D. 3ecoming an agent of sta?ility: Keeping your sc*ool in ?alance during t*e perfect storm. $merican Secondary (ducation) 2,C(D2 $G&#7.

#' Summary :0er recent decades2 education *as *ad to respond to ma.or mandates and policy c*anges at t*e local and national le0els. 4*is article e>amined ways in w*ic* secondary principals can mediate organi%ational c*ange ?y ser0ing as agents of sta?ility and c*ange. As a strategy for self&preser0ation2 it is not unusual for some educators to ?ecome cynical a?out t*e efficacy of c*ange and to simply wait for t*e latest fad to pass. 3ecause of t*e e>tensi0eness2 rapid pace2 and relentlessness of educational c*ange2 a certain cynicism and resistance to organi%ational c*ange *as de0eloped among many teac*ers. Suspicion of inno0ation and organi%ational c*ange can originate deep wit*in t*e perception of our self&efficacy and oursel0es. Wagner C(!!'D proposed t*at teac*ers tend to resist organi%ational c*ange for t*ree reasons: 'D risA a0ersion2 (D craft e>pertise2 and 3D autonomyEisolation. 4*ose promoting organi%ational c*ange may simply want to impro0e t*ingsJ t*at is2 t*ey may want to *elp people wit*in t*e sc*ool organi%ation perform t*eir worA ?etter2 smarter2 or faster. :rgani%ational c*ange denotes impro0ement w*ile signaling t*at somet*ing is wrong. It is no wonder t*at organi%ational c*ange often is met wit* resistance. Decades of relentless and poorly concei0ed inno0ation *a0e eroded educator confidence in t*e organi%ational c*ange process. :rgani%ational c*ange in itself does not imply progress2 nor is organi%ational c*ange for t*e saAe of c*ange a wort*w*ile pursuit. If t*ere is one lesson to ?e learned from c*ange2 it is t*at t*e people w*o are t*e most affected ?y t*e proposed organi%ational c*ange must ?e consulted2 included2 and nurtured t*roug*out t*e c*ange process. W*en a sc*ool contemplates c*ange or responds to t*e districtBs demand for c*ange2 Masci2 6uddapa* and Pa.aA asAed2 HW*at is wort* preser0ingFI 4*ese two considerations2 namely2 t*e needs of people and t*e need to retain w*at is worAing2 are c*ief components in t*e

#( pursuit of sta?ility In t*e second law of t*ermodynamics2 it states t*at if left to t*emsel0es. 4*ings tend towards increased entropy. 90eryt*ing affects e0eryt*ing else. 4*ermodyanmics also states t*at if strong enoug*2 systems can partially re0erse t*e apparently ine>ora?le process of disorder posited in t*e second law of t*ermodynamics. In fact2 t*ere are cases w*ere t*ermodynamics *as s*own t*e opposite processes of disorder t*at comes wit* entropy& spontaneous self&organi%ation and growt*. After all2 if t*e mem?ers of an organi%ation are gi0en some familiar touc*stones2 t*ey are more liAely to 0enture into t*e arena of c*ange wit*out fear of ?eing ?loodied ?y it. 4*ere is no need to c*oose ?etween organi%ational c*ange and sta?ilityJ a sc*ool needs a ?alance of ?ot* to function well. It is important for principals to facilitate sta?ility ?y responding to c*anging conditions ?y pro0iding predicta?ility and attending to continuity. People need a degree of sta?ility to retain a sense of meaning and purpose t*at allows t*em to do t*eir .o?s well w*ile retaining t*e capacity for organi%ational c*ange w*en it is needed. :rgani%ational c*ange and sta?ility are not mutually e>clusi0eJ rat*er2 t*ey are part of t*e same process Critical $nalysis 6*ange in and of itself does not imply progress2 nor is c*ange for t*e saAe of c*ange a wort*w*ile pursuit. Some notions a?out c*ange2 suc* as t*e call for continuous impro0ement2 can result in a relentless climate of uncertainty2 a ?urnout of ent*usiasm2 conflict2 and a loss of moti0ation. &elevance 4*is article asserted t*at c*ange and sta?ility are not mutually e>clusi0eJ rat*er2 t*ey are part of t*e same process. 6*anges in instruction2 roles2 and norms t*at go0ern ?e*a0ior need time to ?e internali%ed ?y indi0iduals and integrated into t*e organi%ation if t*ey are to taAe *old and

#3 maAe a difference. Principals s*ould remem?er t*at w*ile many organi%ations may t*ri0e on c*aos2 teac*ers2 students2 and learning reKuire and t*ri0e on a measure of predicta?ility and routine as well as 0ariety. 4*e results of t*is researc* indicate t*at sc*ools must weat*er t*e influence of tec*nological2 political2 and economic factors t*at t*reaten or en*ance t*em2 and t*at t*e principal and staff mem?ers of a sc*ool must determine t*e course of action t*at will ?enefit t*e students t*ey ser0e. Murp*y2 ,. C(!!#D. 4*e (!!# Willower family lecture: 4*e e0ol0ing nature of t*e American *ig* sc*ool: A punctuated eKuili?rium model of institutional c*ange. Leadership and !olicy in Schools) *) (7$&3(1. Summary /sing a long lens on t*e de0elopment and growt* of t*e American *ig* sc*ool as well as an especially ro?ust t*eory of organi%ational c*ange2 Murp*y re0ealed *ow t*e e0olution of t*e *ig* sc*ool *as ?een punctuated twice since its formati0e design was esta?lis*ed in t*e '7!!s2 eac* time recreating our understanding of secondary education. 4*e aut*or *ig*lig*ted t*e reality t*at Hstructural inertia is a property of all organi%ational formsI C8a0eman2 '""(2 as cited in Murp*y2 p. $!D. /sing t*e frame of organi%ational e0olution2 Murp*y maintains t*at t*e American *ig* sc*ool is in t*e midst of a second ma.or re0olution. Murp*y found t*at 4us*man and 5omannelliBs C'"7$D punctuated eKuili?rium model of organi%ational e0olution pro0ided t*e ?est fit for t*e *istorical data assem?led. :0er t*e last *alf century2 sc*olars *a0e in0ested considera?le energy in t*e Kuest to unco0er answers to t*e Kuestion of *ow industries and organi%ations e0ol0e. In t*e mid&'"7!s2 in an effort to ?ring co*erence to w*at were often 0iewed as competing and contradictory lines of e>planation2 4us*man and 5omannelli crafted t*eir seminal t*eory of organi%ational e0olution2 namely2 t*e punctuated e7uili8rium model of organizational change4*ey *ypot*esi%ed t*at organi%ations

#1 progress t*roug* con0ergent periods punctuated ?y reorientations t*at demarA and set t*e ?earings for t*e ne>t con0ergent period. According to organi%ational e0olution2 t*e central mec*anism of e0olutionary c*ange is s*ocA C8a0eman2 '""(D. 4us*man and 5omannelli C'"7$D maintained t*at s*ocA from t*e en0ironment can ?e addressed eit*er t*roug* anticipatory actions or sAilled worA after impact and t*at t*e internal dimensions of t*e organi%ation can ?e ?roug*t into alignment wit* t*e new or coming en0ironmental conte>t. 9ffecti0e organi%ations *a0e strategic orientations t*at correspond to en0ironmental demands. 4us*man and 5omannelli were careful to note t*at organi%ations also may select approac*es to reorientation t*at are inconsistent wit* en0ironmental pressuresJ t*at is2 t*ey may demonstrate Hmaladapti0e tendenciesI CStow2 Sanderlands2 @ Dutton2 '"7'2 p. $!'D. Murp*y discussed t*e complete *istory of t*e American *ig* sc*ool from its inception in 3oston in t*e '#1!s to t*e present day. In *is conclusion2 Murp*y *ig*lig*ted t*e two frameworAs *e e>plored in t*e issue of c*ange in t*e American *ig* sc*ool: CaD a longitudinal2 *istorical analysis of t*e formation and de0elopment of secondary education2 and C?D t*e punctuated eKuili?rium model of organi%ational c*ange. 8e found t*at *ig* sc*ools are generally resistant to and a?le to deflect and accommodate reform efforts during t*e times w*en pre0iously tur?ulent economic2 political2 and social en0ironment *a0e cooled and acti0ity domains *a0e *ardened. :rgani%ational c*ange depends on ma.or and o0erlapping strands of en0ironmental pressures. Critical $nalysis Murp*y employed two frameworAs to e>plore t*e issue of c*ange in t*e American *ig* sc*ool: CaD a longitudinal *istorical analysis of t*e formation and de0elopment of

#$ secondary education2 and C?D t*e punctuated eKuili?rium model of organi%ational c*ange. W*at was particularly interesting is t*at t*ere is trut* in ?ot* understandings and t*at muc* of t*e e>planation rests in w*ere and w*en one looAs at t*e p*enomenon Anown as t*e American *ig* sc*ool. Murp*y concluded t*at ;o matter *ow *ard reformers *ammer secondary education during t*ese periods of con0ergence2 c*ange occurs on t*e margins2 if at all. &elevance 6*ange depends on ma.or and o0erlapping strands of en0ironmental pressures. In t*e last two centuries2 t*ese conditions *a0e appeared twice. Murp*y ?roug*t to t*e reader an *istorical recreation of t*e American *ig* sc*ool and *ow it *as c*anged t*roug* t*e years. 4*is article may *elp current leaders understand w*ere t*e American *ig* sc*ool *as ?een2 w*ere it is now2 and w*ere it is *eading. Wit* proper guidance and leaders*ip2 t*e American *ig* sc*ool can produce students needed in academia and t*e worAforce. Stollar2 S. A.2 Pot*2 5. ).2 6urtis2 M. ,.2 @ 6o*en2 5. M. C(!!#D. 6olla?orati0e strategic planning as illustration of t*e principles of systems c*ange. School !sychology &evie") 2*C(D2 '7'& '"G. Summary 4*is article descri?ed a colla?orati0e strategic planning model grounded in understanding sc*ools as systems and guided ?y principles of organi%ational c*ange. 4*ere is a need for familiarity wit* rele0ant e0idence&?ased practices and an understanding of t*e systems c*ange principles needed to facilitate accommodations of t*ose practices in a specific sc*ool culture C6arnine2 '"""D. 4*e application of systems t*eory and organi%ational c*ange principles to sc*ools *as ?een e>plored wit* increasing freKuency in t*e literature in recent years2 and w*at is Anown a?out essential elements in effecti0e c*ange efforts also *as grown. 4*e literature *as indicated t*at sc*ool organi%ational c*ange efforts may ?e more liAely to fail w*en t*ere is no

## 0isionary leader2 w*en consultation is pro0ided ?y an e>ternal e>pert w*o lea0es t*e consultant system w*en t*e inno0ation is not well matc*ed to t*e culture of t*e agency or sc*ool2 or w*en sc*ool personnel are not concerned wit* t*e pro?lem t*at t*e sc*ool c*ange is intended to address. 4*e failure of sc*ool organi%ational c*ange efforts also may result from t*e a?sence of systemic support from persons in Aey leaders*ip positions and policymaAers. If an initiati0e is not followed ?y continuous communication2 ongoing training2 on&site coac*ing2 and time for implementation2 it is not liAely to succeed. 4*is article was meant to *elp sc*ool psyc*ologists2 educators2 and ot*er c*ild&ser0ing professionals w*o are or wis* to ?e acti0e in ?ringing a?out system&le0el organi%ational c*ange in t*e sc*ools wit* w*ic* t*ey worA. 4o facilitate t*is endea0or2 Stollar2 Pot*2 6urtis2 and 6o*en summari%ed t*e foundations of systems c*ange literature2 pro0ide an o0er0iew of a team&?ased approac* t*at uses a colla?orati0e planning and pro?lem&sol0ing process to address system&le0el issues2 and present an e>planation and e>ample of t*e two stages of pro?lem sol0ing wit*in t*e model. Stollar et al. re0iewed sc*ool system reKuirements in t*e form of Aey features for use of t*e model and identify t*e sAills reKuired of sc*ool psyc*ologists2 educators2 and ot*er c*ild&ser0ing professionals to engage wit* ot*ers in use of t*is model to implement educational inno0ations. In ot*er words2 one must ?e familiar wit* rele0ant e0idence&?ased practices and *a0e an understanding of t*e systems c*ange principles needed to accommodate t*ose practices in a specific sc*ool culture. Critical $nalysis 4*e model presented in t*is article is a0aila?le to support sc*ools t*at wis* to apply t*ese ad0ancements in pro?lem sol0ing. 4*e c*allenge2 *owe0er2 remains to implement t*e model in a

#G system t*at is already operating wit*in a ?roader ser0ice deli0ery system. Sc*ool psyc*ologists2 educators2 and ot*er c*ild&ser0ing professionals w*o are eKuipped wit* t*e Anowledge of measurement assessment and inter0ention are ?est suited for t*e .o? of initiating and implementing t*is impending systems c*ange. 3ecause t*is is a daunting tasA2 t*is article offered a few recommendations. :ne was t*at ?eing Anowledgea?le of systems c*ange and t*e most recent federal and state legislation is essential. 4*e second recommendation was t*at sc*ool& focused psyc*ologists and educators wit* e>pertise in systems c*ange s*ould guide planning teams t*roug* t*e steps of t*e systems analysis mentioned in t*e article. 4*e last recommendation was t*at sc*ool&?ased planning teams s*ould seeA *elp from local and state consultants or uni0ersity faculty w*o are in0ol0ed in pro?lem sol0ing. &elevance :ne c*allenge for t*ose implementing systems c*ange models is to put it into practice at regional2 state2 and national le0els. More researc* is needed to identify t*e models of training and tec*nical assistance t*at will maAe t*is possi?le. +ocusing systems c*ange efforts at t*e district le0el rat*er t*an sc*ool le0el is appealing2 ?ut additional researc* is needed to determine t*e most effecti0e processes and tools. +uture researc* could focus on t*e consultant Anowledge and ?e*a0iors t*at facilitate district&le0el support of indi0idual sc*ool ?uildings and t*e linAing of system&le0el 0aria?les suc* as fle>i?le use of resources and student learning outcomes. Maira2 M. C(!!1D. -lo?ali%ation and *ig*er education organi%ational c*ange: A frameworA for analysis. Higher (ducation) +1) 173&$'!. Summary 4*e ma.or aim of t*is article was to outline a t*eoretical frameworA to address *ig*er education and organi%ational c*ange in a glo?ali%ed age. 4*is article descri?ed t*e trends

#7 c*aracteri%ing t*e glo?al landscape and t*eir relations*ip to *ig*er education policies and institutions. In terms of organi%ational c*ange2 t*e de?ate focuses on isomorp*ic c*ange 0ersus idiosyncratic strategic responses2 translation processes2 and *eterogeneity. 3ot* grasp a part of t*e trut*2 ?ut t*ey tend to offer mutually e>clusi0e e>planations of responses to wider institutional processes and pressures. Maira focused on *ig*er educational institutionsB organi%ational c*ange2 triggered ?y glo?ali%ing pressures and conditions.:rgan%iational c*ange is a t*eoretical attempt to outline a frameworA of analysis to account for *omogeni%ation and *eterogeneity ?ased on t*e concept of organi%ational allmorp*ism. 4*is concept synt*esi%es and ?lends t*e isomorp*ic pressures produced ?y glo?ali%ation processes and t*e local responses to t*em2 t*ere?y ?lunting t*e mutual e>clusi0ity of ?ot*. 4*e glo?ali%ationBs meta&myt* could ?e concei0ed as a collection of rationali%ed myt*s c*aracteri%ing t*e world polity. 4*ese core features and t*e content of t*ese myt*s could ?e synt*esi%ed ?y a single point2 namely2 t*at t*e trend toward a more entrepreneurial and managerialistic pattern of organi%ational c*ange is tig*tly coupled wit* t*e minimalist state.. -lo?ali%ation is deeply affecting *ig*er education. 4*e tasAs for institutions of *ig*er education *a0e c*anged dramatically in t*e last (! years. 4*e c*anges in t*e world polity toward t*e neoli?eralist and post&+ordistparadigms *a0e *ad momentous effects on t*e glo?al *ig*er education sector. 8ig*er education is asserting a structure of go0ernance ?ased on steering at distance and assessment t*at is linAed to letting institutions of *ig*er education *a0e more institutional2 organi%ational autonomy. 4*ese institutions are e>periencing a deep institutional c*ange in t*eir tasA en0ironment triggered ?y glo?ali%ation process. 4*is process is gi0ing rise to

#" a world economy and world polity structures t*at are redefining institutional and organi%ational arrangements. Critical $nalysis 4*e outlined t*eoretical frameworA was aimed at addressing and analy%ing *ig*er education organi%ational c*ange in t*e glo?al age. Maira claimed t*at organi%ational c*ange is triggered ?y glo?ali%ing pressures and conditions. Maira suggested t*at t*ere are only two limited e>amples of *ow t*e concepts of organi%ation allomorp*ism could ?e applied to address contemporary *ig*er educational c*ange dynamics and outcomes2 glo?ali%ation and organi%ation. :t*er e>amples could ?e drawn from international comparison on *ow disciplines are getting restratified on t*e ?assis of t*e new glo?al demands and imperati0esJ *ow curricula restructruring follow almost t*e same pattern in different countries and institutionsJ *ow t*e academic worA2 carrier and identity are res*aped ?y glo?al processes of c*ange. &elevance 4*e aim of t*is article was to outline a t*eoretical frameworA to address *ig*er education organi%ational c*ange in a glo?ali%ed and glo?ali%ing age. MairaBs article may *elp t*e reader to understand t*e trends c*aracteri%ing t*e glo?al landscape and t*eir relations*ip to *ig*er education policies and institutions. 4*e impact of t*ese esta?lis*ed trends on *ig*er education institutions is2 to some large e>tent2 am?iguous and open to di0erse interpretations. 4*e two main points t*at t*is article made a?out glo?ali%ation outcomes are 'D t*e con0ergence t*esis2 w*ic* emp*asi%es t*e *omogeni%ation processes2 and (D t*e di0ergence t*esis2 w*ic* emp*asi%es different pluralistic and locali%ed responses to glo?ali%ation processes. It is possi?le to identify a common set of institutionali%ed patterns2 or institutional arc*etypes2 w*ic* structure t*e organi%ational arrangements and ?e*a0iors.

G! )iterature 5e0iew 9ssay School as a System Mandates t*roug* legislati0e c*anges for increased student outcome accounta?ility *a0e intensified t*e demands for meaningful sc*ool reform and greater emp*asis on empirically ?ased practices. W*et*er or not an inno0ation is implemented and sustained is more often related to features of t*e sc*ool as a system t*an to features of t*e inno0ation. 4ollar and Pot* C(!!#D descri?ed a colla?orati0e strategic planning model t*at is grounded in understanding sc*ools as systems t*at are guided ?y t*e principles of organi%ational c*ange. 4*e most recent reaut*ori%ation of t*e ;o 6*ild )eft 3e*ind Act C;6)3J /.S. Department of 9ducation N/SD:9O2 (!!'D mandated t*at sc*ools must pro0ide not only eKual educational opportunities ?ut also a *ig*&Kuality education for all students2 including t*ose wit* disa?ilities. 4o demonstrate t*at a *ig*&Kuality education is pro0ided2 sc*ools must esta?lis* a time line of ?enc*marAs demonstrating t*at '!!Q of t*eir students are maAing adeKuate yearly progress in academic su?.ects ?y (!'12 as measured ?y statewide ac*ie0ement tests. +or t*ose w*o *a0e long ad0ocated for t*e merger of regular and special education ser0ice systems2 legislati0e policies suc* as 4*e Indi0iduals wit* Disa?ilities 9ducation Impro0ement Act CID9AJ /SD:92 (!!1D and t*e ;6)3 C/SD:92 (!!'D offer renewed opportunity and promote t*at de0elopment. 4*e application of systems t*eory and organi%ational c*ange principles to sc*ools *as ?een e>plored2 and current Anowledge a?out essential elements in effecti0e c*ange efforts also *as grown C+ullan2 (!!'aJ Senge2 '""!D. 4*e literature *as s*own t*at sc*ool c*ange efforts are more liAely to fail w*en t*ere is no 0isionary leaderJ w*en t*e inno0ation does not matc* t*e culture of t*e agency or sc*ool CKameBemui @ Simmons2 '""7J 5ingeisen2 8enderson2 @

G' 8oagwood2 (!!3DJ and w*en sc*ool personnel are not concerned a?out t*e pro?lem t*at t*e sc*ool c*ange is intended to address C8all @ 8ord2 (!!' 4*e failure of sc*ool c*ange efforts may result from t*e a?sence of systemic support from persons in Aey leaders*ip positions and policymaAers. Systems t*eory *as ?een used for se0eral decades as a frameworA for analy%ing and sol0ing pro?lems in sc*ools. 6urtis and Stollar C(!!(D defined a system as Ht*e orderly com?ination of two or more indi0iduals w*ose interaction is intended to produce a desired outcomeI Cp. ((1D. 9>amples of systems related to sc*ools include grade&le0el teams2 inter0ention assistance teams2 classrooms2 districts2 intermediate agencies2 and state departments of education. 9ac* of t*ese systems *as su?systems2 and t*ey also e>ist wit*in a larger system Stollar et al. C(!!#D agreed t*at colla?orati0e strategic planning and pro?lem sol0ingoffer t*e ?est frameworA to accommodate desired practice and t*e culture of t*e specific sc*ool. 4*e colla?orati0e strategic planning C6SPD process in0ol0es se0eral specific steps to pro?lem sol0ing. 4*e first stage in0ol0es a system&le0el analysis to identify needs or pro?lems related to studentsB academic andEor ?e*a0ioral outcomes or to any of t*e si> Aey system features necessary for successful functioning. At t*e second stage2 once system&le0el needs or pro?lems are identified2 t*e planning and pro?lem&sol0ing procedures are used to analy%e and de0elop inter0ention plans to address eac* need or pro?lem. 4*e num?er of sc*ools engaged in sc*ool reform continues to grow2 ?ut few sc*ools seem a?le to sustain efforts long enoug* to produce lasting c*ange 4*e 6SP process is a strategy for maintaining focus and applying practices t*at are consistent wit* t*ose identified in t*e systems c*ange literature. 3y applying t*e principles of systems c*ange2 sc*ool or district teams may ?e a?le to analy%e Aey factors of t*e system t*at impede or ena?le student learning.

G( 6yclical e0aluation of student performance outcomes as indices of system *ealt* may promote sustaina?ility. Organizational Change in the 9orkforce 3ac* et al. C(!!GD focused on t*e emergence of assistants in t*e 3ritis* pu?lic ser0ice and t*ey soug*t to determine w*et*er t*is leads to t*e depri0ation of t*ose w*o fill t*e role of t*e professionals wit* w*om t*ey worA. 3ac* et al. supported t*e argument t*at c*anges in t*e di0ision of la?or result in ?lended and potentially contradictory outcomes for t*e worAers in0ol0ed. 4*eir findings also suggested t*at outcomes are contingent upon conte>t2 proposing t*at su?sector conditions can ?e influential. 4*e emp*asis placed ?y successi0e new )a?or go0ernments on user&centered ser0ices allied to a performance agenda underpinned ?y targets *as encouraged national policymaAers to c*allenge traditional worAing practices. De?ate on management and organi%ational control2 framed in terms of po0erty2 assumed particular prominence in t*e '"G!s w*en 3ra0erman C'"G1D traced t*e transformation of worA in t*e (!t* century and asserted t*at capitalism degraded worA ?y using scientific management principles t*at c*eapened t*e la?or process. 9mployers soug*t to esta?lis* detailed control o0er t*e worA process. 4*is process was ?est accomplis*ed ?y separating t*e conception of worA from its e>ecution2 wit* managers designing worA roles and esta?lis*ing a monopoly of Anowledge o0er t*e la?or process. WorA was degraded as worAers surrendered t*eir interest in t*e organi%ational process. In general terms2 t*e &&as an employer&&faces t*e same issue of control as pri0ate&sector employers ?ecause it seeAs to pursue in pu?lic policy its goals in t*e conte>t of t*e employment relations*ip. ;onet*eless2 t*e su?stance and implementation of management control strategies mig*t ?e e>pected to differ from t*ose in t*e pri0ate sector as t*e conseKuence of differences in

G3 t*e nature of organi%ational o?.ecti0es2 t*e type of worAers employed2 and differences in t*eir moti0ations C6arter2 '""GD. As mentioned in t*e annotated ?i?liograp*y2 la?or process t*eory *as ?een used to frame de?ate on de0elopments in worA organi%ation in t*e pu?lic ser0ice. Analysis in t*e pri0ate sector *as concentrated on t*e a?ility of management to pursue control strategies in t*e face of residual employee resistance. 4*e centrality of t*e professions in t*e pu?lic ser0ice *as encouraged an interest in t*e a?ility of well&organi%ed occupational groups to impose preferred forms of self&regulation on t*e state. 5ecently2 attention *as focused on t*e degree to w*ic* managerial ascendancy and organi%ational power *a0e eroded professional power in education C-leeson @ Knig*ts2 (!!#D. :ne organi%ational c*ange t*at t*e ?usiness sector *as influenced in t*e education sector is t*e reflection in t*e national worAload agreement2 w*ic* designates (1 administrati0e tasAs to ?e delegated from teac*ers to teac*ing assistants to ensure t*at teac*ers de0ote t*emsel0es to w*at t*ey do ?est: teac* CMorris2 (!!'D. 4*is type of delegation *as long ?een considered a professionali%ation and organi%ational strategy wit* group mem?ers discarding dirty worA C8ug*es2 '""3D or tedious routine worA t*at t*reatens t*eir status as t*ey mo0e up t*e occupational *ierarc*y. :0er t*e last Kuarter century2 t*e American *ig* sc*ool2 liAe t*e larger educational industry in w*ic* it is em?edded2 *as ?een su?.ected to critical analysis. In particular2 t*e decade of discontent fueling t*e current rede0elopment of secondary sc*ooling saw t*e pu?lication of a series of ?ooAs t*at laid t*e foundational critiKue of t*e e>isting institution and pro0ided initial insig*t a?out *ow t*e struggle to o0er*aul t*is American institution could ?e engaged. 4*ere is an accepted ?elief t*at t*e nation *as gained no ground in its efforts to reform its *ig* sc*ools. Murp*y C(!!#D pro0ided an analysis t*at not only confirmed t*e deep&seated stagnationseen ?y re0iewers w*o study many aspects of t*e *ig* sc*ool ?ut also e>posed t*e

G1 more fundamental c*anges t*at *a0e unfolded o0er t*e last two centuries. 4*e e0olution of t*e *ig* sc*ool *as ?een punctuated twice since its formati0e design was esta?lis*ed in t*e '7!!s2 eac* time fundamentally recreating our understanding of secondary education. -i0en t*e long& seKuenced *istorical inspection of AmericaBs *ig* sc*ools2 Murp*y concluded t*at pre0ailing 0iews of secondary education as a *opelessly stucA institution are ?asically wrong. 4*e American *ig* sc*ool is in t*e midst of a second ma.or re0olution2 or up*ea0al2 w*ic* promises to o0er*aul secondary education in t*e /nited States as dramatically as t*e first recreation ?etween '7"! and '"(!. Organizational :ergers -lei?s et al. C(!!7D conducted a longitudinal study on t*e predictors of c*ange in postmerger identification during a merger process. 4*e first Kuestionnaire was distri?uted 1 mont*s after t*e implementation of t*e mergerJ t*e following two were distri?uted after # mont*s and one year2 respecti0ely. Wit* its longitudinal design2 t*e study replicated and e>tended past results ?y re0ealing predictors of c*ange in organi%ational identification for mem?ers of t*e dominant and su?ordinate organi%ations t*roug*out a merger process. 4*e focus of -lei?s et al.Bs study was t*e de0elopmental and dynamic aspect of identification ?y means of a longitudinal field study conducted during t*e course of a uni0ersity merger. Patterns of c*ange in postmerger identification o0er 3 points of measurement were in0estigated. 4*roug*out t*e merger of two *ig*er educational institutions2 student samples were followed o0er t*e course of one year. Systematic c*anges in postmerger identification during t*e merger process were analy%ed2 and an e>ploration was conducted into w*et*er or not any discrepancies were identified o0er time2 as predicted ?y t*e researc* of Amoit2 4erry2 ,ummieson2 and 6allan C(!!#D.

G$ It is assumed t*at t*e goal of a successful merger is to *a0e t*e new organi%ation ser0e as t*e ?asic source of identification and to encourage its mem?ers to disidentify wit* t*e pre0ious organi%ation and reidentify wit* t*e new one. Mergers are not always implemented in suc* a way t*at premerger organi%ations are fully a?andoned. 4o maintain an identity in a new en0ironment successfully2 a person must de0elop a new persona for supporting t*at identity w*ile detac*ing from t*e old en0ironment 4*e perception of continuity *as an impact on postmerger identification. Percei0ed continuity from premerger group to postmerger group implies t*at t*e former group is seen as typical of t*e newly merged organi%ation. 4*e dominant merger partner will ?e percei0ed as typical2 w*ereas t*e su?ordinate partner will ?e percei0ed as atypical or de0iant from t*e s*ared postmerger group. -lei?s et al. C(!!7D supposed t*at premerger identification and in&group typicality would ?e predictors of postmerger identification. In addition to 0aria?les e>plicitly deri0ed from t*e social identity approac*2 t*ey assumed t*at t*e perception of fairness concerning t*e merger process would ?e an important predictor of postmerger identification. 4*e perception of fairness taps into indi0idualsB ?eliefs a?out *ow resources and outcomes are redistri?uted wit*in t*e newly merged organi%ation2 *ow organi%ational mem?ers are treated2 and *ow t*e c*ange is implemented wit*in t*e newly merged entity. -lei?s et al. C(!!7D e>amined postmerger identification in t*e course of a merger ?y using a longitudinal design t*at allowed t*em to assess t*e de0elopment and growt* of postmerger identification among students in0ol0ed in a uni0ersity merger2 as well as t*e effects of time&0aliant predictors. 4ime was included as an essential 0aria?le t*at determines patterns concerning w*en and *ow specific psyc*ological factors can predict c*ange during a merger. :nly a few mergers are mergers of eKuals. /sually one merger partner is dominant and

G# ?ecomes t*e acKuiring force. 4*e dominant merger partner mig*t seeA to assimilate t*e ot*er organi%ation and impose its own premerger identity on t*e newly merged organi%ation. 8ig*er education mergers are a special case of organi%ational merger. 4*ey often are c*aracteri%ed ?y t*eir in0oluntary nature and are used ?y aut*orities to restructure t*e *ig*er education sector. 8ig*er education mergers *a0e ?ecome common in t*e past 3! years. -lei?s et al. C(!!7D tested *ow t*e outcome 0aria?le postmerger identification was affected ?y c*ange during t*e merger process. In general2 time and c*ange are fundamental aspects of *uman e>istence and pose t*eoretical and met*odological c*allenges for researc*. Organizational &eality Koli?a and )at*rop C(!!GD ga0e an account of an action researc* process as it unfolded wit*in a pu?lic sc*ool. 4*e t*ematic report pro0ided an intersu?.ecti0ely C5adigan2 (!!(D constructed picture of t*e sc*oolBs t*eories in use CArgyris @ Sc*on2 '""#D. 4*e picture was t*en presented ?acA to t*e sc*ool in an effort to identify pro?lems2 recogni%e successes2 and maAe decisions a?out future actions. 4*is process would *elp mem?ers of t*e sc*oolBs worAforce ?ecome conscious of t*eir taAen&for&granted assumptions and dispositions a?out t*eir sc*ool and t*e people and practices in it. In some cases2 t*is consciousness led to c*anges in ?e*a0ior2 attitude2 and practice. A set of approac*es *as ?een deri0ed for rural conte>ts2 wit* terms suc* as rapid rural appraisal C3ee?e2 '""$DJ applied rural research CW*ittaAer @ 3answell2 (!!(DJ and participatory rural appraisal C6amp?ell2 (!!'D2 used to descri?e different 0ariations of action researc*. In one way or anot*er2 t*ese forms of action researc* seeA to transform indi0idualsB perceptions of a gi0en pro?lem2 practice2 policy2 program2 or organi%ation into data t*at can ?e used ?y practitioners to guide2 dictate2 or transform t*eir practice.

GG Argyris and Sc*onBs worA Cas cited in Koli?a @ )at*rop2 (!!GD was a central analytical frameworA t*at e>plained and .udged t*e action researc* process. It e>plained *ow t*e researc* process undertaAen ?y t*e consultants pro0ided t*e organi%ationBs mem?ers wit* an opportunity to reflect on t*eir actions and ad0ance t*e organi%ational learning process. 4*is e>c*ange was grounded in t*e assumption t*at t*e action researc* process was understood as a colla?orati0e process. Alt*oug* future iterations of t*is action researc* process would com?ine Kuantitati0e measures wit* Kualitati0e met*ods2 t*e process *ig*lig*ter employed only Kualitati0e met*ods2 a series of semistructured inter0iews wit* sc*ool personnel2 students2 and a cross&section of parents2 sc*ool ?oard mem?ers2 and ot*er 0olunteersJ focus groups wit* studentsJ and participant o?ser0ations of sc*ool e0ents and routine acti0ities. Rualitati0e researc*ers rely on triangulation to ensure t*e 0alidity of t*eir analysis. Koli?a and )at*rop C(!!GD relied on t*e triangulation of two categories of o?ser0ers to construct generati0e t*emes2 wit* t*e first ?eing t*e reflections and perceptions of acti0e participants w*o e>perience t*e organi%ation first*and2 and t*e second ?eing t*e researc*ersB o?ser0ations of and reflections a?out t*e organi%ational mem?ersB first*and accounts. 4*ey constructed t*emes ?y triangulating t*e o?ser0ersB stories and perception. After t*e researc*ers separately generated a series of t*emes2 t*ey compared t*eir reconstructed triangulated t*emes. Koli?a and )at*rop C(!!GD ?elie0ed t*at t*e process outlined *ere could ?e impro0ed along se0eral lines. +uture iterations of t*is design mig*t include t*e triangulation of different data&collection met*ods. In addition to t*e Kualitati0e data&collection met*ods2 t*ey suggested as also using sc*ool climate sur0eys and self&assessment ru?rics. 4*e data collected from t*ese instruments could t*en ?e compared wit* t*e Kualitati0e o?ser0ations2 or 0ice 0ersa2 to impro0e

G7 t*e 0alidity and generali%a?ility of t*e t*emes as t*ey are reported. Ruantitati0e measures would diminis* t*e grounded t*eory approac* to creating generati0e t*emes. Organizational Change in the High School Maninger and Powell C(!!GD studied organi%ational c*ange and t*e role of t*e administrati0e team as instructional leaders. 4*e sc*ool in t*eir study was a middle&*ig* sc*ool in a large ur?an sc*ool system. 4*ey stated t*at t*e sc*ool was located on t*e 0erge of t*e Hwild WestIJ in fact2 tourism ad0ertisements for t*e city referred to it as Hw*ere t*e West ?egins.I Industry continues to pour into t*e city as ci0il go0ernmental officials *a0e e>tended ta> a?atements to encourage t*is growt*. 4*e principal was in *is first year t*ere2 *a0ing ?een transferred from a -rade # campus. 8a0ing ?een an assistant principal at one of t*e districtBs *ig* sc*ools2 *e *ad " years of teac*ing e>perience at t*e *ig* sc*ool and middle sc*ool le0els in 9nglis* language arts. 4*is new principal *ad two assistant principals w*o were in t*eir second year at t*is middle sc*ool and w*o came from totally different pat*s. :ne assistant principal spent '$ years as a -rade ' teac*er2 and t*e ot*er was a former *ig* sc*ool social studies teac*er and foot?all coac*. 4*e test scores deemed ?y t*e state&mandated testing results were accepta?le in t*e statewide accounta?ility system from t*e pre0ioust sc*ool yearJ *owe0er2 t*e sc*ool needed dramatic impro0ement to progress to t*e ne>t *ig*er le0el of recognition2 w*ic* was t*e principalBs c*arge from *is super0isors. 4*ere are si> tests in t*e state&mandated testing system. 4*ese2 along wit* appropriate attendance and dropout rates2 are t*e criteria on w*ic* t*e sc*ool is ranAed in t*e state system. 4*e sc*ool *as performed poorly in t*e categories of attendance and dropout rate2 primarily ?ecause t*e pre0ious administrators and staff *ad not ?een attenti0e to t*ese issues. 4*e state reKuires an 7!Q passing rate among all test taAers and an 7!Q passing

G" rate on all su?population groups t*at meet t*e minimum numerical reKuirements to ac*ie0e t*e e>pected le0el. )ast year2 t*e students *ad scored G!Q in -rade 7 reading and $1Q in -rade 7 mat*. 4*e only score on t*e accounta?ility data falling in t*e range of scores reKuired for t*e ad0ancement soug*t was t*e -rade 7 social studies test. 4*ere also are ot*er ongoing pro?lems. Along wit* t*e ?elow&standard test scores2 a decline in t*e attendance rate2 and an increase in t*e dropout rate2 t*e sc*ool faces serious discipline issues. )ast year alone2 "3 students were sent to alternati0e placement sc*ools ?ecause of disciplinary pro?lems. 4wo t*emes were consistent in t*e discipline referrals to t*e assistant principals: CaD A disproportionate num?er of referrals were 3lacA or 8ispanic students2 and C?D '$! fig*ts *ad ?een recorded during t*e sc*ool year. 4*e discipline referrals of students of color seemed to ?ear witness to t*e unstated p*ilosop*y ?y t*e faculty t*at IdifficultI students do not ?elong at t*is middle sc*ool. 4*is case is a contemporary e>ample of t*e comple>ities of organi%ational c*ange and t*e c*allenges faced ?y a new middle sc*ool principal in t*is s*ifting social conte>t. 4*e case also offers an in&dept* looA at t*e c*allenges facing administrators as t*ey attempt to impro0e state&mandated testing scores. After all2 t*e principal must create an en0ironment w*ere students and teac*ers continually grow and learn toget*er. W*ere principals are effecti0e instructional leaders2 student ac*ie0ement escalates. :0er t*e last Kuarter century2 t*e American *ig* sc*ool *as ?een su?.ected to critical analysis. In particular2 t*e '"7!s2 w*ic* was t*e decade of discontent fueling t*e current rede0elopment of secondary sc*ooling2 saw t*e pu?lication of influential ?ooAs t*at laid t*e foundational critiKue of t*e e>isting institution and pro0ided initial insig*ts into t*e struggle to o0er*aul t*is American institution. Murp*y C(!!#D pro0ided an analysis t*at confirmed t*e deep&

7! seated inertia identified in studies on t*e many aspects of t*e *ig* sc*ool. Murp*y conducted researc* on t*e de0elopment and e0olution of t*e American *ig* sc*ool. 4us*man and 5omannelli C'"7$D crafted t*eir seminal t*eory of organi%ational e0olution2 emp*asi%ing t*e eKuili?rium model of organi%ational c*ange. 4us*man2 ;ewman2 and 5omannelli C'"77D de0eloped a frameworA to e>amine t*e e0olution of organi%ations2 particularly during reorientation2 ?y ?uilding on an understanding of organi%ations as structured systems of routines em?edded in a networA of interactions wit* t*e e>ternal en0ironment. In *is analysis of c*ange in education2 6o*en C'"77D o?ser0ed t*at o0er time2 t*e process produces a significant amount of organi%ational sediment. 4*e formati0e era of t*e American pu?lic *ig* sc*ool came to ?e defined ?y well&defined perspecti0es on t*e Aey acti0ity domains outlined ?y 4us*man and 5omannelli C'"7$D. 4us*man and 5omannelli felt t*at it was at t*e *ig* sc*ool le0el t*at students would ?ecome prepared to sur0i0e in t*e world outside of education. In t*e early part of t*e (!t* century2 a comple> set of social2 economic2 and educational conditions s*aped t*e modern *ig* sc*ool for ser0ice to a ?roader range of t*e population. 4*e economic and social c*anges set in motion ?y scientific and industrial ad0ances necessitated a complete transformation of t*e sc*ool. During t*e first two decades of t*e new century2 *ig* sc*ool administrators were aware t*at a momentous2 re0olutionary c*ange was in t*e offing and t*at t*ey were engaged in a de?ate t*at would determine t*e course of American secondary education for decades. As t*e ('st century approac*ed2 t*e American *ig* sc*ool found itself in t*e midst of economic2 political2 and social c*anges. A new con0ergence t*at is emerging in t*e American *ig* sc*ools parallels in scope t*e c*anges seen in t*at institution from t*e early days of *ig* sc*ool Ci.e.2 '7"!&'"(!D. 4*ree central alterations are 0isi?le: aD at t*e tec*nical le0el2 a c*ange

7' from ?e*a0ioral to social constructi0ist 0iews of learning and teac*ingJ ?D at t*e organi%ational le0el2 a c*ange from a ?ureaucratic operational system to more communal 0iews of t*e *ig* sc*oolJ and cD at t*e institutional le0el2 a re?alancing of t*e eKuation t*at adds more weig*t to marAet and citi%en control w*ile su?tracting influence from go0ernment and professional actors. Murp*y C(!!#D was interested in reconciling w*at *e could find out a?out fundamental s*ifts in t*e ?asic of secondary education wit* t*e almost uni0ersal ?elief t*at *ig* sc*ools are imper0ious to c*ange. 4*ere also is e0idence t*at t*e eKuili?rium t*at defines American secondary education is su?.ect to desta?ili%ation and reformation. In t*e last two centuries2 c*anges *a0e ?een t*e result of o0erlapping strands of en0ironmental pressures. 4*ese conditions *a0e appeared twice. :ne occurred as t*e '"t* century turned into t*e (!t* century and t*e compre*ensi0e *ig* sc*ool was formed to respond to t*e needs of an industrial economy. 4*e second arose as t*e (!t* century mo0ed into t*e ('st century and secondary education ?egan to recast itself consistent wit* t*e political2 social2 and economic structures of an information societyIn educational literature2 mentoring represents one model for *elping no0ice and e>perienced teac*ers de0elop *ig*er le0els of effecti0eness. Specifically2 t*e mentoring process supports increased conceptual de0elopment t*roug* t*e ?alance of reflection and e>perience. Kele*ear C(!!3D stated t*at t*roug* t*e mentoring process2 teac*ers ?ecome more autonomous as professionals w*o are reflecti0e of t*eir e>perience and Aeenly aware of t*eir studentsB needs. Kele*ear presented a conceptual frameworA t*at applies t*e findings from t*e ?est practices of mentoring to organi%ational t*eory. +or e>ample2 at a local *ig* sc*ool2 a *istory teac*er attends a faculty meeting only to find t*at t*e agenda is ?locA sc*eduling for ne>t term. 3eing introduced to somet*ing new and different from t*e G&period sc*edule creates a certain le0el of stress. 3ecause t*e teac*erBs stress le0el already is *ig*2 *e or s*e tends to maAe order and sense

7( of t*e new Anowledge in a concrete2 specific2 orderly fas*ion. Stress and concern are daunting reali%ations for a leaders*ip team t*at Anows t*at all of t*e indi0iduals in t*e sc*ool are at different le0els of conceptuali%ation. It is important to looA at t*ree forces t*at come to ?ear on indi0iduals and t*en try to understand t*ose forces in a way t*at mig*t ena?le leaders*ip to mentor t*e organi%ation to *ig*er le0els of effecti0eness. +uller C'"#"D2 and t*en researc*ers 8all and )oucAs C'"G7D and 8all and 5ut*erford C'""!D later on2 presented a model of t*e necessary and seKuential stages of concern t*at come wit* inno0ation. In general2 t*ese researc*ers set in motion an understanding of t*e stages t*roug* w*ic* all indi0iduals tra0el as t*ey engage in c*ange. +ollowing +ullerBs frameworA2 ?locA sc*eduling in a *ig* sc*ool could ?e percei0ed as t*e inno0ation confronting t*e principal and teac*ers. 4*e principal is interested in ?locA sc*eduling2 so t*e first order of ?usiness is to maAe t*e staff mem?ers aware of ?locA sc*eduling. 4*e staff mem?ers t*en *a0e an immediate need to Anow more details a?out ?locA sc*eduling2 so t*ey seeA out more out information. 4*ese teac*ers mo0e a*ead2 only to ?e frustrated ?y Kuestions and arguments coming from t*ose left ?e*ind w*o did not *a0e t*e reKuisite data to mo0e ?eyond awareness and information. W*ate0er t*e source2 t*e principal cannot mo0e a*ead until information is pro0ided t*at outlines t*e essential elements of ?locA sc*eduling. +aculty mem?ers may consider *ow t*ey2 collecti0ely and indi0idually2 will fit ?locA sc*eduling into t*e e>isting sc*edule. W*en faculty mem?ers ?egin to consider t*e effect of ?locA sc*eduling on student ac*ie0ement2 t*en t*e inward focus on t*e inno0ation mo0es outwardJ t*at is2 t*e principal and t*e faculty mem?ers cease to t*inA primarily of t*emsel0es and more a?out t*e students. 4*e discussion a?out ?locA sc*eduling mig*t progress to t*e conseKuence on student sc*eduling or student ac*ie0ement.

73 If teac*ers are asAed to c*ange from teac*ing si> periods a day to teac*ing in a ?locA sc*edule2 t*ey are liAely to accommodate t*is reKuest ?ecause t*e learning is significantly different from w*at t*e teac*er already Anows. 4*is accommodation reKuires a type of reconceptuali%ation ?y t*e learners. As leaders engage inno0ation2 it is important t*at t*ey consider *ow similar t*e c*ange is to w*at is already in place. In so doing2 leaders*ip can anticipate t*e stress le0el and appropriately ad.ust t*e speed and su?stance of c*ange. Mentors Anow w*en to taAe on e>tra c*allenges and w*en to decline. 4*ey recogni%e t*at t*e *ig* le0els of stress in t*eir professional or personal li0es reKuire t*at t*ey conceptuali%e at a low le0el and necessarily slow t*e pace t*roug* t*e stages of concern. +uller C'"#"D asserted t*at Hcreating growt*&oriented learning conditions of ot*ers in t*e organi%ationI is foundational in c*ange processes Cp. '$D. 4*e way to Anow t*e appropriate ?alance is found in understanding t*e groupBs current stage of concern2 conceptual le0el2 and degree of diseKuili?rium. In coupling t*e researc* on organi%ational c*ange wit* mentoring2 it is clear t*at organi%ational mentoring offers leaders a prescripti0e model t*at captures t*e power of t*e group2 ?ut does not lose touc* wit* t*e indi0iduals w*o are t*e life essence of t*at group. Masci et al. C(!!7D stated t*at a practical disad0antage of t*e *eroic c*ange agent image is t*e principal2 w*o must constantly stri0e to o0ercome t*e potential resistance to c*ange among reluctant staff mem?ers. 5at*er t*an attempt to o0ercome resistance t*roug* willpower or force2 *ig* sc*ool principals can succeed and preser0e organi%ational *ealt* ?y deli?erately instituting an element of sta?ility to support indi0iduals and t*e sc*ool community during t*e difficult stages of implementation and institutionali%ation. If *ig* sc*ool principals learn to function more liAe t*e gyroscope of a s*ip rat*er t*an t*e engine t*at pus*es forward or t*e rudder t*at steers in a predetermined direction2 t*ey can pro0ide sta?ility as t*e 0essel proceeds. 4*e gyroscope taAes

71 its cue from t*e e>ternal influences on t*e s*ip and pro0ides ?alance and sta?ility. Masci et al. C(!!7D ga0e a *ypot*etical situation to a functioning su?committee to pro0e t*eir point. 4*e principal of a compre*ensi0e *ig* sc*ool wit* an enrollment of '27!! students located in an ur?an su?ur? of a ma.or /.S. city asAed t*at t*e team consider creating a c*ange and sta?ility su?committee C6SSD. 4*e committee would ?e responsi?le for monitoring t*e effect of 0arious sc*ool reform initiati0es on students2 staff2 and community in t*ree ?road areas: promoting unity2 pro0iding support2 and increasing satisfaction among all mem?ers of t*e sc*ool community. 4*e first tasA of t*e 6SS was to de0elop a plan to increase trust among its mem?ers and t*roug* t*e sc*ool. 4*ey adopted procedures ensuring t*at all communication issued ?y t*e 6SS would ?e plain and direct. 4*e committee mem?ers listened carefully to w*at people at all le0els in t*e sc*ool and community *ad to say. A less o?0ious ?ut effecti0e way t*at t*e 6SS increased staff satisfaction was ?y cele?rating success freKuently. Su?committee mem?ers found t*at suc* cele?ration 0alidated indi0idual and group efforts2 and contri?uted to a sta?le2 trusting2 pleasant en0ironment t*at was more producti0e. 4*e principal2 assistant principals2 peer coac*es2 and department c*airs also *elped to impro0e satisfaction ?y adopting a form of clinical super0ision t*at *onored eac* teac*erBs style of teac*ing CPa.aA2 (!!3D. 4*ey used t*e conferences t*at followed o?ser0ations to 0alidate indi0idual successes and feelings. 4*e 6SS encouraged feed?acA t*at legitimi%ed t*e teac*ersB feelings and preferred instructional styles in an effort to support an organi%ational culture conduci0e to indi0idual and collecti0e learning. 4*e *ig* sc*ool was managing c*ange in ways t*at were t*e least disrupti0e to classroom and sc*ool functioning and t*e most reassuring to t*e staff and community2 t*ere?y furt*ering sta?ility and commitment. Masci et al. C(!!7D concluded t*at principals need to remem?er t*at e0en t*oug*

7$ many organi%ations t*ri0e on c*aos2 teac*ers2 students2 and t*e learning en0ironment reKuire and t*ri0e on predicta?ility2 routine2 and some 0ariety. Sc*ools must weat*er t*e outside tec*nological2 political and economic influences t*at ser0e to t*reaten or en*ance t*em2 and t*e principal and staff of a sc*ool must determine t*e actions t*at will ?enefit t*e middle and *ig* sc*ool students t*ey ser0e. Leadership and Organizational Change 5enewed interest in sc*ool leaders*ip is fuelled ?y a ?elief in t*e potential of *ead teac*ers&&not principals&&to deli0er impro0ed educational outcomes. )eaders*ip de0elopment *as retained a consistently *ig* profile in education in recent years2 despite t*e rise and fall of ot*er initiati0es. 8arris C(!!$D concentrated on t*e type of leaders*ip t*at promotes positi0e organi%ational c*ange and impro0ement. 5esearc* *as s*own t*at leaders*ip maAes a difference to a sc*oolBs a?ility to impro0e ?y influencing t*e moti0ation of teac*ers C+ullan2 (!!'?J Sergio0anni2 (!!'D. Senge C'""!D stated2 H6rucial design worA for leaders of learning organi%ations concerns integrating 0ision2 0alues2 and purpose2 systems t*inAing2 and mental models&&or more ?roadly2 integrating all t*e learning organi%ation to ma.or ?reaAt*roug*s in learning disciplinesI Cp. 313D. 3us* and -lo0er C(!!3D e>plored t*e dominant leaders*ip t*eories t*roug* four ma.or lenses wit* limitations. Managerial leaders*ip2 t*e first lens2 is close to a formal model of leaders*ip c*aracteri%ed ?y t*e assumption t*at organi%ations are *ierarc*ical systems in w*ic* managers use rational means to pursue agreed&upon goals. 4*is form of leaders*ip supports a series of transactions wit*in an organi%ation and is termed transactional leadership 4*e second lens2 transformational leaders*ip2 is associated wit* impro0ed organi%ational and student outcomes. 4ransformational leaders*ip is a leaders*ip approac* t*at focuses upon people rat*er t*an structures. Any leader w*o ?rings a?out c*ange is

7# transformational. 4*is *as ?een s*own to in0ol0e t*e ?uilding of sc*ool cultures or t*e promotion of cultural ?e*a0iors t*at contri?ute directly to sc*ool impro0ement 4*e t*ird lens2 interpreti0e leaders*ip2 *as fueled contemporary de?ate a?out leaders*ip and organi%ational de0elopment in sc*ools C-ronn2 (!!3J Spillane2 8al0erson2 @ Diamond2 (!!'D. 4*ese researc*ers 0iewed distri?uted leaders*ip as predominantly interpreti0e rat*er t*an normati0e. 9t%ioni C'"#1D stated2 HPersonal power is always normati0e powerJ it is ?ased on t*e manipulation of sym?ols and it ser0es to generate commitment to t*e person w*o commands itI Cp. #'D. 8e also stated: 4*e use of sym?ols for control purposes is referred to as normati0e. ;ormati0e power is e>ercised ?y t*ose in *ig*er ranAsP;ormati0e power is used indirectly2 as w*en t*e *ig*er in ranA appeals to t*e peer group of a su?ordinate to control *im liAe a teac*er will call on a class to ignore t*e distractions of an e>*i?itionist c*ild. Cp. $"D Distri?uted leaders*ip means multiple sources of guidance and direction following t*e contours of e>pertise in an organi%ation2 made co*erent t*roug* a common culture. 4*e researc*ers distri?uted perspecti0e focuses on *ow leaders*ip practice is distri?uted among formal and informal leaders. 4*e

fourt* lens2 instructional leaders*ip2 assumes t*at t*e critical focus for attention ?y leaders is t*e ?e*a0ior of teac*ers at t*ey engage in acti0ities directly affecting t*e growt* of students. 3us* and -lo0er C(!!3D *ig*lig*ted t*e differences ?etween narrow and ?road conceptions of instructional leaders*ip2 w*ere t*e latter also in0ol0es 0aria?les suc* as sc*ool culture2 w*ic* may *a0e important conseKuences for teac*ersB ?e*a0ior. 4*e narrow definition focuses on instructional leaders*ip as a separate entity from administration. In t*e narrow 0iew2 instructional leaders*ip comprises actions t*at are directly related to teac*ing and learning. In t*e ?road 0iew2 Hinstructional leaders*ip entails all leaders*ip acti0ities t*at affect student learningI CS*eppard2 '""#2 p. 3(#D.

7G )ittle is Anown a?out t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and long&term organi%ational c*ange and impro0ement. W*et*er or not leaders*ip is affected ?y cycles of organi%ational de0elopment and c*ange remains anot*er une>plored area. Distri?uted leaders*ip t*eory offers a powerful and alternati0e way of e>ploring and understanding t*e relations*ip of leaders*ip to organi%ational c*ange and de0elopment. :rgani%ational 6*ange and Sc*ool 5eform Wit*in sc*ool reform2 organi%ational c*ange is manifested ?y a comple> system. 3onner et al. C(!!1D descri?ed t*eir e>periences wit* organi%ational c*ange and analy%ed its use in organi%ational c*ange t*eories common in education2 suc* as SengeBs C'""!D fift* discipline and 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D general systems t*eory. Pre0ious e0aluations of t*e reform initiati0e *ad yielded une>pected pro?lems related to sustaina?ilityJ as a result2 3onner et al. re0isited t*e assumptions from t*e organi%ational c*ange literature t*at *a0e guided c*ange strategies. 4*is reflection led to t*e disco0ery of Aey t*eoretical ideas t*at are less familiar ?ut may *a0e more practical utility for t*ose engaged in organi%ational c*ange wit*in sc*ools. After re0iewing t*e initial fi0e years of t*is reform effort2 3onner et al. analy%ed it using two frames of reference for organi%ational c*ange common to education. 4*ey also reflected on t*e critical analysis of c*ange t*eory using less common psyc*ology t*eories2 w*ic* may offer ?etter descripti0e and predicti0e utility for t*ose in0ol0ed in organi%ational consultation. 3onner et al.Bs C(!!1D leaders*ip e>panded ?y creating an inclusion committee comprosed of additional staff and interested parents. 4*e principal2 ?uilding special education coordinator2 district inclusion facilitator2 and sc*ool psyc*ologist pu?licly presented a model formali%ing t*e ser0ice deli0ery process. 4*e deli0ery model comprised pro?lem&sol0ing and decision&maAing formats intended to represent t*e organi%ational capacity to support all students

77 inclusi0ely. 4*e actions t*at occurred as a result of t*e grant tooA t*ree forms: CaD inKuiry into t*e sc*oolBs implementation of past initiati0esJ C?D use of t*is information in t*e facilitation of continued adoption of ?est practices in inclusi0e educationJ and CcD s*aring of findings and community mem?ersB perspecti0es on inclusi0e education and compre*ensi0e educational reform wit* interested local2 state2 and national audiences2 as well as t*e sc*ool community itself. 8ere is *ow t*e ?road organi%ational c*ange t*eory t*at *ig*lig*ted t*e confidence of t*e reform leaders was rational and seemingly .ustified. As t*e leaders soug*t to de0elop inclusi0e education2 t*eir practice was informed ?y sc*ool c*ange literature as well as t*eir direct e>periences. 4*e leaders acti0ely engaged in reading2 discussing2 and applying contemporary c*ange literature from different perspecti0es2 as e0idenced ?y t*e preceding descripti0e *istory. In t*eir daily colla?oration2 t*e leaders s*ared perspecti0es and incorporated t*eir Anowledge t*roug* t*eir influence in decision maAing a?out t*e reform process. 4*is section of 3onner et al.Bs e>periment represented an analysis and interpretation of *ow t*e actions and approac*es t*at t*e reform leaders tooA were consistent wit* organi%ational c*ange literature.. 4*e first used was 3olman and DealBs C'""GD four organi%ational frames: structural2 *uman resources2 political2 and sym?olic. 4*e second used 6*in and 3enneBs C'""1D t*ree types of general strategies for c*ange: empirical rational2 normati0e reducti0e2 and power coerci0e. 9ac* frame of reference illuminates some of t*e t*eoretical underpinnings2 ma.or goals2 and propositions of t*e inclusi0e education reform efforts at t*is elementary sc*ool. 3onner et al. C(!!1D were aware of t*e tendency to cite t*e transition to a new principal as t*e o?0ious e>planation t*e initiati0e *ad less sustaina?ility t*an originally ?elie0ed. 4*ere is no denying t*at

7" an organi%ational leader w*o supports a practice2 ?e it new or old2 will ?e *elpful in its implementation. Se0eral organi%ational and c*ange t*eorists *a0e ?een rele0ant in e>panding current understanding of t*e lacA of acceptance or KuicA demise of t*e reform C8arrison2 '"G!J ;adler2 '"7'J Perrow2 '"G(D. 8arrison and ;adler are recogni%ed as organi%ational c*ange specialistsJ Perrow is Anown as an organi%ational sociologist focusing on t*e formal organi%ation. 4*e *ope of t*is researc*er is t*at ?y analy%ing t*e sc*oolBs inclusi0e education initiati0e in t*e conte>t of t*ese t*eories2 ot*ers will understand t*e rele0ance of t*ese concepts in t*e implementation of current and future organi%ational c*anges. In regard to crafting co*erence2 8onig et al. C(!!1D defined co*erence as a process t*at in0ol0es t*e colla?oration of sc*ools and sc*ool district central offices to craft or continually negotiate t*e fit ?etween e>ternal demands and sc*oolsB goals and strategies. Senge C'""!D made reference to co*erence or reason2 stating t*at Ht*e systems perspecti0e illuminates su?tler aspects of personal masteryespecially: integrating reason Cco*erenceDI Cp '#GD. In addition2 Senge stated2 HPeople wit* *ig* le0els of personal mastery do not set out to integrate co*erence and intuition. 5at*er2 t*ey ac*ie0e it naturallyS as a ?y&product of t*eir commitment to use all resources at t*eir disposalI Cp. '#7D. Sc*olars *a0e linAed t*e con0ergence of multiple e>ternal demands on pu?lic sc*ools to t*e sc*oolsB ina?ility to *elp all students ac*ie0e *ig* performance standardsJ t*ey *a0e referred to t*ese effects as a *eig*tened state of policy inco*erence C+u*rman2 '""3J 8atc*2 (!!(J ;emann2 Smit*2 Allenwort*2 @ 3ryA2 (!!'D. 5emedies for policy inco*erence generally *a0e taAen one of two approac*es: aDgeneration systemic reforms address t*e c*allenge from t*e point of policy origin2 typically in district central offices2 state and federal agencies2 and in ot*er institutions framed in t*e

"! education policy literature as outside sc*oolsJ and ?D generation systemic reforms *a0e focused on solutions wit*in sc*ools. ;eit*er approac* *as remedied t*e *armful effects of policy inco*erence in practice ?ecause eac* stems from a limited conceptuali%ation of w*at co*erence entails. 9>perience wit* eac* approac* pro0ides insig*ts t*at may inform a fuller picture of policy co*erence. 6o*erence depends on *ow implementers maAe sense of policy demands and on t*e e>tent to w*ic* e>ternal demands fit a particular sc*oolBs culture. 9t%ioni C'"#'D discussed co*erence in relation to communication2 stating2 Hco*erence is a sym?olic process ?y w*ic* t*e orientations of lower participants to t*e organi%ation are reinforced or c*angedI Cp. '3GD. 4*e premise is t*at policy co*erence is an ongoing process t*at reKuires sc*ools and sc*ool district central offices to worA toget*er to *elp sc*ools manage e>ternal demands. 8onig et al. C(!!1D called t*is process crafting co*erence2 and using sc*ools and district central offices as a starting point2 t*ey descri?ed two acti0ities t*at crafting co*erence entails: aD Sc*ools must esta?lis* t*eir own goals and strategies t*at typically are specific2 open&ended2 adapta?le2 and de0eloped t*roug* sustained and managed sc*ool&?ased participatory acti0ities2 and ?D sc*ools must use t*eir goals and strategies as t*e ?asis for deciding w*et*er to ?ridge or ?uffer e>ternal demands. 6o*erence may ?e producti0ely 0iewed not only as t*e o?.ecti0e alignment of curriculum2 instruction2 and assessments ?y internal or e>ternal agents ?ut also as an ongoing process. Some sc*ools t*ri0e w*en multiple demands con0erge on t*em ?ecause multiple demands mean additional resources for educational impro0ement. Multiple e>ternal demands do not represent a pro?lem2 ?ut an ongoing c*allenge to ?e managedJ a potential opportunity for sc*ools to increase necessary resourcesJ and an important arena of organi%ational acti0ity. ;eit*er sc*ools nor sc*ool districts acting alone will ?e a?le to remedy t*e effects of multiple

"' e>ternal demandsJ accordingly2 district central office administrators and sc*ool leaders mig*t e>plore new relations*ips to support sc*oolsB goal and strategy setting. 4*e ?est stewards of crafting co*erence at t*e sc*ool and district le0els may ?e t*ose w*o can tolerate and na0igate suc* *ig*ly colla?orati0e and independent terrain. (ntrepreneurial Leadership 9yal and KarA C(!!1D asserted t*at transformational leaders are needed to transform educational organi%ations at t*e elementary2 secondary2 or *ig*er education le0els. 4*ere must ?e a relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip. 3ot* are discussed in t*e researc* literature CDrucAer2 '"7$J Pinc*ot2 '"7$D. 6%ariawsAa&,oergens and Wolff C'""'D differentiated ?etween t*e two and claimed t*at alt*oug* leaders*ip is responsi?le for clarifying causality2 simplifying reality2 and strengt*ening control o0er it2 entrepreneurs*ip is an action t*at can ?e related to generating new realities. In line wit* t*e conception of c*arismatic and transformational leaders*ip2 8owell and 8iggins C'""!D descri?ed organi%ational c*ampions as entrepreneurs w*o use informal organi%ational mec*anisms to garner support for inno0ations. W*ile doing so2 t*ey related t*e concept of transformational leaders*ip to t*e literature on organi%ational c*ampions2 suggesting t*at organi%ational c*ampions Ci.e.2 entrepreneursD support and ad0ance inno0ations at t*e price of confronting o?stacles presented ?y organi%ational officials CS*ane2 '""1D. 4*ey concluded t*at organi%ational c*ampions function as transformational leaders2 de0eloping a clear organi%ational 0ision and mec*anisms t*at may ?e used to disco0er opportunities. -o0ernment efforts to control sc*ooling and sc*ool reliance on pu?lic funds2 as a structural arrangement2 *a0e made sc*ools slow&c*anging organi%ations. In t*is frameworA2 sc*ools are considered conser0ati0e organi%ations t*at retain t*eir ?asic c*aracteristics across

"( time2 place2 and e0en culture. 4*eir patterns *a0e ?een suggested to ?e well esta?lis*ed and legitimi%ed2 and are Anown to represent t*e most efficient way of organi%ing education. 8owe0er2 increases in di0ersity among pupils2 as well as ot*er rapid tec*nological2 legal2 and societal c*anges in t*e sc*ool en0ironment2 *a0e e>posed sc*ools to greater uncertainties C8argrea0es2 '""Ga2 '""G?D. DrucAer C'"7$D asserted t*at ?y not ?eing entrepreneurial2 sc*ools mig*t lose t*eir rele0ance2 allowing alternati0e entrepreneurial agencies to taAe o0er t*eir fundamental functions2 lea0ing t*em drained of su?stance. 4*is can lead to t*e limitation of c*ildrenBs eKual access to education and endanger t*e role of sc*ooling as a mec*anism for reducing social&economic gaps. In studying t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip2 it ?ecame clear to 8owell and 8iggins C'""!D t*at leaders*ip is associated wit* entrepreneurs*ipJ *owe0er2 t*is relations*ip is comple>. 4*e results of t*e researc* s*owed t*at transformational leaders*ip sets t*e most fa0ora?le managerial circumstances for organi%ational entrepreneurs*ip acti0ism. 5esearc* is needed to understand t*e relations*ip ?etween t*e social capital of leaders and t*eir organi%ational power and a?ility to use certain entrepreneurial strategies. 4*is issue is significant ?ecause social capital can facilitate t*e identification of opportunities and t*e attainment of goals. It is also important t*at researc*ers e>amine relations*ips among different entrepreneurial strategies and 0arious organi%ational outcomes ?ecause t*e leadersB use of different strategies identified in 8owell and 8igginBs study is liAely to *a0e a ma.or impact on t*e functioning of t*e organi%ation and organi%ational outcomes. Organizational Culture 4*ere is growing concern t*at indi0iduals in t*e education field are not supporting organi%ational c*ange in education. Aw?rey C(!!1D stated2 H4*e reform of general education is

"3 one of t*e most pre0alent and comple> c*allenges facing colleges and uni0ersitiesI Cp. $D. -eneral education *as not always ?een a part of *ig*er learning2 and w*en uni0ersities were first founded in t*e /nited States2 classical education pro0ided unity and co*erence. As t*e curriculum c*anged2 faculty faced t*e c*allenge of integrating new forms of Anowledge wit* older forms and defining w*at was essential to t*e education of undergraduate students. 3ecause of t*e organi%ational c*ange t*at tooA place2 t*e potentially damaging effects of unsuccessful general education processes also were reported2 including deeply di0ided and em?ittered faculty as well as increased tensions ?etween faculty and administration CMacDonald2 (!!3D. ,o*nson C(!!(D studied c*anges in general education ?etween '"7" and (!!! in a national sur0ey of more t*an $!! c*ief academic officers and directors responsi?le for general education at 0arious institutions among t*e mem?ers*ip of t*e Association of American 6olleges and /ni0ersities. ,o*nson found t*at t*e structural strategies used to create more co*erence *ad not ac*ie0ed t*eir aim of a more co*erent curriculum. A mistaAe t*at faculty and administrators sometimes maAe w*en ?eginning t*e organi%ational c*ange of general education is t*eir ?elief t*at t*ey are simply engaged in t*e structural tasA of curricular reform. Alt*oug* campus&wide general education efforts in c*anging t*e organi%ational structure may focus on w*at is ?est for students2 recogni%ing w*y faculty mem?ers *old t*e ?eliefs t*ey do a?out w*at is ?est is a muc* more comple> tasA t*at in0ol0es a systematic e>amination of t*e cultural conte>t in w*ic* t*e c*ange is taAing place. 4*e perception t*at organi%ational c*ange in0ol0es only t*e tasA at *and is not uniKue to *ig*er education. 4*ese organi%ational c*anges include elements t*at are o?ser0a?le2 rational2 and related to t*e structure of t*e organi%ation2 including span of control2 *ierarc*y2 mission2 goals2

"1 o?.ecti0es2 operating policies2 and practices. :rgani%ations focus most of t*eir time and energy in t*is realm. 5esistance is a normal part of t*e c*ange process. Indi0iduals engage in acti0e or passi0e forms of resistance. 4rader&)eig* C(!!(D identified se0eral factors t*at contri?ute to resistance to c*ange: 6*ange t*reatens percei0ed self&interest2 c*anges in status and security *a0e negati0e psyc*ological impacts2 ingrained traditions present ?arriers2 c*ange does not fit t*e organi%ationBs 0alues and ?eliefs2 and c*ange t*reatens indi0iduals or groups wit* a loss of power. /nderstanding t*e 0alues2 ?eliefs2 and assumptions t*at underlie t*e culture and su?cultures of an organi%ation can assist in understanding t*e institutionBs patterns of resistance to organi%ational c*ange. 6ultural aspects of c*ange often are o0erlooAed in systemic c*ange initiati0es&&suc* as general education reform&&?ecause of t*e time reKuired to un0eil t*e 0alues2 ?eliefs2 and assumptions of t*e institutionBs mem?ers2 and to engage in dialogue t*at leads to reflecti0e2 deep&le0el learning. It is t*is deeper c*ange t*at fosters future growt* and de0elopment and t*at can open t*e institution to continuous learning and impro0ement. 4*e success of initiati0es suc* as general education reform s*ould ?e assessed not only ?y t*e structural operational c*anges ac*ie0ed ?ut also ?y t*e cultural c*ange and learning t*at taAes place wit*in t*e organi%ation. 4*e deeper t*e le0el of cultural awareness and learning2 t*e ric*er is t*e organi%ational c*angeprocess and t*e more liAely it is t*at t*e organi%ation will continue learning. :rgani%ational 6*ange in 8ig*er 9ducation Maira C(!!1D outlined t*e t*eoretical frameworA to address *ig*er education organi%ational c*ange in a glo?ali%ed age. 4*e contemporary world *as entered a glo?ali%ed age2 and t*e glo?ali%ation process affects almost all facets of social life. -lo?ali%ation worAs as a

"$ concept underpinning a new round of t*e world rationali%ation process2 yet t*e concept and idea of glo?ali%ation are multifaceted. 4*ere is no definition of t*e fundamental features2 content2 and outcomes of glo?ali%ation. 4*e tasA en0ironment of institutions of *ig*er education *as c*anged dramatically in t*e last (! years. 4*e c*anges in t*e world *a0e *ad momentous effects on *ig*er education sector worldwide. Institutions *a0e *ad and continue to *a0e a ma.or role in defining and promulgating particular strategies2 recipes2 arc*etypes for *ig*er education policy2 organi%ation2 and curricular structures. +or t*e more de0eloped countries2 t*is *as meant a deep process of institutional and organi%ational c*ange of t*e national *ig*er education sector and organi%ations since t*e '"7!s. 4*e entrepreneurial model *as ?ecome t*e ?asic and legitimate organi%ational principle2 or arc*etype2 deemed a?le to assist institutions of *ig*er education in coping wit* t*e c*allenges in t*eir new tasA en0ironment and constituting t*e pat*way to restructuring processes. 4*e most recent de?ate *as recogni%ed t*ese features and trends in *ig*er education sector . Mirtual uni0ersities constitute a rele0ant c*allenge for traditional uni0ersities in terms of competition for students on a glo?al le0el ?ecause t*ey constitute t*e organi%ations now entering t*e *ig*er education organi%ational field. A student of any gi0en country can enroll in anot*er countryBs uni0ersity wit*out mo0ing away from *is or *er own *ome2 ?ut at t*e e>pense of *is or *er own national uni0ersities. -i0en t*e socially attac*ed *ig* 0alue of information and communication tec*nologies CI64sD uni0ersities are pus*ed to incorporate t*em into t*eir educational structure to maAe t*eir courses socially appealing2 modern2 and accessi?le. It is t*e o?ligation of secondary education to prepare students for w*at lies a*ead. 4*e confluence of federal mandatesJ ?udget cut?acAsJ increased standardi%ationJ *ig*&staAes testingJ and greater awareness of studentsB di0ersities2 tec*nological ad0ances2 and political

"# uncertainty *as resulted in significant c*allenges for secondary pu?lic sc*ool administrators and teac*ers. Successful secondary principals must possess a 0ision and a clear sense of purpose2 and t*ey also must ?e a?le to worA colla?orati0ely wit* faculty and staff. If society desires an inno0ation to affect all le0els of personnel o0er time2 t*en an alternati0e to t*e *eroic c*ange agent is needed. Sustaining successful c*ange in *ig*er education is no small feat. 6*ange efforts are seldom successful2 in spite of t*e tremendous resources t*at are a0aila?le. 6olleges and uni0ersities are loosely coupled systems wit* diffused decision maAing as well as goal am?iguity. 6ameron and Smart C'""7D and 6larAe C'""#2 '""7D conducted separate analyses of t*e e>ternal en0ironment of *ig*er education and responses to en0ironmental c*ange ?y institutions. 4*e s*ift from a time of growt* in t*e economy and *ig*er education to one of particularly c*allenging conditions for *ig*er education in a post&industrial en0ironment was t*e focus of 6ameron and SmartBs worA. SocietyBs demands on *ig*er education are increasing at t*e same time t*at institutional resources are diminis*ing. 8ow do institutions de0elop enoug* co*erence among t*eir parts to allow deli?erate strategic c*angeF Denis2 )amot*e2 and )angley C(!!'D o?ser0ed t*at alt*oug* loose coupling may encourage local incremental adaptation2 it does not facilitate conscious collecti0e action. 6*ange in *ig*er education is complicated ?y autonomy and independence among units and ?y diffused decision maAing. Strategies for large&scale c*ange arising from t*e American 6ouncil on 9ducation Pro.ect on )eaders*ip and Institutional transformation included HaD using c*ange teams c*arged wit* strategic purposeJ ?D engaging t*e campus communityJ and cD aligning time2 resources2 and attention wit* a ma.or c*ange effortI CDenis et al.2 (!!'2 pp. '('& '((D.

"G 5esearc* in t*e sociological and organi%ational literature is rele0ant for *ig*er education. :t*er worA conducted wit* perspecti0es informed ?y institutional and organi%ational t*eories *as emerged as useful for learning a?out sustaina?le institutional c*ange. /sing Man de Men and PooleBs C'""$D ru?ric2 institutional t*eory is an e0olutionary t*eory2 and organi%ational t*eory is dialectical. A significant feature of recent writing wit* an institutional t*eoretical perspecti0e is attention to institutional conte>t. 3ecause institutions function wit*in t*e conte>t of larger social and political trends2 t*e focus is on maintaining legitimacy and support of multiple constituencies. Alt*oug* institutional t*eory is more often a t*eoretical lens for studying sta?le structures t*an a lens for studying c*ange2 successful radical c*ange wit*in a *ig*er institution reKuires 0ision2 initiati0e2 structures2 systems2 and new competencies and sAills to design and carry out t*e transition to a new template. /ni0ersity and college administrators understand t*at planning and implementing c*ange are distinct from sustaining it. 4*e ideas of continued learning and sustained c*ange pro0oAe a focus on organi%ational learning t*at2 prior to now2 seemed perip*eral to institutional c*ange in *ig*er education. 4*e c*allenge of successful c*ange is less planning and implementing2 and more de0eloping and sustaining new ways of seeing2 deciding and acting. Successful c*ange is a?out learning enoug* collecti0ely so t*at institutional conseKuences2 outcomes2 and inKuiry c*ange. Sustaining c*ange in *ig*er education is dependent upon sustaining t*e conditions of learning in an institution. In s*ort2 t*ose in *ig*er education committed to successful institutional c*ange2 s*ould ?e rigorous in inKuiry2 sAillful in dialogue2 and fearless in e>amining t*e institution in t*e conte>t of its en0ironment. Summary

"7 4*e Dept* section integrated t*e concepts of classical t*eories2 particularly t*ose of 3ertalanffy2 9t%ioni2 and Senge2 and wit* current researc*&?ased Anowledge on organi%ational c*ange and social systems in t*e pu?lic sc*ools. Discussions included contemporary t*eories in relation to current management strategies and management t*eories t*at are ?eing implemented wit*in sc*ools t*at *a0e student populations representing 0arious socioeconomic ?acAgrounds. Ideas emerged to modify organi%ational and managerial practices in t*ese areas so t*at students may *a0e an education t*at is more conduci0e to t*eir indi0idual learning styles. 4*e notion of impro0ing organi%ational c*ange *as introduced new areas for e>ploration relating to en0ironmental2 social2 and educational conditions in sc*ools t*at wis* to incorporate smoot* organi%ational c*anges t*at will impro0e t*e Kuality of education and pro0ide a ?etter teac*ing and learning en0ironment for t*e staff. 4*e concept of general systems t*eory and t*e fift* discipline dominated t*e con0ersation concerning t*e need for c*ildren to succeed in sc*ool. In addition2 t*e concepts of t*e 0arious models *a0e laid t*e foundation for copious discussion on mo0ement t*roug* 0arious c*anges to ac*ie0e a ?etter education. +inally2 a discussion of modern organi%ation and t*e nature of organi%ational goals aligned many of t*e t*eories de0eloped ?y classical t*eorists wit* t*e results of current researc* and e>plained t*e effort to *elp local sc*ools to ?ecome moti0ated and utili%e t*e decision& maAing t*eory. 6*anges made wit* t*e utili%ation of t*e entire staff may decrease t*e risA of poor efficiency later on w*en organi%ational c*anges need to or *a0e ?een made. 4*e Application component of t*is KAM will utili%e PowerPoint to s*ow teac*ers2 administrators2 and ot*er staff t*e second law of t*ermodynamics and e>plain *ow Senge utili%ed t*is principle in *is t*eory of t*e fift* discipline. As a result of participating in t*is presentation2 teac*ers and administrators will come to an understanding of *ow t*ey can conduct

"" organi%ational c*anges in a smoot* and seamless manner. Inspirations from t*e 3readt* and Dept* sections *a0e de0eloped into a need to facilitate and support c*ange in t*e organi%ational structure of pu?lic sc*ools2 especially t*ose in t*e inner&city districts of ur?an centers.

APP)I6A4I:; 9D/6 7337: P5:+9SSI:;A) P5A64I69 I; K&'( 9D/6A4I:; :5-A;I<A4I:; Introduction 4*e Application section of t*is KAM utili%es information from t*e 3readt* and Dept* components to prepare a PowerPoint demonstration designed to assist participants in understanding t*e role of systems t*inAing and t*e general systems t*eory. Systems t*inAing2 as proposed ?y Senge2 is t*e fift* and most important element of t*e fi0e disciplines. In t*e general systems t*eory2 3ertalanffy proposed t*at models2 principles2 and laws apply to generali%ed systems or t*eir su?classes2 irrespecti0e of t*eir particular Aind2 t*e nature of t*eir component elements2 and t*e relations*ip of t*e forces ?etween and among t*em. 4*is su?.ect matter is t*e formulation and deri0ation of t*ose principles t*at are 0alid for systems in general. 3acAground 9ducators w*o understand t*at sc*ools are comple>2 interdependent social systems are a?le to mo0e t*eir organi%ations forward. /nfortunately2 many education leaders fail to grasp t*e interconnectedness of t*ese components2 resulting in little or no progress. As suc*2 many planned c*anges address only t*e symptoms2 not t*e underlying root causes of t*e pro?lems. 4*e result is t*at meaningful and sustained impro0ements do not occur. :n t*e ot*er *and2 a num?er of outstanding education leaders are slowly mo0ing toward approac*es t*at consider sc*ools to ?e organic organi%ations capa?le of learning and continuous impro0ement. 4*e notion of a sc*ool capa?le of learning *as ?ecome increasingly prominent in recent years CSenge et al.2 (!!!D. 6entral to t*is idea is SengeBs fift* discipline2 an element of systems t*inAing. 4*e systems 0iew is ?ased on se0eral fundamental ideas. +irst2 all p*enomena can ?e 0iewed as a we? of relations*ips among elements2 or a system. Second2 all systems&&?e t*ey

'!' electrical2 ?iological2 or social&&*a0e common patterns2 ?e*a0iors2 and properties t*at can ?e understood and used to de0elop greater insig*t into t*e ?e*a0ior of comple> p*enomena and to mo0e closer to a unity of science. )eaders*ip decisions often cause many comple> and unforeseen reactions. HSystems t*inAing are t*e a?ility to understand and sometimes to predict interactions and relations*ips in comple>2 dynamic systems: t*e Ainds of systems educators are surrounded ?y and em?edded inI CSenge et al.2 (!!!2 p. (3"D. Systems t*inAing encourages leaders to use suc* concepts as continuous incremental impro0ement2 organi%ational learning2 and feed?acA loops. Systems t*inAing reKuires leaders to see t*e w*ole sc*ool as a comple> organi%ation wit* many interdependent components. 8ung C(!!7D defined systems t*inAing as an essential cogniti0e sAill t*at ena?les indi0iduals to de0elop an integrati0e understanding of a gi0en su?.ect at t*e conceptual and systemic le0els. =et2 systems t*inAing is not usually an innate sAill. 8elping students de0elop systems&t*inAing sAills warrants attention from educators. Systems 4*inAing 4*eory Systems t*eory is an interdisciplinary field of science and t*e study of t*e nature of comple> systems in nature2 society2 and science. More specifically2 it is a frameworA ?y w*ic* one can analy%e or descri?e any group of o?.ects t*at worA in concert to produce some result. 4*is could ?e a single organism2 an organi%ation2 or society. Systems t*eory originated in ?iology in t*e '"(!s from t*e need to e>plain t*e interrelatedness of organisms to ecosystems. As a tec*nical and general academic area of study2 it predominantly refers to t*e science of systems t*at resulted from 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D general systems t*eory2 among ot*ers2 in initiating w*at ?ecame a pro.ect of systems researc* and practice.

'!( Interrelations*ips are a distinct c*aracteristic and a ma.or focus of systems t*inAing. 4*e parts in and t*e w*ole of a system are interdependent. 4*e emergent properties of a system are determined ?y t*e c*aracteristics of eac* part2 t*e intercausal relations*ips2 and t*e intercausal effects among t*e parts and t*e w*ole. 6on0ersely2 t*e ?e*a0iors of t*e parts and t*eir impact on t*e w*ole are determined ?y t*e emergent properties of t*e system as well. Difficulties in Practicing Systems 4*inAing Systems t*inAing is one of t*e most important *ig*er order t*inAing sAills in ad0anced learning2 and it is t*e most difficult one to master. Kali2 :rion2 and 3ylon C(!!3D found t*at possessing general awareness or Anowledge a?out t*e *olistic aspect of a system did not necessarily foster t*e application of systems t*inAing among -rade G students. Se0eral possi?le factors may *a0e contri?uted to t*e pro?lem. +irst2 a systemic understanding of a system or a su?.ect is t*e deepest conceptual understanding. 6onceptual Anowledge is an understanding of t*e essential part and t*e cause&and&effect relations*ips wit*in a system. 8owe0er2 t*ese intercausal relations*ips are normally *ig*ly a?stract. Anot*er possi?le factor is comple>ity CKali et al.2 (!!3D. It *as ?een suggested t*at t*e primary concern in trying to understand a system is *ow to depict t*e systemBs comple> intercausal relations*ips. 4*e comple> nature of relations*ips2 suc* as feed?acA and time delays2 is 0iewed as *ig*ly counterintuiti0e. 8ung C(!!7D found t*at after one semester of studying systems t*inAing and its practical applications2 t*e students in *is study s*owed a statistically significant increase in t*eir utili%ation of systems t*inAing ?y reasoning t*roug* t*e interrelations*ips2 causal relations*ips2 and feed?acA processes. 4*is result supported t*e conclusion t*at systems t*inAing sAills can ?e acKuired t*roug* appropriate teac*ing met*ods.

'!3 4*e students in ?ot* studies e>*i?ited a general awareness of t*e fundamental concepts of systems t*eory and systems t*inAing. A systems perspecti0e ena?les educators to maAe decisions related to impro0ement in student ac*ie0ement and understand t*e impact of eac* decision on t*e organi%ation. 8owe0er2 t*e ;6)3 C/SD:92 (!!'D *as interrupted t*e status Kuo of sc*ools and *as forced education leaders to reconsider 0arious met*ods of organi%ation c*ange. 4*e ;6)3 *as mandated all pu?lic sc*ools to de0elop clear definitions of ac*ie0ement t*at pro0ide t*e ?asis to e0aluate regress. 4*roug*out t*is paper2 Senge C'""!D identified fi0e disciplines t*at learning organi%ations consistently e>*i?it: personal mastery2 mental models2 a s*ared 0ision2 team learning2 and systems t*inAing. 4*e fift* discipline2 systems t*inAing2 is especially appropriate for sc*ools t*at are attempting to impro0e student ac*ie0ement. In pre0ious pu?lications2 Senge presented *is model of systems t*inAing and t*e allegories t*at define t*e laws of systems t*inAing. 4*ese allegories illustrate common pitfalls t*at pre0ent systems t*inAing wit*in organi%ations: '. (. 3. 1. $. #. G. 7. 4odayBs pro?lems come from yesterdayBs solutions 4*e *arder you pus*2 t*e *arder t*e system pus*es ?acA 3e*a0ior grows ?etter ?efore it grows worse 4*e easy way out usually leads ?acA in 4*e cure can ?e worse t*an t*e disease +aster is slower 6ause and effect are not closely related in time and space Small c*ange can produce ?ig results2 ?ut t*e areas of *ig*est le0erage are often t*e least o?0ious

'!1 ". '!. =ou can *a0e your caAe and eat it too2 ?ut not all at once Di0iding an elep*ant in *alf does not produce two small elep*ants

Sc*ool administrators can a0oid t*ese ?arriers to systems t*inAing in relation to t*eir efforts to impro0e student ac*ie0ement. )eaders can ?est understand2 recall2 and apply principles of systems t*inAing if t*e common errors are associated wit* stories and e>amples. 4*e ultimate message is t*at systems t*inAing is a useful tool to initiate organi%ational c*ange and continuous impro0ement. 4*e use of systems t*inAing to impro0e organi%ational producti0ity is a relati0ely old idea. More t*an (! years ago2 t*eorists presented models of systems t*inAing and discussed effecti0e ways to impro0e organi%ations. 4*ese e>periences can *elp current education organi%ations progress toward t*eir goals ?y s*aring t*eir frames of reference. :ur ongoing efforts to impro0e education could ?enefit from systems t*inAing. Systems thinking should 8e a vital component of the ongoing efforts to improve education4o succeed2 educators need to focus on maAing c*anges to t*e system2 identifying *ig*&le0erage impro0ement2 and aligning feed?acA wit* learning goals. W*en systems t*inAing ?ecomes an integral part of t*e instructional process2 t*e ?enefits of systems t*inAing as a met*od for impro0ing student ac*ie0ement will yield significant ?enefits for students2 sc*ools and society. 4*e Program 4*e Application section of t*is KAM discusses t*e fift* discipline CSenge2 '""!D and e>plains *ow t*e second law of p*ysical t*ermodynamics is applied to t*is discipline. 4*e intended outcome of t*e Application component is to de0elop an understanding of systems t*inAing and t*ermodynamics and its effect on t*e students in t*e pu?lic elementary sc*ools in ,ersey 6ity2 ;ew ,ersey. 4*ese pu?lic sc*ools ser0e appro>imately 3"2!!! students in (# elementary sc*ools. In (!!12 t*is elementary sc*ool ?ecame a failing sc*ool for t*e first time. As

'!$ a result2 new programs were initiated to impro0e student ac*ie0ement in t*e core su?.ect areas. 4*is researc*er ?elie0es t*at if t*e sc*ool applies t*e concepts of systems t*inAing Ci.e.2 t*e fift* disciplineD2 along wit* t*e laws of t*ermodynamics and t*e general systems t*eory2 it will no longer ?e a failing sc*ool. 4*ere is an emerging glo?al interest in sustaina?ility education. A popular and promising approac* is t*e use of systems t*inAing. 8owe0er2 t*e systems approac* to sustaina?ility *as not ?een clearly defined2 nor *a0e approac*es to t*e systematic implementation of systems t*inAing modelsfollowed any rigor2 resulting in confounded and underspecified recommendations. 4*ere are t*ree ?road approac*es to systems t*inAing: functionalist2 interpreti0e2 and comple> adapti0e systems. 9m?racing one approac* does not imply re.ecting t*e ot*ers2 *owe0er2 it does re0eal circumstances in w*ic* some met*ods may yield e>cellent results2 w*ile ot*ers may not. In situations w*ere t*ere are predefined goals a?out sustaina?ility2 or identified needs for impro0ement2 t*e use of functionalist systems met*ods can ?e of great *elp. )earning emp*asi%es ways to address sustaina?ility and deal wit* specified issues. 4*e purpose of t*ese issues is to design and test promising met*ods and practices. In ot*er conte>ts w*ere engagement is preferred and sustaina?ility is a process2 t*e interpreti0e frameworA effecti0ely addresses issues of negotiation2 accommodation2 and competent communication. 8ere2 perceptions and purposes depend on t*e eye of t*e ?e*older2 and ?uilding and discussing models of meaning&maAing systems s*arpen de?ate sAills. Any arrangement leads to t*e e>clusion of some parties as well as underlying conflicts t*at cannot ?e made to disappear. Second )aw of 4*ermodynamics 4*e second law of t*ermodynamics2 or entropy2 is a powerful aid to e>plain w*y t*e world worAs as it doesJ w*y *ot pans cool downJ w*y our ?odies stay warm e0en in cold

'!# temperaturesJ and w*y gasoline maAes engines run. It is t*e ?asis upon w*ic* t*e c*emical industries *a0e Aept t*e world from star0ation for t*e past *alf century Cfertili%er is manufactured t*roug* a process t*at uses nitrogen from t*e airD and *a0e Aept us *ealt*y and in less pain C0ia life&sa0ing and pain&relie0ing p*armaceuticalsD. 9ntropy also is simple to descri?e and e>plain. 8owe0er2 for t*ose w*o prefer conclusions ?efore e>planations2 t*e second law of t*ermodynamics states t*at energy of all Ainds in t*e material world disperses or spreads out if it is not *indered from doing so. 9ntropy is t*e Kuantitati0e measure of t*at Aind of spontaneous processJ t*at is2 t*e measure of t*e amount of energy t*at *as flowed from ?eing locali%ed to ?ecoming more spread out. 8owe0er2 t*e concepts of entropy and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics *a0e ?een muddled ?y well meaning ?ut scientifically naT0e p*ilosop*ers and writers of fiction and non&fiction. Searc* engines *a0e correctly called a popular We? site on entropy Hpu%%ling.I Its aut*or is an arc*itect2 not a scientist. 4*e only ?est&selling ?ooA on entropy e0er pu?lis*ed was filled wit* errors leading to illogical statements. W*ene0er information HentropyI is discussed2 especially in t*e same article as t*ermodynamic entropy2 t*at mat*ematical HentropyI s*ould ?e in Kuotation marAs to distinguis* it from t*ermodynamic entropy. 4*is confusion a?out disorder and entropy is t*e result of a statement made in '7"7 ?y a ?rilliant t*eoretical p*ysicist w*ose mat*ematical contri?utions to t*ermodynamics and entropy remain 0alid. 8owe0er2 *is attempt to interpret entropy in simple language was incorrect ?ecause only after *is deat* in '"!# did an understanding of molecular ?e*a0ior appear. :rderEdisorder ?ecame increasingly o?solete in reference to entropy and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics w*en t*e e>istence of Kuanti%ed energy le0els in p*ysics and c*emistry was generally accepted after t*e mid&'"(!s.

'!G Alt*oug* information a?out orderEdisorder is still present in some c*emistry te>ts as a teaser for guessing a?out entropy c*anges2 it is misleading for ?eginners in c*emistry. It *as ?een deleted from most first&year uni0ersity c*emistry te>t?ooAs in t*e /nited States. In t*e *umanities and popular literature2 t*e repeated use of entropy in connection wit* HdisorderI *as caused significant intellectual *arm. 9ntropy *as ?een dissociated from t*e Kuintessential connection wit* its atomicEmolecular energetic foundation. 4*e result is t*at a '"t*&century error a?out entropyBs meaning *as ?een generally and mistaAenly applied to disorderly parties2 dysfunctional personal li0es2 and e0en disruptions in international e0ents. 4*is may maAe pages of metap*or2 ?ut it is totally unrelated to t*ermodynamic entropy in p*ysicoc*emical science t*at impacts our daily li0es. 4*e second law of t*ermodynamics is ?ased on t*e common *uman e>perience. It did not ?egin wit* complicated apparatus or comple> t*eories2 ?ut rat*er wit* t*inAing a?out *ow old& fas*ioned steam engines worAed. 4*e first important eKuation to emerge from t*is worA was 0ery simple: KE4. 4*e second law of t*ermodynamics is pro?a?ly t*e most powerful aid in *elping to e>plain w*y t*e world worAs as it does in simple and comple> ways. 4*e science of t*ermodynamics is a product of t*e Industrial 5e0olution. At t*e ?eginning of t*e '"t* century2 scientists disco0ered t*at e0en t*oug* energy can ?e transformed in different ways2 it could ne0er ?e created or destroyed. 4*is is t*e first law of t*ermodynamics2 and it is one of t*e fundamental laws of p*ysics. In '7$!2 5o?ert 6lausius disco0ered t*e second law of t*ermodynamics2 w*ic* is2 as stated pre0iously2 entropy Ci.e.2 t*e ratio of a ?odyBs energy to its temperatureD. 9ntropy always increases in any transformation of energy2 for e>ample2 in a steam engine. 9ntropy is generally understood to signify an in*erent tendency toward disorgani%ation. 90ery family is well aware

'!7 t*at a *ouse*old system2 wit*out some conscious inter0ention2 tends to pass from a state of order to disorder2 especially w*en t*ere are young c*ildren in t*e family. Iron rusts2 wood rots2 dead fles* decays2 and t*e water in t*e ?at* get cold. In ot*er words2 t*ere appears to ?e a general tendency toward decay. According to t*e second law of t*ermodynamics2 atoms2 w*en left to t*emsel0es2 will mi> and rearrange t*emsel0es as muc* as possi?le. 5ust occurs ?ecause iron atoms tend to mingle wit* o>ygen in t*e surrounding air to form iron o>ide. 4*e fast&mo0ing molecules on t*e surface of t*e ?at* water collide wit* t*e slower mo0ing molecules in t*e cold air and transfer t*eir energy to t*em. 4*is is a limited law2 w*ic* *as no ?earing on systems2 consisting of a small num?er of particles or to systems wit* an infinitely large num?er of particles Ci.e.2 t*e uni0erseD. 8owe0er2 t*ere *a0e ?een repeated attempts to e>tend applications well ?eyond t*e appropriate sp*ere2 leading to 0arious false conclusions. In t*e middle of t*e last century2 6lausius attempted to apply t*e second law of t*ermodynamics to t*e uni0erse as a w*ole and arri0ed at a completely false t*eory2 Anown as t*e t*ermal deat* t*eory of t*e end of t*e uni0erse. 4*is law was redefined in '7GG ?y )udwig 3olt%mann2 w*o attempted to deri0e t*e second law of t*ermodynamics from t*e atomic t*eory of matter2 w*ic* was t*en gaining support. In 3olt%mannBs 0ersion2 entropy appears as a function of t*e pro?a?ility of a gi0en state of matter2 t*at is2 t*e more pro?a?le t*e state2 t*e *ig*er its entropy. In t*is 0ersion2 all systems tend toward a state of eKuili?rium2 t*at is2 a state w*ere t*ere is no net flow of energy. 4*us2 if a *ot o?.ect is placed ne>t to a cold one2 energy in t*e form of *eat will flow from t*e *ot to t*e cold2 until t*e items reac* eKuili?rium2 or *a0e t*e same temperature.

'!" 4*e second law of t*ermodynamics states t*at t*e entropy of an isolated system always increases and t*at w*en two systems are .oined2 t*e entropy of t*e com?ined system is greater t*an t*e sum of t*e entropies of t*e indi0idual systems. 8owe0er2 t*e second law of t*ermodynamics is not liAe ot*er laws of p*ysics2 suc* as ;ewtonBs law of gra0ity2 precisely ?ecause it is not always applica?le. :riginally deri0ed from a particular sp*ere of classical mec*anics2 t*e second law is limited ?y t*e fact t*at 3olt%mann did not taAe into account suc* forces as electromagnetism or e0en gra0ity2 allowing only for atomic collisions. 4*is gi0es suc* a restricted picture of p*ysical processes t*at it cannot ?e taAen as generally applica?le2 alt*oug* it does apply to limited systems. It is t*e reason t*at t*e law of t*ermodynamics2 t*e .oining of two systems to create a system greater t*an t*e sum of t*e entropies of t*e indi0idual systems2 draws us to SengeBs C'""!D t*eory of t*e fift* discipline. PowerPoint Demonstration 4*e Application component consists of a PowerPoint demonstration on t*e practice of systems t*inAing Ct*e fift* disciplineD and t*e second law of t*ermodynamics as descri?ed in t*is essay. 4*e demonstration ?egins wit* an e>planation of t*e second law of t*ermodynamics and its application in ?usiness and industry. Part ( of t*e PowerPoint demonstration discusses systems t*inAing and its use in ?usiness and industry. Part 3 demonstrates *ow t*ese two t*eories can ?e applied in t*e field of education. Summary Many factors affect t*e structure of a sc*ool system. SengeBs C'""!D systems t*inAing can ?e utili%ed as a fift* discipline in sc*ool organi%ation2 and 3ertalanffyBs C'"#"D general systems t*eory can *elp to esta?lis* a smoot* connection ?etween indi0idual sc*ools and t*e central office2 or a *ierarc*ical system wit*in t*e system. Many of t*e studies discussed in t*is essay

''! *ig*lig*ted areas of weaAness wit*in t*e education system t*at do not facilitate t*e proper management of sc*ools. 4*ere also are many factors t*at educators cannot control2 suc* as en0ironmental factors. We need t*e assistance of 0arious tec*niKues2 suc* as systems t*inAing2 general system t*eory2 and t*e laws of t*ermodynamics to aid our understanding. Pu?lic officials at all le0els of go0ernment *a0e engaged in spirited de?ate a?out t*e ?est way to run a sc*ool district so t*at t*ere is a clear 0ision of t*e *ierarc*ical system. 5esearc* *as supported t*e proposition t*at utili%ing t*e t*eories of 3ertalanffy and Senge can impro0e t*e learning en0ironment wit*in t*e sc*ool. Parents e>pect t*eir c*ildren to recei0e a well&rounded education2 ?ut teac*ers cannot accomplis* t*is alone. In spite of t*e studies on systems t*inAing2 general system t*eory2 and t*e laws of t*ermodynamics2 more worA needs to ?e done to create t*e *ig* performing sc*ool. Wit* support from all staAe*oldersSfaculty2 staff2 and parentsS c*ildren will *a0e impro0ed opportunities to ac*ie0e academically at t*e proper le0el and at t*e proper time.

P:W95 P:I;4 D9M:;S45A4I:;

489 S96:;D )A

S9;-9BS 48

W 9nergy of all ty ?ecoming dispe

''(

All t*e rocAs falli cool rooms2 anyt* ?urning or reactin and c*emical reac to energy dispersi Kuantitati0e meas All t*at statemen dispersal occurs in energy s entropy?ecomes is constan e0ents continue to spreading out or

''3

In recent years2 t*i second law *as ?e 4*e 3elgian ;o?e colla?orators *a0e interpretation of t* are some parallels of Darwin. I t*ose 4*e law states t*at fluctuations lead to toward increased e t*e form ofreali%ed ?iolog and ot*ers dissipationare of ener molecules alm

''1

4*e ideas of ord t*e second law organi%ational s education

+or an entity to Ku meet four tests. +ir acting in parallel. I

''$

+ourt*2 a disting adapti0e system recognition and and learn to reco c*ange Species are in*e Many systems a oasis of sta?ility t*ey meet some t*ey drift towar

''#

In todayBs rapidly implementing 0ari t*eir competiti0en

4o pro0ide effecti0 All of t*ese outline t* *a0e ad0ocated 0a t*e purpose of en*anc operations procedu customer satisfaction C4RMD2 .ust&in&tim

''G

System capa?ility including its le0el employee morale2 efficiency2 and Kua

Presuma?ly2 a firm A firm competes w ser0e its customer capa?ility and sati its outputand to custom products ser0i

''7

3y analogy wit* t* t*e ?usiness proce output2 i.e. produc

4*e second law m A corollary deri0ei satisfy customers systemBs output process is ?eloww a not lower a t*an t*a e>ample2 gi0en p

''"

5egarding entro t*e second law increase of entro of distinguis*a? system. In a soc 6reating and sustain acti0ely wit* its 0alue to customers a regarded as an o

'(!

:ne of t*e ma.o t*e comple> wo systems t*eory

4*e application field studie w*ole system2 i analysis. :ne of recurring is systemspattern t*inA

'('

Senge *as identifie again. 8e calls t*e t*inAing. A few e> '. 4odayBs pro?lem

All organi%ations lea We often are pu%%l organi%ation is an or remem?ering solu learn2 adapt2 and c*a instance2 w*y are processes are analy%

'((

W*y is systems t* design smart2 endu sense2 systems t*in reality2 so t*at you order to ac*ie0e t* you to t*inA a?out T!e u*e o t!er(o/. to ("#"%e(e#t "#/ toward t*e long 0i solution you are co 8!"t !"--e#* 5!e# w*at unintended c

'(3

4*e application of a sy suc* as a sc*ool syste departments t*at are s products and ser0ices. management2 and c*a systems and maintain 9ducational leaders*ip de0elopment of a 0ery Peter Senge a propone promotes t*e de0elopm organi%ations ?elie0es structures. In t*is stru organism in t*at it e>i more t*e same acti0ity

'(1

Senge defines a system a ?ecause t*ey continually sc*ool&?ased systems or '. Pre0ailing norms of including informal n (. Knowledge and sAi 3. Assignment of teac* Sc*ool impro0e and classes to 1. incorporate /se of time duringt* t $. Academic supports decision&maAing

'($

9ntropy c*ange is t*e *ow muc* energy *as 9ntropy is t*e Kuantita dispersal occurs in a p According to Prigogin nature Alt*oug* management pra 4*e ideas of orderEdis and Anowledge2 a particul t*ermodynamics into t*e inclusion of a new con education 4*e e0olution of managem

'(#

Systems t*inAing is a w perspecti0e t*at include systems2 rat*er t*an see W*y is systems t*inAin enduring solutions to p you a more accurate pic natural forces in order t you to t*inA a?out pro?

Peter Senge a proponent organi%ations ?elie0es t* in t*at it e>ists for its ow

'(G 59+959;69S Amiot2 6. 9.2 4erry2 D.2 ,ummieson2 ;. ).2 @ 6allan2 M. ,. C(!!#D A longitudinal in0estigation of stress and coping processes during an organi%ational merger: Implications for .o? satisfaction and organi%ational identification. 'ournal of :anagement) 20) $$(&$G1. Argyris2 6.2 @ Sc*on2 D. A. C'""#D. Organizational leaning //# Theory method and practice. 5eading2 MA: Addison&Wesley. Aw?rey2 S. M. C(!!1D. -eneral education reform and organi%ational c*ange: Integrating cultural and structural c*ange. 'ournal of General (ducation) *+C'D2 '&('. 3ac*2 S.2 Kessler2 I.2 @ 8eron2 P. C(!!GD. 4*e conseKuences of assistant roles in t*e pu?lic ser0ices: Degradation or empowermentF Human &elations) ,-C"D2 '(#G&'("(. 3aron2 5. A. C(!!(D. :M and entrepreneurs*ip: 4*e reciprocal ?enefits of closer conceptual linAs. &esearch in Organizational Behavior) 0+) (($&(#". 3ass2 M. 3. C'""GD. Does t*e transactionalEtransformational leaders*ip transcend organi%ational and national ?oundariesF $merican !sychologist *0) '3!&'3". 3ee?e2 ,. C'""$D. 3asic concepts and tec*niKues of rapid appraisal. Human Organization) *+) 1(& 1G. 3erKuist2 W. 8. C'""(D. The four cultures of the academy# /nsights and strategies for improving leadership in collegiate organizations. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. 3ertalanffy2 ). 0on. C'"#"D. General systems theory# ;oundations) development) applications. ;ew =orA: 3ra%iller. 3ertalanffy2 ). 0on. C'"G$D. !erspectives on general systems theory# Scientific<philosophical studies. ;ew =orA: 3ra%iller. 3olman2 ). -.2 @ Deal2 4. 9. C'""GD. &eforming organizations# $rtistry) choice) and leadership. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. 3onner2 M.2 Koc*2 4.2 @ )angmeyer2 D. C(!!1D. :rgani%ational t*eory applied to sc*ool reform. School !sychology /nternational) 0*C1D2 1$$&1G'. 3oyce2 M. 9. C(!!3D. :rgani%ational learning is essential to ac*ie0ing and sustaining a c*ange in *ig*er education. /nnovative Higher (ducation) 01C(D2 ''"&'3#. 3ra0erman2 8. C'"G1D La8or and monopoly capital# The degradation of "ork in the t"entieth century. ;ew =orA: Mont*ly 5e0iew Press. 3urns2 ,. M. C'"G7D. Leadership. ;ew =orA: 8arper @ 5ow.

'(7 3us*2 4.2 @ -lo0er2 D. C(!!3D. School leadership# Concepts and evidence. ;otting*am: ;ational 6ollege for Sc*ool )eaders*ip. 6ameron2 K.2 @ Smart2 ,. C'""7D. Maintaining effecti0eness amid downsi%ing and decline in institutions of *ig*er education. &esearch in Higher (ducation) 23) #$&7#. 6amp?ell2 ,. 5. C(!!'D. Participatory rural appraisal as Kualitati0e researc*: Distinguis*ing met*odological issues from participatory claims. Human Organization) *+) 1(&1G. 6arnine2 D. C'"""D. 6ampaigns for mo0ing researc* into practice. &emedial and Special (ducation) 0-) (&#. 6arter2 3. C'""GD. 5estructuring state employment: )a?or and non la?or in t*e capitalist state. Capital and Class) ,2) #$&7$. 6aruana2 A.2 9wing2 M. 4.2 @ 5amases*an2 3. C(!!(D. 9ffects of some en0ironmental c*allenges and centrali%ation on t*e entrepreneurial orientation and performance of pu?lic sector entities. Service /ndustries 'ournal) 00C(D2 13&$7. 6*in2 5.2 @ 3enne2 K. D. C'""1D. -eneral strategies for effecting c*anges in *uman systems. In W. +renc*2 6. 3ell2 ,r.2 @ 5. <awacAi C9ds.D2 Organizational development and transformation# :anaging effective change Cpp. '''&'3( D. 3oston: Irwin Mc-raw&8ill. 6larAe2 5. 5. C'""#D. Su?stanti0e growt* and inno0ati0e organi%ations: ;ew categories for *ig*er education researc*. Higher (ducation) 20) 1'G&13!. 6larAe2 5. 5. C'""7D. Creating entrepreneurial universities# Organizational path"ays of transformation. Paris2 +rance: IA/ Press. 6o*en2 D. K. C'"77D. Teaching practice# !lus ca change=CIssue Paper 77&3D. 9ast )ansing2 MI: Mic*igan State /ni0ersity2 ;ational 6enter for 5esearc* on 4eac*er 9ducation. 6onger2 ,. A.2 @ Kamungo2 5. ;. C'""7D. Charismatic leadership in organizations. 4*ousand :aAs2 6A: Sage. 6u?an2 ). C'"71D. Ho" teachers taught# Constancy and change in $merican classrooms 413-< 433-. ;ew =orA: 4eac*ers 6ollege Press. 6urtis2 M. ,.2 @ Stollar2 S. C(!!(D. 3est practices in system&le0el c*ange. In A. 4*omas @ ,. -rimes C9ds.D2 Best practices in school psychology /> Cpp ((3&(313D. Was*ington D6: ;ational Association of Sc*ool Psyc*ologists. 6%ariawsAa&,oergens2 3.2 @ Wolff2 5. C'""'D. )eaders2 managers2 entrepreneurs on and off t*e organi%ational stage. Organizational Studies) 40C1D2 $("&$1#. Dalin2 P. C'""#D. School development# Theory and practice. )ondon: 6assell.

'(" Damanapour2 +. C'""'D. :rgani%ational inno0ation: A meta&analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. $cademy of :anagement 'ournal) 2+) $$$&$"!. Denis2 ,.2 )amot*e2 ).2 @ )angley2 A. C(!!'D. 4*e dynamics of collecti0e leaders*ip and strategic c*ange ion pluralistic organi%ations. $cademy of management 'ournal) ++) 7!"& 73G. Di>on2 ;. C'""1D. The organizational learning cycle# Ho" "e can learn collectively. )ondon2 9ngland: Mc-raw&8ill. DrucAer2 P. +. C'"7$D. /nnovation and entrepreneurship<!ractice and principles. ;ew =orA: 8arper and 5ow. 9t%ioni2 A. C'"#'D. $ comparative analysis of comple? organizations. ;ew =orA: +ree Press. 9t%ioni2 A. C'"#1D. :odern organizations. 9nglewood 6liffs2 ;,: Prentice&8all. 90ers2 6. W.2 @ )aAomsAi2 -. C(!!'D. Knowledge of administrati0e practice: A naturalistic 0iew. 'ournal of (ducational $dministration) 23C$D2 (3&1#. 9yal2 :.2 @ KarA2 5. C(!!1D. 8ow do transformational leaders transform organi%ationsF A study of t*e relations*ip ?etween leaders*ip and entrepreneurs*ip. Leadership and !olicy in School) 2C3D2 (''&(3$. +u*rman2 S. C9d.D. C'""3D. Designing coherent education policy. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. +ullan2 M. C'""3D. Change forces# !ro8ing the depths of educational reform. 3ristol2 PA: +almer Press. +ullan2 M. C(!!'D. Leading in a culture of change. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. +ullan2 M2 C(!!'D. The ne" meaning of educational change C3rd ed.D. ;ew =orA: 4eac*ers 6ollege Press. +uller2 +. C'"#"D. 6oncerns of teac*ers: A de0elopmental conceptuali%ation. $merican (ducational &esearch 'ournal) ,C(D2 (!G&((#. -arratt2 3. C'"7GD. The learning organization# $nd the need for directors "ho think. )ondon2 9ngland: +ontana. -leeson2 D.2 @ Knig*ts2 D C(!!#D. 6*allenging dualism: Pu?lic progressionalism in trou?led times. Sociology) +-C(D2 (GG&("$. -lei?s2 I. 8.2 Mummenday2 A.2 @ ;oacA2 P. C(!!7D. Predictors of c*ange in postmerger identification during a merger process: A longitudinal study. 'ournal of !ersonality and Social !sychology) 3*C$D2 '!"$&'''(.

'3! -ronn2 P. C(!!3D. The ne" "ork of educational leaders# changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. )ondon: Paul 6*apman. 8all2 -. 9.2 @ 8ord2 S. M. C(!!'D. /mplementing change# !atterns) principles) and potholes. 3oston: Allyn @ 3acon. 8all2 -.2 @ )oucAs2 S. C'"G7D. 4eac*er concerns as a ?asis for facilitating and personali%ing staff de0elopment. Teacher College &ecord) 1-) 3#&$3. 8all2 -.2 @ 5ut*erford2 S. C'""!D. $ preliminary revie" of research related to stages of concern. Paper presented at t*e annual meeting of t*e American 9ducational 5esearc* Association2 3oston. 8argrea0es2 A. C"'""GaD. 6ultures of teac*ing and educational c*ange. In M. +ullan C9d.D2 The challenge of school change Cpp. $G&71D. Arlington 8eig*ts: I5IESAylig*t. 8argrea0es2 A. C'""G?D. 5et*inAing educational c*ange wit* *eart and mind. In M. +ullan C9d.D2 The challenge of school change Cpp. 3&3(D. Arlington 8eig*ts: I5IESAly)ig*t. 8arris2 A. C(!!$D. )eading from t*e c*alA&face: An o0er0iew of sc*ool leaders*ip. Leadership) 4C'D2 G3&7G. doi:'!.''GGE'G1(G'$!!$!1"3$( 8arrison2 5. C'""1D. 6*oosing t*e dept* of organi%ational inter0ention. In W. +renc*2 6. 3ell2 ,r.2 @ 5. <awacAi C9ds.D2 Organizational development and transformation# :anaging effective change Cpp. 1'3&1(1D. 3oston: Irwin Mc-raw&8ill. 8atc*2 4. C(!!(D. W*en impro0ement programs collide. !hi Delta appan) 12C7D2 #(#&#3". 8a0eman2 8. A. C'""(D. 3etween a rocA and a *ard place: :rgani%ational c*ange and performance under conditions of fundamental en0ironmental transformation. $dministrative Science @uarterly) 25C'D2 17&G$. 8onig2 M. I. C(!!3D. 6rafting co*erence: 8ow sc*ools strategically manage multiple2 e>ternal demands. (ducational &esearcher) 22C7D2 '#&3!. 8opAins2 D.2 8arris2 A.2 @ ,acAson D. C'""GD /nderstanding t*e sc*oolBs capacity for de0elopment: -rowt* states and strategies. School Leadership and :anagement) 45C3D2 1!'&1''. 8owell2 ,. M.2 @ 8iggins2 6. A. C'""!D. 6*ampions of tec*nological inno0ation. $dministrative Science @uarterly) 2*) 3'G&31'. 8uff2 A. S.2 @ 8uff2 ,. :. C(!!!D. 9hen firms change direction. :>ford2 9ngland: :>ford /ni0ersity Press. 8ug*es2 9. C'""3D. The sociological eye. )ondon: 4ransaction.

'3' 8ung2 ,. K. C(!!7D. ;uture<focused leadership# !reparing schools) students and communities for tomorro"As realities. Ale>andria2 MA: AS6D. ,o*nson2 D. K. C(!!(D. General education 0---<$ national survey# Ho" general education charged 8et"een 433 and 0---. P*D dissertation2 Pennsyl0ania State /ni0ersity. Kali2 +.2 :rion2 P.2 @ 3ylon2 4. C(!!3D. :rgani%ational learning researc* profile. 'ournal of Organizational change :anagement) 3C'D2 '!G&''(. KameBemui2 9. ,.2 @ Simmons2 D. 6. C'""7D. !lanning and evaluation tool for effective school< "ide reading programs revised. /npu?lis*ed manuscript2 /ni0ersity of :regon. Kele*ear2 <. C(!!3D. Mentoring t*e organi%ation: 8elping principals ?ring sc*ools to *ig*er le0els of effecti0eness. %$SS! Bulletin) 15C#3GD2 3$&1G. Koli?a2 6. ,.2 @ )at*rop2 ,. C(!!GD. InKuiry as inter0ention: 9mploying action researc* to surface intersu?.ecti0e t*eories&in&use and support an organi%ationBs capacity to learn. $dministration 6 Society) 23C'D2 $'&G#. )eit*wood2 K.2 @ -ouis2 K. C'"""D. Organizational learning in schools. Amsterdam: Swet%& <eitilinger. MacDonald2 W. 3. C(!!3D. Trends in general education and core curriculum# $ survey. 5etrie0ed from *ttp:EEwww.erin.utoronto.caEUw3ascEtrends.*tm Maninger2 5. M.2 @ Powell2 D. C(!!GD. 4*e )incoln middle sc*ool paradigm s*ift. 'ournal of Cases in (ducational Leadership) 4-C'D2 ((&3'. Marc*2 ,. -. C'""1D. $ primer on decision making. ;ew =orA: +ree Press. Masci2 +. ,.2 6uddapa*2 ,.2 @ Pa.aA2 9. +. C(!!7D. 3ecoming an agent of sta?ility: Keeping your sc*ool in ?alance during t*e perfect storm. $merican Secondary (ducation) 2,C(D2 $G&#7. Miller2 ,. -. C'"G7D. Living systems. ;ew =orA: Mc-raw&8ill. Morris2 9. C(!!'D. !rofessionalism and trust< The future of teachers and teaching. )ondon: Social MarAet +oundation. Murp*y2 ,. C(!!#D. 4*e (!!# Willower family lecture: 4*e e0ol0ing nature of t*e American *ig* sc*ool: A punctuated eKuili?rium model of institutional c*ange. Leadership and !olicy in Schools) *) (7$&3(1. ;adler2 D. A. C'"7'D. Managing organi%ational c*ange: An integrati0e perspecti0e. 'ournal of $pplied Behavioral Science) 45) '"'&(''.

'3( ;ewmann2 +. M.2 Smit*2 3.2 Allenswort*2 9.2 @ 3ryA2 A. S. C(!!'D. 6rafting co*erence: 8ow sc*ools strategically manage multiple2 e>ternal demands. (ducational (valuation and !olicy $nalysis) 02C1D2 ("G&3('. :li0er2 6. C'""'D. Strategic responses to institutional processes. $cademy of :anagement &evie") 4,) '1$&'G". Pa.aA2 9. C(!!3D. Honoring diverse teaching styles# $ guide for supervisors. Ale>andria2 MA: AS6D. Patterson2 ,. C'""3D. Leadership for tomorro"As schools. Ale>andria2 MA: AS6D. Patterson2 ,. C'""GD. Coming clean a8out organizational change. Arlington2 MA: American Association of Sc*ool Administrators. Perrow2 6. C'"G(D. Comple? organizations# $ critical essay C3rd ed.D. ;ew =orA: 5andom 8ouse. Piaget2 ,. C'"#GD. 6ogniti0e de0elopment in c*ildren: De0elopment and learning. 'ournal of &esearch in Science Teaching) 0) 'G#&'7#. Piaget2 ,. C'"G(D. Intellectual e0olution from adolescence to adult*ood. Human Development) 4*) '&'(. Pinc*ot2 -. C'"7$D. /ntrapreneuring. ;ew =orA: 8arper and 5ow. 5adigan2 ,. C(!!(D. 4*e class clown: A sc*ool laminar. In =. <ou @ 4true?a C9ds.D2 (thnography and schools# @ualitative approaches to the study of education Cpp. #'&77D. :>ford: 5owman @ )ittlefield. 5e0ans2 5. C'"GGD. The $BC of action learning. )uton2 9ngland: Action )earning 4rust. 5e0ans2 5. C'"7(D. The origins and gro"th of action learning. 6*artwell&3rat2 9ngland: 3romley @ )und. 5ingeisen2 8.2 8enderson. K2 @ 8oagwood K. C(!!3D 6onte>t matters: Sc*ools and t*e Hresearc* to practice gapI in c*ildrenBs mental *ealt*. School !sychology &evie") 20) '$3&'#7. Sarason2 S. C'""3D. The case for change# &ethinking the preparation of educators. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. Sarason2 S. C'""#D. &evisiting the culture of school and the pro8lem of change. ;ew =orA: 4eac*ers 6ollege Press. Scott2 W. 5. C'"7'D. Organizations# &ational) natural) and open systems. 9nglewood 6liffs2 ;,: Prentice&8all.

'33 Senge2 P. M. C'""!D. The fifth discipline# The art and practice of the learning organization. ;ew =orA: Dou?leday. Senge2 P. M. C'"""D. The dance of change# The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. ;ew =orA: Dou?leday. Senge2 P. M.2 6am?ron&Mc6a?e2 ;.2 )ucas2 4.2 Smit*2 3.2 Dutton2 ,.2 @ Kleiner2 A. C(!!!D. Schools that learn# $ fifth discipline field8ook for educators) parents) and everyone "ho cares a8out education. ;ew =orA: Dou?leday. Sergio0anni2 4. C(!!'D. Leadership# 9hatAs in it for schoolsB )ondon: 5outledge&+almer. S*ane2 S. A. C'""1D. Are c*ampions different from non&c*ampionsF 'ournal of Business >enturing) 3C$D2 31G&1('. S*eppard2 3. C'""#D. 9>ploring t*e transformational nature of instructional leaders*ip2 $l8erta 'ournal of (ducational &esearch) V)II C1D2 3($&311. Spillane2 ,.2 8al0erson 5.2 @ Diamond2 ,. C(!!'D. To"ards a theory of leadership practice# $ distri8uted perspective. 90anston2 I): ;ort*western /ni0ersity. Stollar2 S. A.2 Pot*2 5. ).2 6urtis2 M. ,.2 @ 6o*en2 5. M. C(!!#D. 6olla?orati0e strategic planning as illustration of t*e principles of systems c*ange. School !sychology &evie") 2*C(D2 '7'& '"G. Stow2 3. M.2 Sanderlands2 ). 9.2 @ Dutton2 ,. 9. C'"7'D. 4*reat&rigidity effects in organi%ational ?e*a0ior: A multile0el analysis. $dministrative Science @uarterly) 0,) $!'&$(1. 4ollar2 M.2 @ 5. ). Pot* C(!!#D. Planning as illustration of t*e principle of systems. School !sychology &evie") 2*C(D2 '7'. 4rader&)eig*2 K. 9. C(!!(D. 6ase study: Identifying resistance in managing c*ange. 'ournal of Organizational Change :anagement) 4*C(D2 '37&'$$. 4us*man2 M. ).2 @ 5omannelli2 9. C'"7$D. :rgani%ational e0olution: A metamorp*osis model of con0ergence and reorientation. In ). ). 6ummings @ 3. M. Straw C9ds.D2 &esearch in organizational 8ehavior Cpp. 'G'&(((D. -reenwic*2 64: ,AI. 4us*man2 M. ).2 5omannelli2 9.2 @ ;ewman2 ). C'"77D. Convergence and up*ea0al: Managing t*e unsteady pace of organi%ational e0olution. In K. S. 6ameron2 5. I. Sutton2 @ D. A. W*etten C9ds.D2 &eadings in organizational decline# ;rame"orks) research and prescriptions Cpp.#3&G1 D. 6am?ridge2 MA: 3allinger. /.S. Department of 9ducation. C(!!'D. %o Child Left Behind $ct# !u8lic La" 4-5<44-. 5etrie0ed from *ttp:EEwww.ed.go0Encl?ElandingE*tml

'31 /nited States Department of 9ducation. C(!!1D. /ndividuals 9ith Disa8ilities (ducation /mprovement $ct# !u8lic La" 4-1<++,. 5etrie0ed from *ttp:EEidea.ed.go0 Man de Men2 A.8.2 @ Poole2 M.S. C'"7$D. 9>plaining de0elopment and c*ange in organi%ations. $cademy of :anagement &evie") 0-) $'!&$1!. Maira2 M. C(!!1D. -lo?ali%ation and *ig*er education organi%ational c*ange: A frameworA for analysis. Higher (ducation) +1) 173&$'!. Wagner2 4. C(!!'D. )eaders*ip for learning: An action t*eory of sc*ool c*ange. !hi Delta appan) 10C$D2 3G7&373. WeicA2 K. 9. C'"G#D. 9ducational organi%ations as loosely coupled systems. $dministrative Science @uarterly) 04) '&'". WeicA2 K. 9. C'"7(D. Management of organi%ational c*ange among loosely coupled elements. In P.S. -oodman @ Associates C9ds.D2 Change in organizations Cpp. 3G$&1!7D. San +rancisco: ,ossey&3ass. W*itaAer2 A.2 @ 3arnwell. 4. C(!!(D. Positioning policy: 4*e epistemology of social capital and its application in applied rural researc* in Australia. Human Organization) ,4C3D2 ($(& (#'.