The Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation Essay Example for Free

The Organisational Learning and the Learning Organisation Essay Schools are in business to promote learning; amongst both adults and pupils. But do they as organisations learn? Is it in fact possible for an organisation as a whole to learn? Even if there is evidence that individuals within organisations are learning, this does not automatically add up to collective learning: There are many cases in which organisations know less than their members. There are even cases in which the organisations cannot seem to learn what every member knows. (Argyris and Schà ¶n 2000:309) How schools learn to implement complex and multiple change successfully has always been of central concern to those interested in school improvement: making the link between organisational learning and school improvement is not a new idea. Roland Barth claims that school improvements main task is all about learning: School improvement is an effort to determine and provide, from without and within, conditions under which the adults and youngsters who inhabit schools will promote and sustain learning among themselves. (Barth 1999:45) In England especially, schools are under pressure to accommodate and manage change and are constantly dealing with public scrutiny of their effectiveness. Issues they are required to deal with include: a revised National Curriculum, performance management, revised criteria for OFSTED inspections, school self-evaluation, standards for head teachers and subject leaders, as well as the ongoing requirement to improve attainment for all pupils. All the activities that constitute learning are a fundamental contribution not just to improvement and performance, but also to an ethos and spirit of community in a school.( Stoll, 2005, 62-69)   We outline the importance of organisational learning to school improvement, and highlight the role of feedback, suggesting ways in which its role could be developed. The five questions we ask are:   1 What is organisational learning?   2 Why is it important to school improvement?   3 What are the processes that influence organisational learning?   4 What is the contribution of feedback?   5 How could its role in organisational learning be enhanced? What Is Organisational Learning? A definition of a learning organisation as it relates to education is: â€Å"A group of people pursuing common purposes (and individual purposes as well) with a collective commitment to regularly weighing the value of those purposes, modifying them when that makes sense, and continuously developing more effective and efficient ways of accomplishing those purposes.† (Leithwood and Aitken 2003:41) This definition suggests certain basic activities need to happen for organisational learning to be able to occur: the pursuit, review and modification of common aims; and opportunities to identify, articulate and design more effective, efficient ways of accomplishing these purposes. It can be easy for a school to lose sight of its primary purpose of fostering and encouraging learning, particularly in times of increased complexity and requirement to respond to external demands for improvement. As a recent participant on one of our courses put it: the core beliefs and goals about learning in my school †¦ have been forgotten in the mass of pressures we are under at the moment. School improvement research distinguishes more effective and more rapidly improving schools by the ability of practitioners to stay in touch with the schools core values, beliefs and goals and take charge of externally driven change rather than being controlled by it (Senge 1999; Rosenholtz 2000; Stoll and Fink 1999; Gray et al. 2003, 141-53). This is, in Senges words, because they are constantly enhancing their capacity to create their own future and know that it is in their hands. This mind-set is a cornerstone of effective improvement efforts. Organisational learning has been described as a dynamic and complex phenomenon best understood by considering learning processes and effects as influencing each other in a reciprocal way (Cousins 1998:220-1). Through collective inquiry, school staff and their communities engage in processing of internal or external information that challenges them to reflect on and adapt assumptions underpinning their practice. It also helps them to understand how they can influence their own destiny and create the necessary knowledge. In this sense, the basic meaning of a learning organisation is one that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future (Senge 1999:14). The Processes That Influence Organisational Learning Our own work suggests four particular processes that can crucially influence the organisational learning of schools. Where these can be deliberately and strategically developed, this facilitates the appropriate conditions and climate within which school improvement can operate. These four processes are: working actively with the context; processing, creating and using strategic knowledge; developing learning-oriented cultural norms; and systems thinking. (Leithwood, K. and Louis, 1998, 119-23) Working Actively With The Context The articulation of goals that are shared by all stakeholders in a school, including pupils, is not enough in a rapidly changing and demanding context. More than twenty years ago, Argyris and Schà ¶n (2000) argued that the key challenge is not to help an organisation become more effective at performing a stable task in the light of stable purposes, but to help an organisation restructure its purposes and redefine its task in the face of a changing environment (p. 320). To do this, schools need to connect more effectively with the world beyond them: Schools cannot shut their gates and leave the outside world on the doorstep, they can no longer pretend that their walls will keep the outside world at bay.   (Hargreaves and Fullan 1998:7) Being able to read the context is a critical skill in effective school improvement. Schools, as other systems, must have the capacity to sense, monitor and scan significant aspects of their environment (Morgan 1999:87). Intelligent schools know their survival can depend on their sensitive response and adaptation to the environment of which they are a part. This contextual intelligence has been defined as one of nine key intelligences a school needs to have (MacGilchrist et al. 2002). Working to develop and adapt school goals in the light of contextual messages is a crucial purpose for the organisational learning that schools continually need to address. (MacBeath, 1998, 311-22) Currently, insufficient notice is being paid to the limited opportunity and power schools feel they have to attend to this basic process. Indeed, the predominant emphasis on the delivery of the external reform agenda paradoxically distracts many schools from initiating their own learning and this results in a loss of both collective self-esteem and of feeling in charge of change (Learmonth and Reed 2000). Processing, Creating And Using Strategic Knowledge The importance of strategic thinking, planning and action in school improvement together constitute a particular knowledge base required for organisational learning. Louis (1998) argues that what distinguishes organisational learning processes from the notion of acquisition, storage and retrieval inherent in some definitions of individual learning, is an additional step of collective knowledge creation: Schools cannot learn until there is explicit or implicit agreement about what they know about their students, teaching and learning, and about how to change. (p. 1086) She describes three sources from which this knowledge is drawn: teachers individual knowledge about the curriculum and their own pedagogical practice; knowledge created when their practice is systematically examined; and knowledge that comes from others, advisers, colleagues, inspectors. Through a combination of dialogue and deliberation, this information is explored, interpreted and distributed among the school community creating collective knowledge and helping powerful learning systems in a school to develop. (Cousins, 2000, 305-33) The process is complex but can also increase the potential for organisational learning in a range of ways. Five assertions have recently been made about the contribution that a strategic approach can make to school improvement (Reed 2000). These are: 1 A strategic approach is underpinned by an explicit commitment to fundamental values and goals in a school.   2 A strategic approach is not just about putting a particular plan into operation. It is a way of working with different levels, goals and expectations at the same time.   3 A strategic approach involves a complex combination of skills thinking, planning, doing, analysing, judging, reflecting and giving and receiving feedback.   4 A strategic approach is more than a way of achieving coherence. It is a social process that needs to take account of how those involved are feeling and experiencing life in a school as well as supporting them in investing in their own learning.   5 A strategic approach builds knowledge and interest about what is happening as it goes along so that everyone can learn about the process and work together to achieve the agreed goals. Developing Learning-Oriented Cultural Norms Once schools have identified key aspects of their environment, they must be able to relate this information to the operating norms that guide their current behaviour. Norms are the unspoken rules for what is regarded as customary or acceptable behaviour and action within the school. They are also a window into the deeply held beliefs and values of the school: its culture (Stoll 2003). Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1998) found that school culture appeared to be the dominant influence on collective learning, more so than vision and mission, structure, strategies, and policy and resources. Rait (2003) explains: An organizations culture embodies an informal structure and normative system that influence information flow and other organizational processes. Culture may implicitly or explicitly delineate the boundaries of what is considered proper and improper action. (p. 83) Norms are critical because Life within a given culture flows smoothly only insofar as ones behaviour conforms with unwritten codes. Disrupt these norms and the ordered reality of life inevitably breaks down (Morgan 2002:139). Norms, therefore, shape reactions to internally or externally proposed or imposed improvements and, indeed, to organisational learning. Cultivating learning-oriented norms is, therefore, essential because the acceptance of changes by a school depends on the fit between the norms embedded in the changes and those within the schools own culture (Sarason 1999). Knowledge needs to have a socially constructed, shared basis for organisational learning to occur (Louis 2004). If norms of individualism and self-reliance exist, and collaboration is not valued, the necessary team learning is at risk. Similarly, schools with norms of contentment, avoidance of change, goal diffusion, top-down leadership, conformity, nostalgia, blame, congeniality rather than collegiality, and denial (Stoll and Fink 1998), are less likely to engage in organisational learning. Stoll and Fink (1999) identify ten norms that appeared to underpin the work of improving schools: shared goals; responsibility for success; collegiality; continuous improvement; lifelong learning; risk taking; support; mutual respect; openness; celebration and humour. They highlight the human and cultural dimension of change. Two of these merit further discussion for organisational learning. The first, collegiality, involves mutual sharing and assistance, an orientation towards the school as a whole. It is spontaneous, voluntary, development-oriented, unscheduled, and unpredictable. Little (1999) identifies four types of collegial relations. She views three as weaker forms: scanning and story telling, general help and assistance, and sharing. The fourth form, joint work, is most likely to lead to improvement and, we would argue, organisational learning. It covers team teaching, mentoring, action research, peer coaching, planning and mutual observation and feedback. These activities create greater interdependence, collective commitment, shared responsibility, and, perhaps most important, greater readiness to participate in the difficult business of review and critiques (Fullan and Hargreaves 2000, xii). The second norm, risk taking, is also critical for organisational learning. Time for experimentation, trial and error and handling failure are essential parts of learning. They symbolise a willingness to try something different, to consider new approaches, and to move into uncharted territory. The other norms support, mutual respect, openness, and celebration and humour set the important climate that enables risk taking to occur without danger. School improvement depends on the use of different mental maps of a school and the creative pursuit of understanding how the whole (the system) and the constituent parts (the subsystems) are relating to each other. Organisational learning occurs where the interdependency of parts and whole, systems and subsystems can be enhanced to enable collective activity to be more effective and satisfying for everyone involved. Systems thinking has been described as a discipline for seeing wholes (Senge 1999:68). It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than linear cause-effect chains, for seeing patterns and processes of change rather than a static snapshot. The capacity to see patterns and discern connections between seemingly unconnected events emerges as a key feature of organisational learning from both our experience and the literature: A systems approach at least helps an investigator understand that the problem is to discover the underlying connections and interdependencies (Vaill 1999:108). It is also a crucial tool for improvement efforts, a basis for taking charge of change and feeling more in control. Systems thinking enables a school to analyse more deeply the causal factors that underlie their concerns and difficulties especially where linear deductions of causality fail to get at the root issues. In short, it means it is more important to focus on circles of influence rather than straight lines (Senge 1999). We now take up this point in relation to the role of feedback. One way we have come to understand the contribution of feedback to organisational learning is to take as a starting point Senges (1999) definition of feedback. He uses the discourse of learning and feedback described as loops. Feedback as it used here, is different to positive feedback meaning making encouraging remarks or negative feedback meaning potential bad news. It is a broader concept, meaning any reciprocal flow of influence (p. 75) encompassing the notion that every influence is both cause and effect. Indeed, Senge argues that the practice of systems thinking and organisational learning starts with understanding feedback. We want to present a view of feedback as an organisational process that itself can be learned about and used as well as having the other, more dialogue-based functions that feedback can have in the school community. OConnor and McDermott (2002) describe feedback as thinking in circles; hence the notion of feedback loops: the consequences of our actions coming back to us and so influencing what happens next. This concept of feedback challenges immediately any notion that organisational learning can be achieved by either linear or mechanistic means: it needs processing and use of information. Feedback, then, in this sense is the return of information to influence the next step (OConnor and McDermott 2002:26). Two basic types of feedback loop have been identified. The first is reinforcing feedback. This describes a situation where change continues to change and grow: a response to something happening makes it happen more frequently. An example from school life could be a response to a high number of exclusions. (Goldstein, 2000, 313-15) The school puts in place a procedure for sanctions and rewards, and this results in further exclusions. The feedback from this situation, then, suggests that the procedure for sanctions and rewards itself needs tightening up which, again, unexpectedly causes more exclusions to occur. The second is balancing feedback, which reduces change and restores balance. A balancing feedback loop is where the response to something happening makes it happen less (Johnstone 2004:12-13). An example would be a primary school that on analysing its KS1 results finds that the poor quality of spelling is contributing to low attainment. A plan implemented across the Key Stage for addressing spelling more systematically with pupils and their parents enhances their capability, reduces their errors and significantly raises attainment. Schools as systems are experiencing feedback loops in this way all the time, and to the extent that they are aware of and working with reinforcing and balancing loops, and are learning how to manage them, they will be in the process of genuinely becoming a learning organisation. (Anderson, 2003, 235-58) Currently, a focus on the analysis of attainment data and making causal links to practice in the classroom can provide good examples of use of feedback. Significant connections are being made from one part of the school (the data) to another (the learning and teaching programme), and in the process organisational learning can occur. Morgan (2002) and others have reminded us of a key element in organisational learning processes which may influence the direction a reinforcing cycle takes towards growth or decline. Organisations may display adaptive learning which solves problems at an operational level: they scan the environment, compare against the operating targets, and initiate appropriate action. In so doing, they show the ability to detect and correct deviations from the norm. Many organisations are quite proficient at this including bureaucratic, fragmented organisations where employees are not encouraged to think for themselves and interest in what the organisation is doing is marginal. However, single loop learning may keep an organisation focused on the wrong goals and prevent success in a changing environment. Effective organisations require double loop learning in which the crucial extra ingredient is to question whether the operating targets are relevant and whether the norms are appropriate. (Chaston,   2001, 139-51) This is generative learning which solves fundamental problems in a creative way and facilitates survival in periods of change. Morgan suggests that when people are unable or not prepared to challenge underlying assumptions, The existence of single-loop learning systems, especially when used as controls over employees, may prevent double-loop learning from occurring (2002:90). The capacity in a school to reflect on its own learning while it is using the information provided by feedback is crucial. Ertmer and Newby (1999, 1-24) outline the characteristics of an expert learner, which include the capacity to regulate ones own learning, to self-monitor. It is possible to see that this capacity in a school, to use and reflect on feedback processes, is a key capability in a learning organisation. The following example illustrates the value of questioning while using feedback. A school joined one of our school improvement projects with the view that a group of Key Stage 2 pupils were, in the staffs description, restless and lacking concentration in their lessons because they had poor listening skills. It was to be the focus for their project. These were not pupils with any obvious learning difficulties. The teachers stated clearly that they wanted to improve the listening skills of these pupils. We cautioned them not to jump to conclusions before they had carried out a careful systemic audit and analysis of the context in which this problem was manifesting itself. (Fiol, 2002, 803-13) They reluctantly agreed. What emerged from the audit was a very different kind of causal picture. The process of gathering information showed that this group were actually very good listeners in settings that sufficiently caught their attention and enabled them to access the curriculum in ways that made sense to them. Through examining the wider system that the pupils were part of, it seemed that this group of pupils were signalling through their lack of engagement that schemes of work and teaching processes were inadequately differentiated for them. (Huber, 2000, 88-115)   Improving this practice was the focus of a very successful project in the school. The teachers learnt to look at their whole situation in a more sophisticated way instead of jumping too quickly to conclusions based in their minds on a linear and more simplistic model of the relationship between learning, teaching and achievement. The situation these teachers found themselves in is a very good example of reinforcing feedback. The more the pupils had a learning diet that did not meet their needs, the more they did not listen. When the school gave them a more carefully designed programme of activities the listening skills of the pupils were shown to be perfectly satisfactory. The balancing feedback process had produced the results that they wanted and staff had learnt a great deal about those pupils, their needs and most importantly about the impact of their teaching.( Kim, 2003, 37-50) It has been claimed that school improvement is an inquiry not a formula and that the successful structure for school improvement will have the nature of a clinical science, where communities of educators treat their best ideas as stepping stones to better ones (Joyce et al. 2003:2). The Making Belfast Work, Raising School Standards (MBW RSS) initiative can be seen as exemplifying such a process. Individual schools involved in the initiative engaged in self-evaluation and review as an integral part of the initiative. (Learmonth, 1998, 78-85) The fourteen schools also worked together during the three years on the project sharing experiences and approaches, creating a wider learning community outside the individual school. The LEAs engagement in the process was threefold; manager, participant and an evaluator of the change process. (Mumford, 2000, 24-31) The external evaluation, however, provided the LEA with an objective framework within which to consider organisational learning at a range of levels. Managing educational change and the resultant organisational learning is [a] multivariate business that requires us to think of and address more than one factor at a time. While theory and practice of successful educational change do make sense, and do point to clear guidelines for action, it is always the case that particular actions in particular situations require integrating the more general knowledge of change with detailed knowledge of the politics, personalities and history peculiar to the setting in question. (Fullan 2000: xii) In evaluating the MBW RSS initiative it is important to acknowledge the context of civil unrest which for over a generation has been an everyday fact of life for people living in the city. Recent political initiatives to move forward the peace process have been welcomed by all who are concerned about the quality of life in Belfast although uncertainty about the future remains evident. The term feedback, in education, is perhaps most commonly used in classroom and school contexts. (Sadler, 2003, 877-909)   It can, however, be used across the education system to promote organisational and institutional learning. We focus on the role of the external evaluation as a method of providing feedback to   †¢ increase understanding of the various impacts of an educational improvement initiative; improve awareness of the processes of implementation at school and LEA level; and provide the basis for analysis of planning, implementation of future initiatives, enhancing the capacity of the LEA to evaluate its own organisational learning with regard to future initiatives involving clusters or individual schools. The extent to which an organisation can learn from feedback from an outside evaluation depends on a number of factors. The very act of commissioning shows a willingness to be scrutinised and a desire to learn from an experience. In the MBW RSS there was a climate within both the LEA and schools which suggested that they could effect change and raise standards. Participants were willing to ask difficult questions and challenge practice. A high degree of co-operation among participants and an honest willingness to talk about strengths and weaknesses were important prerequisites for organisational learning. (Prange, 2003, 23-43) However, many school improvement initiatives have fallen short of their stated objectives because managers have tried to change too much, too quickly. If learning is to take place there must be a tacit understanding that this will not happen for all participants at the same time. Finally there was an acceptance by participants that if this initiative was not going to be just another one of many, which would have little impact beyond set funding, plans and systems had to be put in place which would sustain learning. (Nicolini, 2003, 727-47) LEAs are charged with the duty of managing and monitoring school improvement in their schools. There are many ways in which an LEA might approach this function. Areas for improvement could be identified in Educational Development Plan (EDPs) and targeted through programmes for continual professional development (CDP). Perhaps the most common mechanism used to stimulate school improvement by an LEA is the formulation and management of school improvement initiatives. (Gray,   2002, 27-34) The recent implementation of national initiatives in England (e.g. the National Literacy and Strategy and Numeracy Hour in primary schools) has not stopped LEAs from continuing to develop locally targeted projects aimed at raising school standards. Most recently, inspection has been one route by which the performance of school improvement initiatives has been monitored (the programme began in January 1998). The Office of Standards in Education (OFSTED) underlines the important contribution an LEA can make in delivering school improvement by calling its framework for LEA inspection LEA support for school improvement, picking out school improvement as an LEAs key function (OFSTED 2003:6). However, the Chief Inspector of schools in his annual report (1998/2003) claimed that some LEAs gave ineffective support to schools and could spawn a plethora of ineffective and often unwelcome initiatives which, more often than not, waste money and confuse and irritate schools (p. 20). The extent to which OFSTED can give detailed feedback on initiatives, sufficient to ensure organisational learning, is limited because inspections use a national framework and thus do not focus on the aims of different LEA initiatives. An alternative to inspection would be to use outside consultants to evaluate a specific programme. If an LEA is to make use of an evaluation to improve its services, the evaluators feedback can identify areas in which the LEA can learn and should indicate how that learning can be transferred to other initiatives. In evaluating the Making Belfast Work Raising Schools Standards initiative, the ISEIC team were specifically asked to investigate the impact of the overall project and to identify the factors which facilitated improvements and any barriers to success. The BELB, which has a history of innovative projects, wished to consider the implications of the evaluation with a mind to examining other school improvement projects and its part within these. The idea for the initiative stemmed from thinking in the Department of Education: Northern Ireland (DENI) which approached Making Belfast Work as funders. The initiative intended to help schools address significant disadvantage and under-achievement among their pupils. The project was intended to target a small number of secondary schools and their main contributory primary schools. Additional funding of  £3m, over a three-year period was to be allocated. We cannot report on all aspects of the evaluation covered in the main evaluation report (Sammons et al. 1998; Taggart and Sammons 2003) but will focus on ways in which the evaluations final report was able to feed back key learning points to the LEA, relevant to its management of future school improvement initiatives and the extent to which the initiative had an impact in term of its stated aims. The feedback was couched in terms that were intended to enable BELBs personnel to engage with their own learning and thus better understand their crucial role in initiating and managing initiatives. By doing this, the evaluators sought to help the Board improve its capacity to learn and thus enrich the service it offered to schools in the crucial area of raising school standards. Outsiders offering schools critical friendship as a basis for dialogue can be invaluable to developing organisational learning capacity. Schools need an external perspective to observe what is not immediately apparent to those working on the inside. These individuals and groups can watch and listen, ask thought-provoking questions about formal and informal data that help those in schools sort out their thinking, make sound decisions and determine appropriate strategies. This relationship, however, is more likely to work when it is based on trust and support, where critical friends bring an open mind and a commitment to mutual exchange, rather than their own vested interests. Consequently, when the feedback critical friends convey contains difficult messages, these are more likely to be heard and taken on board. A longer-term outcome of effective critical friendship appears to be the ability to help a school become its own critical friend. References    Anderson, V. Skinner, D. (2003). Organisational learning in practice: How do small businesses learn to operate internationally? Human Resource Development International, 2(3), 235-258. Argyris, C. and Schà ¶n, D. A. (2000) Organizational Learning: a theory of action perspective, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.   309-20 Barth, R. (1999) Improving Schools from Within: teachers, parents and principals can make the difference, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   44-46 Chaston, I., Badger, B., Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). Organisational learning: An empirical assessment of process in small U.K. manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), 139-151. Cousins, J. B. (1998) Intellectual roots of organizational learning, in K. Leithwood and K. S. Louis (eds) Organizational Learning in Schools, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.   220-21   Cousins, J. B. and Leithwood, K. (2000) Enhancing knowledge utilization as a strategy for school improvement, Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 14: 3, 305-333. Ertmer P. A. and Newby T. J. (1999) The expert learner: strategic, self regulated and reflective, Instructional Science 24: 1, 1-24. Fiol, C.M. Lyles, M.A. (2002). Organisational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.   Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (2000) Whats Worth Fighting for in Your School?, Buckingham: Open University Press.   p.xii   Goldstein H. (2000) Editorial: statistical information and the measurement of education outcomes, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 155:3, 313-315. Gray, C. Gonsalves, E. (2002). Organisational learning and entrepreneurial strategy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(1), 27-34. Gray, J., Hopkins, D., Reynolds, D., Wilcox, B., Farrell, S. and Jesson, D. (2003) Improving Schools: performance and potential, Buckingham: Open University Press.   141-53   Hargreaves, A. and Fullan, M. (1998) Whats Worth Fighting for in Education?, Buckingham: Open University Press.   p.7 Huber, G.P. (2000). Organisational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organisation Science, 2(1), 88-115.   Johnstone, C. (2004) The Lens of Deep Ecology, London: IDEE. Kim, D.H. (2003). The link between individual and organisational learning. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 37-50.   Learmonth, J. and Lowers, K. (1998) A trouble shooter calls: the role of the independent consultant, in L. Stoll and K. Myers (eds) No Quick Fixes: perspectives on schools in difficulty, London: Falmer Press.   78-85   Learmonth, J. and Reed, J. (2000) Revitalising Teachers Accountability: learning about learning as a renewed focus for school improvement, paper presented at the Thirteenth International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Hong Kong, January.   Leithwood, K. and Aitken, R. (2003) Making Schools Smarter, Thousand Oaks CA: Corwin.   Leithwood, K. and Louis, K.S. (eds) (1998) Organizational Learning in Schools, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.   119-23   Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1998) Leadership and other conditions which foster organizational learning in schools, in K. Leithwood and K. S. Louis (eds) Organizational Learning in Schools, Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger.   Little, J. W. (1999) The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers professional relations, Teachers College Record 91:4, 509-536.   Louis, K. S. (2004) Beyond managed change, School Effectiveness and School Improvement 5:1, 2-25.   Louis, K. S. (1998) Reconnecting knowledge utilization and school improvement, in A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds) International Handbook of Educational Change. Part 2, Dordrecht: Kluwer.   MacBeath, J. (1998) I didnt know he was ill: the role and value of the critical friend, in L. Stoll and K. Myers (eds) No Quick Fixes: perspectives on schools in difficulty London: Falmer Press.   311-22   MacGilchrist, B., Myers, K. and Reed, J. (2002) The Intelligent School, London: Paul Chapman. Morgan, G. (1999) Images of Organizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.   Morgan, G. (2002) Images of Organization (2nd edn), London: Sage. Mumford, A. (2000). Individual and organisational learningthe pursuit of change. Industrial and Commercial Training, 23(6), 24-31. Nicolini, D. Mesnar, M.B. (2003). The social construction of organisational learning: Conceptual and practical issues in the field. Human Relations, 48(7), 727-747.   OConnor, J. and McDermott, I. (2002) The Art of Systems Thinking, London: Thorsons. Prange, C. (2003). Organisational learningDesperately seeking theory? In M. Easterby-Smith, J. Burgoyne, L. Araujo (Eds), Organizational learning and the learning organization (pp. 23-43). London: Sage Publications.   Rait, E. (2003) Against the current: organizational learning in schools, in S. B. Bacharach and B. Mundell (eds) Images of Schools: structures and roles in organizational behavior, London: Sage.   Reed J. E. (2000) Strategic thinking in the Malawi school support system project, unpublished materials developed for Ministry of Education, Malawi.   Rosenholtz, S. J. (2000) Teachers Workplace: the social organization of schools, New York: Longman Sadler-Smith, E., Chaston, I., Spicer, D.E (2003). Organisational learning in smaller firms: An empirical perspective. In M. Easterby-Smith, L. Araujo, J. Burgoyne (Eds), Proceedings of the 3rd International Organisational Learning Conference (pp. 877-909). Department of Management Learning, Lancaster University.   Sarason, S. B. (1999) Revisiting The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, New York: Teachers College Press.   Senge, P. M. (1999) The Fifth Discipline: the art and practice of the learning organisation, London: Century Business.   Stoll, L. (2003) School culture: black hole or fertile garden for improvement, in J. Prosser (ed.) School Culture, London: Paul Chapman.   Stoll, L. A. and Fink, D. (1999) Changing Our Schools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement, Buckingham: Open University Press.   Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1998) The cruising school: the unidentified ineffective school, in L. Stoll and K. Myers (eds) No Quick Fixes: perspectives on schools in difficulty, London: Falmer Press.   Stoll, L., MacBeath, J., Smith, I. and Robertson, P. (2005) The change equation: capacity for improvement, in improving school effectiveness, in J. MacBeath and P. Mortimore (eds) Improving School Effectiveness, Buckingham: Open University Press. 62-69   Vaill, P. B. (1999) Learning As a Way of Being: strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.