Introduction

Our thoughts and actions are indissolubly

interwoven. How we act directly shapes with what we

think, feel and perceived. These qualities are not static

(Young, 1981), but are construct daily and actively by

taking facts ascribing values to them; and trying to make

sense out of them so that we can establish our

understanding.

Schools are organizations where meaning is

constantly constructed and reconstructed. Schools harbour

a collective that reside, work and function. The process

of construction and reconstruction is complex within

schools as countless interactions go on. It is pivotal

for administrators and teachers to understand and

appreciate how each fits the organizational workings for

coexistence. The sentiment of Louise Stoll (1998) comes

to mind:

‘Understanding culture requires a respect for its various meanings andinterpretations people bring to education initiatives and thedevelopment of shared meanings, which underpins norms.’

(Stoll, 1998:7)

1

Bringing understanding, respect of meanings and

interpretations to the forefront, Stoll (1990) recognised

that schooling involves social interactions that impinge

on human involvement, behaviour and human nature.

Culture can be views as a richer picture of what is

transpiring within an organization; more importantly at a

deeper hidden level, involves analysis of what is termed

the culture of that organization (Schein, 1992). What may

be termed miscommunication and ‘lack of teamwork’ could be a

breakdown in intercultural communications (Ibid, 1992).

At the heart of organizations are three crucial impacting

factors (Bennett & Harris, 1999). The nature of the

relationships within an organization is influenced by the

structure, the culture, and the distribution of power.

These are the tenants that will be utilised in the

analysis.

2

This writing performs a cultural critique of an

institution where I worked and attended as a student. The

name of the institution is Government High School (GHS).

The focus of the paper is the interplay between the

cultures of the school produced by the administration and

the teachers. This by no means belittles the student

culture or the support staff culture, as they are also

important facets in school dynamics. The paper tackles

the cultures of the administration and teachers, as they

are paramount in leading paradigm cultural changes. The

writing is divided into three main sections and will

undertake the task in a manner that elucidates the

importance of power influences and resources and

teachers’ response to them, along with organizational

structure and conflicts highlighting the development of a

teacher’s sub-cultural group as counteraction; and the

development of an overall school culture with emphasis on

constructing learning communities.

Initially, the writing sets the scene by laying the

framework of the school’s history to bring a sense of

3

appreciation. A typological analysis of the school’s

cultural environment will be given utilising Hargreaves

(1995) and Stoll & Fink (1996) models.

The micro-politics in schooling follows to

conceptualise the undercurrents and the complexities. The

development of a sub-culture will be investigated. The

integration of the sub-culture into the mainstream of the

school culture will be scrutinised; and the onset of

conflicts will be addressed with a view to discerning the

nature of conflicts and their evolution. Through out this

section excerpts from my experiences will be offered to

bring clarity on what is being analysed. Cultural traits

will be tendered through out this section to provide a

pictorial appreciation.

The notion of a learning school argues the necessity

of constructing learning cultures. This section

highlights how the learning school maintains its climate

and develops a learning community. This is being

proffered as a healthy school culture: especially if it

4

has the internal capacity for change and improvement. A

model inclusive of the various cultural traits that

interacted within Government High School (GHS) will be

combined to reinforce this argument.

Concluding with a hopeful message, the writing

offers advice to teachers and principles in addressing

the demands of a turbulent and multifaceted future.

The Many Faces of Culture

For culture to be of any use, it must be

conceptualised as a phenomenon that assist us to better

understand the hidden much deeper aspects of an

organization (Schein, 1992:12). It must go beyond mere

superficiality to touch the essence of the deep-rooted

underpinnings. Culture manifests itself on various

levels. Each level has its own characteristic nature,

which is embedded, in a particular way of thinking,

seeing and feeling. To say that school culture manifests

itself in customs, rituals, symbols, stories and language (Deal &

Kennedy, 1983) falls short of representing the

5

incomprehensible and irrational aspects of group

dynamics. This stance represents culture on a level of

tangibility where culture can be seen, felt and heard.

However, the complexities of subgroups and conflicts are

not implicit.

School culture is expressed through ‘three-related generic

dimensions’ (MacGilchrist, 1995:41) namely the professional

relationships, the organizational arrangements and the opportunities

for learning. This gives a practical dimension of culture.

This alternative deals with culture in the way we relate

to each other. Embodied implicitly in this view are

notions of conflict, power and authority influence.

However, this viewpoint persists at the level of culture

manifesting by its group members. It misses the deep

essence of where culture emanates from the unconscious

realm where basic values and behaviours reside.

School culture, is a very complex and complicated

phenomenon. Depending on how you look at it and where you

look at it will determine its definition. Hodgkinson

6

(1993) identifies three levels of operation for school

culture the trans-rational level where values are conceived as

metaphysical beliefs based on ethics, morals and codes of conduct.

The rational level is where values are seen and grounded

within a social context of norms, customs, expectations and

standards. All of these depend on collective justification.

The sub-rational level is where the values are experienced as

personal preferences and feelings and rooted in emotions.

Here culture originates from an individualistic framework

to a group framework. This view stands out from the

others by visualizing culture as moving from within the

individual to the outside where collective justifications

validate the emotions and feelings. This belief of

culture is overarching however its underlying

implications miss the complex interface between

socialization and human behaviour. The purpose of

scrutinising these varying viewpoints in the writing is

to immediately establish the problematic nature involved

in pinning down and analysing culture. It’s not an easy

task as culture evolves.

7

Schein’s (1992) stance on culture takes it on a

multi-varied level where culture is viewed as a pattern

of shared basic assumptions that a group learns as it solves

problems of external adaptation and internal integration.

These shared basic assumptions have been validated and are

now ready to be taught to new members. These shared

assumptions reflect the correct way to perceive, to

think, to feel and to interpret in relation to problems.

This viewpoint introduces three elements to the

understanding of culture. Firstly, the problem of

socialization is introduced. Merely observing the members

is insufficient; uncovering the secrets of the

organization requires permanent status. In other words,

one has to be allowed in the inner sanctum to appreciate

the organization. Secondly, the problem of human

behaviour is highlighted. It encapsulates how we

perceive, think, and feel about things. It is only when

an individual discovers the deeper layers where the

culture works can a richer insight come. It is only then

can the individual specify what the culture is and what

it is not. Finally, the multiplicity of cultures

8

organizations can contain is also incorporated. The

notion of subcultures and diversity is implicit in this

view. It brings fullness to the idea of conflicts and

opposition that underscore change.

Schein’s definition brings into play the importance

of shared assumptions that are taken for granted and held

by the members. It also highlights the construction of

held norms that underpin behaviour, interpretation and

perception. The stage is set to critically examine the

culture of GHS in light of shared assumptions, norms and

the sub cultural group that developed.

The History of the School

The school housed over one thousand two hundred and

fifty students (1250) and one hundred and twenty (120)

teachers. It was established in 1952 and commenced as a

grammar school for deserving black outstanding students

who could not afford private tuition. The school had a

reputation for the crème de le crème. As a result of this,

the school became synonymous with producing the nation’s

9

leaders, businessmen, teachers, lawyers, doctors and

engineers that propelled the country forward toward

independence. The former late Prime Minister was one of

its first graduates. Persons passed common entrance

examinations to qualify for entrance.

In 1979, the government of the Bahamas led by the

same man a graduate from the prestigious Government High

School deemed it fit to discontinue the grammar school

system. The argument and contention was that it bred

status inequality in the country. The doors of the school

were open to all Bahamians but the tradition and legacy

of the school remained despite the changes.

Government High School Culture

Typologies are very useful resources (Hargreaves,

1995) in helping people to understand and consider the

very different facets of school culture. They however, do

not capture the subtle nuances of the individual school

(Ibid, 1995) and the underlying sub-cultures within the

school.

10

Hargreaves (1995) offers four basic models of

typology of school cultures which are set on two

dimensions: the instrumental domain representing the

social control and orientation to task; and the

expressive domain, reflecting the social cohesion through

the relationships and the interactions of its members.

Traditional - low social cohesion, high social control- custodial, formal, unapproachable;

Welfarist - low social control, high social cohesion-relaxed, caring, cosy;

Hothouse - high social control, high social cohesion-claustrophobic pressured, controlled;

Anomic - low social cohesion, low social control-insecure, alienated, isolated, ‘at risk’.

(Hargreaves, 1995)

Government High School (GHS) predominantly fits the

traditional typology even though it is possible to

recognise qualities from the other typological models.

The school’s administration ruled in a very hierarchical

and instrumentalist way. There was exceptional pressure

on the staff and students to achieve the goals as laid

out by the school. There was no time for extracurricular

activities. What was heard were the dreaded phrases ‘time

11

on task’ and ‘we must run the academic timetable’. There was no time

for what the students wanted to do apart from achieving

the academic timetable. There were rewards for students

who excelled at academics and sports. Those awards ranged

from cash to certificates, trophies, book prizes and

lunch dates. The school culture orientated around a

traditional, authoritarian, narrow- minded one (see

Figure. 1). The school on the surface appeared as a hot

house but upon closer inspection it lacked the overall

high social cohesion.

Alternatively, Stoll and Fink (1996) examine school

culture typologies on two dimensions effectiveness versus

ineffectiveness and improving versus declining. Their

model is centred on the operations of school and the

impact its culture is having on the overall environment.

Five types of school cultures were identified that of

cruising, moving, sinking, struggling and strolling. Each was

different from the other on the basis of the school’s

effect on the overall climate and the progress of the

students. Regarding GHS, the culture is representative of

12

a strolling school where it was really difficult to say

whether the school was effective or ineffective. There

was no sense of adaptation to the changing environment to

equipped students with the required learning skills.

The Micro-Politics of Schooling

This section explores questions such as, ‘what is

our school like’, ‘what is done in our school’ and ‘how is it done in

our school’.

Answers to these questions display the interactions and

the relationships between administration and teachers.

They provide insights into the under workings of what I

termed the ‘shadow-realm’. This is where assumptions and

norms are constructed. These under workings include the

perceived rift that teachers harbour for administration.

It is the feeling of ‘them’ and ‘us’ that creates a

cultural divide and sets up fertile ground for conflicts.

To wholly grasp the micro-politics of a school one must

delve into this ‘shadow-realm’ for comprehension of change.

Change in itself is not bad but it often brings to the

surface tensions and potentialities for conflict (Lacey,

13

1997), which in quieter times remain dormant. It is the

nature of change and the prospect of change that are the

engine of politics. Change and politics will always be

found together (Ball, 1987). This accounts for

observations of heated debates in staff meetings

concerning new initiatives.

The Organizational Structure and Micro Politics

The organizational structure of an institution

relates to the distribution of the decision-making

responsibilities (Bennett & Harris, 1999) and their

associated accountabilities. By defining decision-making

responsibilities and related resource control,

organization structural factors also define the ways in

which the organization is expected to make and take

decisions (Bennett & Harris, 1999).

GHS administration only dealt with Heads of the

Departments (HODs), persons responsible for coordinating

the individual year groups (Year Heads) and House

Coordinators. Each of these staff members had a role to

14

fulfil. Why the necessity of administration to alienate

the staff to follow a bureaucratic hierarchical order is

the grappling question. The organizational structure is

a guide not to be used for estrangement. There was a

structural culture evolved by administrators where the

structures of the organization were seen as important and

the teachers merely functioning within that structural

integrity. This is created bureaucracy. The phrases

floated around like, ‘put it in writing’ as simple as an idea

for break time event, ‘send it through your HOD’ a

straightforward plan for assemblies and ‘we will form a

committee to deal with that’.

Handy (1993) identifies four major cultures of

organizations that are influenced by history and

ownership, size, technology, goals and objectives, the

environment and the people. Namely, these cultures are

club, task, role and person. GHS constructed a role culture where

the power was coordinated at the top and the job

descriptors were more important than the individuals that

filled them. Pictorially a Greek Temple (Handy, 1998)

15

best suits the description of the school’s daily

operation where the pillars of the temple represented the

titles and the job functions.

Embedded in the micro-politics for the

organizational structure are the expressions of power

relationships (Bennett & Harris, 1999). Inbuilt in the

organizational structure is the power. The persons

residing in these structural positions have by virtue of

their position certain influences (Bennett et. al., 1997).

These persons can increase this influence by the

decisions they make and the circumstances that make it

possible for them to extend their power. According to

Handy (1993) power and influence are the ways in which

persons in organizations are linked to its purpose. The

power is subjected to change as structures can be created

and are simultaneously static and fluid (Bennett &

Harris, 1999).

The administration utilised the structures to create

a culture that breed instrumentalism (see Figure.1). It

16

created position conscious persons. Teachers acquired

positions because it brought power and influence and

suited their needs. The culture fostered a managerial

order where nothing got done but tied up in mountains of

papers. The administration shrunk into their offices

becoming unapproachable and a pipeline of bureaucracy

prevailed. The structures gain life to their self and

decisions never seem to reach their intended destination-

the teachers. This is a case where the structures

controlled the school and the persons occupying them

merely manipulate the strings holding the structure

together to achieve satisfaction. The administration

allowed the structural integrity to give them a false

perception of their effectiveness that appeased them when

confronted by disgruntled staff.

Figure 1: The Administration Culture of GHS

17

BureaucraticHierarchicalManagerialPower ConsciousInstrumentalistUnapproachable

UndemocraticTraditionalist

The Distribution of Power and Micro Politics

There are basically two concepts of power (Bennett

et. al., 1997) where power is seen as a capacity and is

located in the individual persons, the social position,

the social relationship and the social structures. The

other views power as a process where it is manifested

only in positive actions. The distribution of power comes

with power resources and Bennett et. al. (1997) recognises

four different power resources and they are as follows:

Physical resources - the ability to harm or restrict theactions of another-infliction of pain

Economic resources - have to do with the scarcity of desired objects-or having the means to acquire them

Knowledge resources - has to do with scarce desiredknowledge and skill in the context ofwork

18

Normative resources - deals with the scarcity of desiredideals, beliefs and values-the intangible

Each of power resources comes with a corresponding

overt (actual), an overt (provisional) and a covert form

of influence (Ibid, 1997). The provisional may show up in

a promise of a threat or withholding or withdrawing a

required resource. The actual is more explicit and the

power resource is made known to the individual. Covert

utilises implicit forms of knowing what would occur with

the possible use of power resources. It is unlikely that

influence without the leverage of power is ever going to

work. The mode of influence will be appropriate only if

it utilises a power resource consistent with its nature

(Bennett et. al., 1997). In other words, modes of influence

must be appropriate and consistent to the intended

outcomes. This is important because, the way different

forms of power and influence are perceived and evaluated

by those subjected to them will differ (Bennette &

Harris, 1999). Additionally, it can cause confusion and

19

misperceptions that lead to relationship and

communication breakdown.

In GHS teachers knew where the distribution of power

began and ended. Whenever the principal walked around,

the impression of staff members was that of being spied

on creating a negative feeling of accountability.

Simply, because teachers would receive a verbal warning

followed by a write up if they were not executing their

duties aligned with the culture. Sometimes the pettiness

of the ‘infraction’ would be so frustrating you wonder

how anything ever got done.

Resources around the school were so unevenly

distributed that it became fruitless for the Science

department to constantly beg for supplies. This was hard

to reconcile when departments like English seemed to have

no problem whatsoever getting consideration for supplies

like audiocassette radios. Economic power resources were

utilised as trinkets when staff performed favourably.

Computers were used as barter to get compliance. It

20

appeared that departments were offered computers as

‘dangling carrots’. Power resources utilised in this fashion;

sets up calculative compliance (Hales, 1993) because it

is known that the resource is forthcoming.

Common around school was the subtle way the

normative power resource was used. This developed at an

alarming rate. It is my view that it led to the growth of

the subculture in the school and fragmented the teaching

staff. It took the form of influences through overt moral

persuasion (Bennette et. al., 1997) in the form of

ideologies that sounded like ‘do this for the good of the school’,

‘think about the children you teach’, ‘in the spirit of true magic men’ and ‘I will

think highly of you if…’ all of which reeked with emotional and

unconscious appeal to values.

Administration applied normative power resources to

appeal to the cognition and the morality (Hales, 1993).

This was seen when teachers were ‘forced’ to sign up for

summer workshops through the insinuations in a memo from

the administration implying the lack of professional

21

development if not adhered to. Teachers began committing

because of the feeling of moral legitimacy. Majority of

staff accepted this which leads to compliance and

passivity where administration was able to underhandedly

indoctrinate.

Life in a given culture flows smoothly as long as

there is conformity with the unwritten codes (Morgan,

1997). Disrupt these norms and conflicts abound. Power

struggles existed from those who challenge the norms. Our

culture was one that was in tension (see Figure. 2). The

dissenting teacher culture was one that embraced a

democratic framework grounded in developing the student

as a learner with the implementation of innovative

strategies. We defied the very foundation of

structuralism. We developed a task culture (Handy & Aitken,

1986) where a group effort was applied to challenges and

every member had a say in the solution.

Figure 2: The Teacher Subculture of GHS

22

Student- centerednessTime on taskTeaching for Student Development Innovative TeachingSchool loyaltyAversion to power influencesConsultation and Community Focused

Constantly being disciplined and reminded where the

‘buck stopped’; ideas of innovations were ‘dashed down’. What

persons did not realised and appreciated was: we were

subjected to the same power and influence; what we were

doing was making judgements and asking questions (Bennett

et. al., 1997) as to whether ‘it was proper for others to influence our

actions in such a way’, or ‘do we accept the way we were required to do

things’ and ‘was it necessary to utilise and exert power influence in this

situation’. What we were questioning were the legitimacy of

the power resources and the types of influences it

utilised. A more consultative and informative approach

was being advocated.

23

When the disparity of the power resource is great

(Bennett & Harris, 1999), it is likely that there will be

a substantial element of compliance: it is when the power

resources are equally distributed then compliance will

then have to be sought through a negotiative process

which can lead to disperse leadership (Hopkins, 2001) or

invitational leadership (Stoll & Fink, 1996). For power

resources to be legitimised all of those former questions

tendered need to be answered in an affirmative way. That

requires shifting the locus of power.

Culture and Micro Politics

Any organization that is comprised of competing

value systems based on gender, race, language, ethnicity,

religion, socio-economic status, friendship and

professional affiliation will experience and create a

‘mosaic of organizational realities’ (Morgan, 1997:43). In the case

of GHS those ‘mosaic of organizational realities’ became a

subculture that operated independently of the predominant

culture.

24

The fragmentation was rooted in conflicts that

abounded due to poor communication, low morale,

frustration due to inefficiency and a proliferation of

rules and regulations (Adapted from Handy, 1993:299).

Like-minded individuals got together through initiation

and evolved a totally new subculture referred to as task

culture (Ibid, 1993).

Basic assumptions are taken for granted realities

(Schein, 1992) that are non-negotiated and hence very

extremely difficult to change. For change to occur the

new ideas have to be challenged and tested before

cognitive transformation occurs (Schein, 1992) for it to

become accepted as a norm thus a reality.

The subculture had a fundamental unification that

the present practice of schooling required sweeping

changes. There was strong consensus for an improvement in

the school academic timetable and the necessity to hear

the voices of the students. The belief that every child

25

was capable of learning and achieving permeated. The

task was addressing and formulating strategies to realise

that. We were viewed as ‘trouble makers’ and our voices were

quieted. It took extreme measures to be heard like ‘sitting

out’ and forcing meetings with administration to voice

concerns about discipline deterioration and apathy among

the student body.

Challenging the very nature of the basic assumptions

of the school culture meant that members had to re-learn,

re-examine and possibly change some portions of their

cognitive structure which is referred to as ‘frame breaking’

(Argyris et. al., 1985); and this spelt difficulty as

members would have to exist in a state of

destabilisation. To circumvent this persons would

perceive the events around them as being congruent with

their basic assumptions (Schein, 1992), even if it meant

distorting, denying, projecting, or in other words

falsifying their selves.

The culture, as a set of basic assumptions defines

us (Ibid, 1992) and helps us to zoom in on what we pay

26

attention to and how we react emotionally to what is

going on around us. The basic assumptions provide a mental

map (Schein, 1992), which one operates from and becomes

comfortable with others who share the same mental maps.

Members would find themselves in a very vulnerable

position coming up against persons who don’t share their

same basic assumptions and wouldn’t understand what is

going on or worse misperceive and misinterpret (Douglas,

1986). This was the case at GHS where teachers accepted

the predominant culture to avoid disequilibrium. The

recalcitrant teachers risk cognitive dissonance to establish

frame breaking (Argyris et. al., 1985) as a norm.

The school culture allowed for innovation once it

came from top down and had the support of the principal

and her administrators or those innovations that came

from teachers that perpetuated the school culture and did

not infringe on the regulations, or breeched any command

of hierarchy. Members of the Science Department, the Math

Department, the Physical Education Department, the Modern

Language Department and the Music and Performing Arts

27

Department all attached their loyalties to the subculture

that developed. Due to balkanisation (Hargreaves, 1992)

the school had departments that operated more closely

than in the school as a whole.

Persons outside of the subculture did not realise

that we had a very strong and vibrant school spirit and

loyalty. It was not a question of us not wanting to

perform certain activities around the school; but our

defiance was rooted in the implication developed by the

administrators. They purportedly had all the answers and

the ways and means to bring about change. The silencing

of the screaming voices seemed the correct thing to do.

An assumed norm of confrontation being a bad thing

prevailed in the school culture. This was not the case

for the subculture where confrontation was healthy and

integral for dialogue. It was that dialogue that kept us

intoned with other dissenting beliefs within the

subculture.

28

I observed that certain teacher-orientations

developed to combat and curtail the backwash of the

school culture (see Figure. 3). These orientations I

realised were responses to the various power influences

that were being utilised. From observations and

interactions I constructed the following teacher

orientations:

Disciplinarian/Authoritative: Adopted the school basicassumptions at a very deep level, seen, as a mechanistic teacher- theteaching was very rigid, sterile, seen by the administrator as beingeffective.

Cosmetic/ Image: Adopted the school basic assumptions atthe superficial level, had a hidden agenda- the teaching act seen asdoing everything to satisfy the administration, staying in the ‘goodbooks’ important.

Isolated/Recluse: Neither rejected nor adopted the schoolbasic assumptions, very passive- the teaching style is one ofnonchalant, the bare minimum.

Confrontational/Challenger: Outwardly rejected many of the basicassumptions challenged the school constantly to look at things inanother way- the teaching style individualistic, non-traditional, adisregard of instrumental approach.

29

I have placed the orientations on two continuums based on

how well they fitted in with the overall school culture:

one continuum deals with how well the orientations adopt

the school culture and the other deals with how well the

orientations share the basic norms and assumptions.

Figure 3: Model of Teacher-Orientation at

GHS

High shared assumptions

30

Disciplinarian Isolated

Strong adoption Weak adoptionof school culture of school culture

Cosmetic Confrontational

Low shared assumptions

The teacher-orientations created balkanisation

(Hargreaves, 1992) and functioned as coping mechanisms.

Each orientation formed its perception of change and

therein resided the tensions and conflicts. Harmonizing

these orientations appear not important as the over all

school culture embraced orientations that were aligned

with it.

31

The Learning School: The School that Learns

Culture is viewed as a stabilizer, a conservative

force that embeds a way of thinking, doing and feeling

which makes things predictable (Schein, 1992: 361). I am

faced with a paradoxical challenge to confront by

advocating a culture of learning as change underpins

learning therefore undermining culture as a stabilizing

entity. To address this dilemma, I researched the

literature on school culture and learning communities

utilising five books as references. Through a thematic

content analysis I have formulated the qualities and

characteristics of a learning school and they are:

A Learning Focused For All

Must contain as a shared belief that learning is for everyone,understand the nature of environmental context, and participate inchange, capacity to create future.

An Empowered State of Mind

Must help people understand how they can construct knowledge thusimpacting their destiny, have power to build and create own reality.

Proactive In Nature

33

Problem solvers anticipate changes in their environment; stress thenecessity for the process of active learning.

Community Driven and Focused

Have a collective understanding of the organization, aware of conflicts,tensions and confusing messages, realise that the organization isbigger than the sum of the parts.

A Solution Oriented Focus

Share the common assumption that a solution to a problem is a questfor truth, truth can be found anywhere, with change in problemscomes change in methods.

Creative and Innovative

As environmental changes occur organizations will have to find waysto respond to perpetuity changes, participate in change as oppose tojust managing it.

Communication and Information Driven and Focused

Develop faith and trust in each other, comfortable to share ideas andopinions, encourage each other, develops alternative efficient ways ofhandling massive information.

Diversity Driven and Balanced

Stimulate diversity, promulgate the notion that diversity is good for anorganization, creates sub-cultures that can act as valuable resources.

(Schein 1992, Stoll et. al. 2003, Hopkins 2001, Stoll andFink 2002 & Hargreaves and Fullan 1998)

34

In presenting the argument in this fashion it is

validated as citations all point to learning being

central in fostering a culture that participates in and

regulates change. The argument presents culture as

unstable. The point is that response to change brings

empowerment. It’s intrinsically embedded in learning. To

be able to evolve cultures where change is predictable is

key. I have combined Figures 1 and 2 to illustrate this

in Figure 4.

35

Figure 4: Model of a Learning School Culture

Administrative Learning Teacher

Culture Culture Culture

Bureaucratic

Hierarchical

Managerial

Positional Power Conscious

Instrumentalist

Unapproachable

Autocratic

Student Centred

Teaching Focused

Student Development

School Loyalty

Information Focused

Consultative Focused

Professional Development

Learning Focused for All

Empowered State of Mind

Proactive in Nature

Community Driven and Focused

A Solution Oriented Focus

Creative and Innovative

Communication and Information Focused and Driven

36

37

Conclusion

The essence and challenge of true leadership is the

ability to perceive the limitations of culture and

develop adaptively (Schein, 1992) and transform the

culture to reflect change. It is leaders who shaped and

set the culture of organizations, for this reason I have

decided to end on an advisory note to the school leaders

–the principles and the teachers.

Firstly, to the teachers, I say ‘refuse to mind your own

business’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998:107) get involve in

activities outside of the classroom as well as events in

the classroom. It advocates taking an empowered stand

towards reshaping the profession. This stand encapsulates

changing conceptions and perceptions.

Finally, to the principles, ‘the gate keepers and the gate

openers of the school’ (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998:113), the

challenge is to connect what is ‘out there’ (Ibid, 1998) in

ways that really matter. To achieve this, it will take

insightful intervention, leadership and support. Learning

39

is the hallmark. Stay clear of false uncertainties, take

risks based heavily on security, respect differing

opinions, gravitate towards challenges with a mentality

of forming a learning bond and fight for lost causes for

they are hope builders that fuel education (Modified from

Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998:114). Learning is what schools

promote and at the heart of learning is the development

of change coming from within.

References

Argyris, C., Putnam, R. & Smith. P. M. (1985) ‘Action

Science’ in E. Schein, (ed.) Organizational Culture and

Leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ball, S. J. (1987) ‘The Micro-Politics of the School: towards a theory

of School Organization’ in J. Prosser (ed.) School Culture,

New York New York: Routledge Falmer.

Bennett, N. & Harris, A. (1999) ‘Hearing Truth From

Power? Organizational Theory, School Effectiveness

40

and School Improvement’, School Effectiveness and School

Improvement 10 (4), 533-550

Bennett, N., Harris, A. & Preedy, M. (1997) Organizational

Effectiveness and Improvement in Education, Buckingham:

Open University Press.

Deal, T. E. & Kennedy, A. (1983) ‘Culture and School

Performance’, Educational Leadership, 40 (5), 14-15.

Douglas, M. (1986) ‘How Institutions Think’ in E. Schein (ed.)

Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Hales, C. (1983) Managing Through Organizations, London:

Routledge Falmer.

Handy, C. & Aitkin, R. (1990) Understanding Schools As

Organizations, London: Penguin Books.

41

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organizations, London: Penguin

Books.

Hargreaves, A. (1992) ‘Cultures of Teaching’ in A.

Hargreaves & M. Fullan (ed.) Understanding Teacher

Development, London: Cassell.

Hargreaves, A. & Fullan, M. (1998) What’s Worth Fighting For In

Education? Buckingham: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, D. (1995) ‘School Culture, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement’, School

Effectiveness and School Improvement Vol.6, No.1 pp. 23-46.

Hodgkinson, C. (1983) ‘The Philosophy of Leadership’ in P. Dalin

& H. Rolff (ed.) Changing the School Culture, London:

Cassell.

Hopkins, D. (2001) School Improvement For Real, New York New

York: Routledge Falmer.

42

Lacey, C. (1997) ‘The Socialisation of Teachers’ in R. Brooke-

Smith (ed.) Leading Learners, Leading Schools, New York

New York: Routledge Falmer.

MacGilchrist, B., Mortimore, P., Savage, J. & Beresford,

C. (1995) Planning Matters: The Impact Of Development

Planning in Primary Schools, London: Paul Chapman.

Morgan, G. (1997) ‘Images of Organization’ in J. Prosser (ed.)

School Culture, London: Paul Chapman.

Schein, E. (1992) Organizational Culture and Leadership, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stoll, L., Fink, D. & Earl, L. (2003) It’s About Learning: and

its about time, London: Routledge Falmer.

Stoll, L. (1998) ‘School Culture’, School Improvement Network

Research Matters No.4.

43

Stoll, L. & Fink, D. (1996) Changing Our Schools: Linking School

Effectiveness and School Improvement, Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Young, K. (1981) ‘Discretion as an implementation problem: a

framework for interpretation’ in N. Bennett, A. Harris &

M. Preedy, (ed.) Organizational Effectiveness and

Improvement in Education, Buckingham: Open University

Press.

44

45