Research Article

ECNU Review of Education

2021, Vol. 4(4) 788–807
Organizational Change ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
in Schools [Link]/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2096531120932177
[Link]/home/roe

Kadir Beycioglu
Dokuz Eylül University

Yasar Kondakci
Middle East Technical University

Abstract
Purpose: This review aims to discuss the meaning of organizational change, change dynamics, and
the current state of debates on organizational change in schools. The core purpose of this review is
not only to restate the literature on organizational change in schools but also to challenge the
current theoretical understanding of change in schools by rising the new perspectives on change in
schools.
Design/Approach/Methods: As part of this effort, we discuss the dominant perspectives of
change, forces of change, and illustrate the interventions adopted by different school systems to
deal with the need of change.
Findings: The literature on change in schools suggests that, parallel to the change intervention in
other organizational settings, largely fail. Falling short of intended goals in change interventions is
not a simple methodological problem but rather an ontological issue of how we perceive change
and organization. Parallel to the arguments in the literature, continuous change has been indicated
as an alternative perspective to planned change. Finally, leadership has been indicated as a key
driver of organizational change.
Originality/Value: The review discusses applicability of continuous change and elaborate on
alternative leadership approaches to guide continuous change in schools.

Corresponding author*:
Kadir Beycioglu, Department of Educational Sciences, Dokuz Eylül University, Alsancak, No: 144 35210, Cumhuriyet Blv,
35220 Konak, Turkey.
Email: beycioglu@[Link]

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ([Link] which permits
non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as
specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ([Link]
Beycioglu and Kondakci 789

Keywords
Continuous change, educational change leadership, organizational change, schools

Date received: 10 October 2019; accepted: 14 May 2020

Introduction
Organizations—including schools—are under constant pressure from their internal and external
environments. Social and demographic developments, new patterns of employment, developments
in technology, and globalization are some of the forces pushing schools to initiate change inter-
ventions. Healthy change and development of schools is essential for survival of the schools as an
organization and accomplishing progressive social change in the society (Rosenblatt, 2004). Aslan
et al. (2008) indicated that despite the different labels given to the change interventions such as
reform, innovation, planned change, or improvement, it is “more than a simple rise in a school’s
test scores” (Waite, 2002, p. 161). The practices of organizational change in general, and educa-
tional change in particular, may differ from one context to another. Because of the various
dynamics of the context in which change is practiced, cultural differences and ambiguities in
meanings ascribed to the term can vary dramatically across cultures.
In this review, we first discuss the meaning of organizational change, change dynamics, and the
current state of debates on organizational change in schools. As part of this effort, we discuss the
dominant forces of change and illustrate the interventions adopted by different school systems to
deal with change need. However, the core purpose of this review is not simply restating the
literature on organizational change in schools. Rather, our core purpose is to challenge the current
theoretical understanding of change in schools and the practice of change guided by this theoretical
understanding. We specifically argue that the frequent change interventions in schools fail to
accomplish their purposes, resulting in a loss of valued resources (Clegg & Walsh, 2004; Zayim
& Kondakci, 2015). There are different reasons behind the high failure rate of change interventions
in schools. The human factor and the resistance associated with this factor are the most commonly
cited reasons behind failure of change interventions. However, we argue that the way we con-
ceptualize change and development in schools is one of the primary causes for the high failure rate
of change in schools (Beycioglu & Kondakci, 2014; Kondakci et al., 2019). Planned change
interventions are still valid in initiating change in schools. Planned change is a kind of change
initiative managed from the top of an organization and spread over it to create an effective
organization through planned interventions. In education, planned change, perceived as an idea
of top-down issue in the school system (Berkovich, 2017), is generally arranged (or worse,
manipulated) by policymakers and provides part of the picture of change in schools because it
still characterizes change as a top-down, repressive, and extraordinary organizational practice in
790 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

some contexts. More importantly, planned change ignores the capacity of different school con-
stituencies to improvise, experiment, and alter their own organizational processes. As a result,
successfully dealing with the constant pressure of different forces of change is closely related to the
school capacity to relate two types of change, that is, top-down planned interventions and bottom-
up unplanned change. This means, for the proponents of emergent change perspectives, that
“change is a continuous, dynamic and contested process that emerges in an unpredictable and
unplanned fashion” and “even when changes are operational, they will need to be constantly
refined and developed in order to maintain their relevance” (Burnes, 2012, p. 135). We elaborate
on the distinction between planned change and unplanned, bottom-up, and emergent change
subsequently.

Interpretation of organizational change: Meanings and perspectives

The meaning of organizational change
Collins (1998) portrays organizations as social phenomena. In this “phenomenal settings” of
organizations, change is an established concept and viewed as “a necessary evil” (Lawler &
Worley, 2006). For Louis et al. (1999), the concept of change is very close to notions of
restructuring, developing, improving, or reforming the organization. Change theorists who
explore how and why organizations change use the term “change” as closely related to
organizational development (Burke, 2017; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995; Weick & Quinn,
1999). That there have been controversial issues in theorizing and practicing (effective)
change ensures a rich theoretical background of concepts, labels, and models in the organiza-
tional change literature (Al-Haddad & Kotnour, 2015; Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999;
Hargreaves, 2002; Langley et al., 2013; Palumbo & Manna, 2019).
The literature also offers us some generic definitions of organizational change (Kezar, 2001),
but not generic recipes (Weick, 1995) for how to change. This means that it could be easy to
differentiate any change initiative in any type of organization, but it may be difficult to find a
general method for making organizational aspects ready for this change and its management or to
attain the desired end because of the uniqueness of each organization. Burnes (2009), for example,
suggested that organizational change is the procedure of altering an organization among individ-
uals, groups, and the entire organization. For Porras and Robertson (1992), change is “the altera-
tion of organizational members’ on-the-job behaviors,” “improving organizational performance,”
and “enhancing individual development” via “a set of behavioral science-based theories, values,
strategies, and techniques” aiming at “the planned change of the organizational work setting”
(p. 723). Similarly, Poole and Van de Ven (2004) defined organizational change as a difference
in entities of an organization such as an individual’s job, a work group, an organizational subunit,
the overall organization, and larger communities of organizations. Barnett and Carroll (1995)
Beycioglu and Kondakci 791

conceptualize organizational change “in terms of both its process and its content. Process refers to
how change occurs. Content describes what actually changes in the organization . . . to explain why
organizations change as well as what the consequences are of change” (p. 217). “At its simplest,”
for Dawson (2003), “organizational change can be defined as new ways of organizing and work-
ing” (p. 11). In addition to putting change-related terms into a clear light, this literature on change
identifies a wide array of factors impacting the effectiveness of change interventions, including
content, context, process, readiness, adoption, and institutionalization, among other factors (Arme-
nakis & Bedeian, 1999; Armenakis et al., 1993; Holt et al., 2007; Specht et al., 2018; Zayim Kurtay
& Kondakci, 2020).
Nonetheless, the meaning of organizational change and how to study remains a controversial
issue (Van de Ven & Poole, 2005). The main reason behind this may be the high failure rate of
change interventions and the high human and financial cost that comes along with the failure of
change (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Thus, while most of the research agreed that change interventions
are common and very popular in organizations, unfortunately, the majority of these interventions
end up with limited or no success (e.g., Cheng & Walker, 2008; Demers, 2007) and result in
various organizational pathologies (Dahl, 2011; Jansson, 2013).

Organizational change perspectives

The literature on change and organizational change has provided us different change theories
(Kezar, 2001). For example, Demers (2007) reviews the literature of organizational change with
the intent of creating a better understanding toward the evolution of the field and denotes that, prior
to the 1980s, organizational change was conceived in terms of growth adaptations. This perspec-
tive encompasses a rational adaptation approach viewing organizations as an instrument controlled
by managers who alter structures and systems in response to internal and external pressures, an
organic adaptation approach viewing change as the emergent result of processes, a life-cycle
approach viewing organizations as living organisms that transition between predetermined stages
of change, a population ecology approach viewing change as disruptive and hazardous for orga-
nizations as well as difficult to achieve, and a new institutionalism approach viewing organizations
as adopting change for symbolic purposes (Boujos, 2017). In the era after the 1980s, change was
viewed as a form of adaptation with two dominant viewpoints: (1) a managerial-functionalist view
that embraced the idea of portraying change as an episode initiated by top management and ending
with a return to equilibrium and (2) an organizational-interpretive view that portrayed change as
reciprocal due to its top-down and bottom-up process of all actors within an organization con-
tributing to change and change process as more incremental and emergent. Then, the next era
demonstrated an interest in increasing an organization’s capacity for change. This era caused a
shift from viewing change as emergent to viewing it as a long-term process of renewal with two
792 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

approaches: (1) natural evolution viewing change as behavioral learning, evolving, and emerging
and (2) social dynamics that preferred a subjective stance in that organizational change considers
all agencies and that human beings are purposeful and reflexive (Boujos, 2017).
According to Kezar (2001), there are six main categories of change theories: (1) evolutionary,
(2) teleological, (3) life cycle, (4) dialectical, (5) social cognition, and (6) cultural (p. iv). Those
categories have different assumptions about why, how, and when change occurs and the duration
and the outcomes of change. Evolutionary change is a response to external circumstances, situa-
tional variables, and the environment faced by each organization. Teleological theories, known
as planned change models, posit the belief that organizations are purposeful (often rational) and
adaptive. Change is needed because leaders, change agents, and others think that change is
necessary. Evolving from child development theories, life-cycle change theories focus on stages
of growth, organizational maturity, and organizational decline. In other words, change is a
natural part of human and organizational development. Dialectical change models, also known
as political models, emphasize that change is the result of clashing ideology and belief systems.
Social cognition models highlight the ways that individuals and organizations learn and describe
change as being tied to learning and mental processes such as sensemaking. According to this
model, change occurs because individuals see a need to grow, learn, and change their behavior.
Cultural change model proposes that change occurs naturally as a response to alterations in the
environment, values, rituals, as a result, and cultures are always changing (Kezar, 2001; Kezar &
Eckel, 2002).
The above frameworks by Demers (2007) and Kezar (2001) include a lot of change theories
proposed by leading scholars such as Lewin (three-stage theory of change), Kotter (eight-step
process of change), Roger (diffusion theory), and Argyris and Schön (organizational learning
theory). These theories have a foundational influence on conceptualizing organizational change
processes.

Change in schools
In this era of tremendous change, educational organizations, school systems, and/or schools are
under change pressures. A school, which is generally accepted as an open system, has a more
fragile structure and is subject to inescapable internal and external change pressures (Beycioglu &
Aslan, 2010; Fink, 2003; Fullan, 1993; Hallinger, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Harris, 2006). Similar
to other organizations, organizational change in schools is any alteration, betterment, improve-
ment, restructuring, or adjustment in the processes or contents of education in schools (Dimmock,
1996). Hargreaves et al. (2005) highlight that educational change processes and initiatives intend
to alter learning and teaching in our schools. However, altering in school organization, for Hoy and
Beycioglu and Kondakci 793

Sweetland (2001), is not to try to eliminate all the difficulties that schools have but to plan to
innovate considering internal and external change pressures.
In the next section, we are moving to analyze the critical debates on organizational change in
schools.

Debates on organizational change in schools

Organizational change scholars have introduced varied definitions of change, coupled with per-
spectives on initiating and implementing change process (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995), as noted
earlier. In addition to theoretical plurality, there are many change models aiming at guiding change
implementation at schools (Armenakis et al., 1999; Garvin, 2000; Kotter, 1995; Mento et al., 2002;
Whelan-Berry et al., 2003). These models propose structured step-by-step processes in implement-
ing change to facilitate the job of change agents in organizations. These models argue that change
can be accomplished by stage-based implementation approach. However, the plurality of change
implementation models indicate their limited effectiveness so that different settings call for com-
petetive models.
The same theoretical plurality is valid for the literature about educational change as well
(Fullan, 1992, 2001; Hargreaves et al., 2010; Harris, 2011). Despite the abundance of conceptual
frameworks and practice models, change interventions fall short of their predefined objectives.
Although some scholars approach the issue of high failure with caution (e.g., Hughes, 2011),
several scholars document the phenomenon of “change failure” with empirical evidence (Clegg
& Walsh, 2004). The concern over the high failure rate has been expressed by several educational
change scholars as well (Cheng & Walker, 2008; Nir et al., 2017).
The core questions right now change scholars and practitioners are trying to answer is “Why do
change initiatives fail given the richness in theory and practice of organizational change?” Tradi-
tional analyses on the reasons behind high failure rate of change interventions yielded again
traditional explanations for high failure rate. Lacking the necessary managerial skills and organi-
zational capacity, including the deficit in organizational resources, is highlighted as the main
reason behind the failure of change interventions (Kim et al., 2011). Additionally, other explana-
tions for high failure rates were identified with the “human factor” as the prime reason impeding
the success of change interventions (Beycioglu & Kondakci, 2014; Coyle-Shapiro, 1999). Some of
the most commonly articulated reasons of employees’ negative attitudes toward change include
beliefs that changes are introduced in a top-down manner, organizational members do not partic-
ipate, the change agency does not document the need for change, the change agency does not
inform those affected about the progress of change, and organizational members’ status is threat-
ened by the outcomes.
794 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

These explanations for the problems in change implementation in schools reflect the traditional
understanding of organizational change. These explanations are typically made from a planned
change perspective. The more the change initiatives fail, the higher the number of change models
are proposed by change scholars. However, these models and theories seem to be generated by the
same mindset. Many scholars have recently started to articulate that the real problem is actually
related to the way we conceptualize change or what we mean by change in organization but not the
change theory or model we use to guide change per se. In other words, when it comes to doc-
umenting the problems in change implementation, stakeholders report these problems from the
traditional change perspectives. According to Lawrence (2015), the traditional perspective to
change (e.g., planned change) approaches reflecting the early industrial age thinking about orga-
nizations does not meet the needs of change for current organization. Hence, we need a new
mindset guiding our thinking about and practice change. Holding a significantly different under-
standing about the scale, pace, and origin of change, several scholars identified totally different
sets of flaws in the way we think and practice change in organizations.
First of all, a static conception of the organization and prioritizing static state in the organi-
zation have been indicated as one of the core issues in our thinking about change (Feldman,
2000; Orlikowski, 1996; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). In fact, the moment the organization starts to
think about a change agenda in response to an internal and/or external development, the envi-
ronment poses a new challenge to the organization. As Wolf (2011) implied, the change
approaches and terminology has been developed for an industrial age rather than the age char-
acterized with a fast pace of change in information, technology, markets, and people. The
traditional episodic approach to change is based on the assumption of a stable and predictable
organizational context. In this perspective, the environment of the organization is limited to its
close environment and ignores the fact the whole globe is actually affecting the organization in
the Internet age. In a flattened world, change and developments in any context have immediate
and direct impact on organization.
Second, the concept of the scale of change in traditional change perspectives has been com-
monly criticized. The obstinate tendency to perceive and conceive change as a large-scale and
dramatic shift typically ignores the enduring but small alterations in organizations (Tsoukas &
Chia, 2002). In relation, introducing change as an extraordinary event in organizational life
(Barnes et al., 2010) is linked as the problem in the traditional understanding of change. According
to Tsoukas and Chia (2002), change is not independent of the ordinary daily activity in organiza-
tions. In that sense, they argued that there is no difference between ordinary organizational
membership and change agency. Håkonsson et al. (2012) argued that change in the environment
distorts the balance between the organization and its environment. The attempt to close the gap
decreases organizational performance. Relying on the arguments of continuous change scholars,
Beycioglu and Kondakci 795

Håkonsson et al. (2012) argued that the paradox between international and external fit by viewing
change as frequent, continuous, and dissipative, which capture endogenous change.
A third problem in the dominant thinking about change, associated with the second problem, is
related to the origin of change. The constant attempt to introduce change based on top-down
managerial abstraction and divorcing change plan from its local context is one of the basic
problems in the dominant thinking about change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). As stated above, the
common top-down practice of change is the main reason behind human problems in change
interventions. Hatum et al. (2010) rightfully argued that the view of organizational change as a
phenomenon resulting from the coexistence of managerial choice and environmental influence is a
reductionist one and ignores deterministic and voluntarist approaches to organizational adaptation.
The authors maintained that the dominant theories of organizational adaptation focus on exogen-
ous factors in organizational adaptation and ignore endogenous dynamism helping the organization
cope with a fluid organizational environment. Particular internal organizational capabilities have
the potential to transform the adaption capability of the organization in volatile environments.
A fourth criticism of the traditional change perspective is related to the aftermath of
change. Traditional change approaches encounter sustainability problem (Brännmark & Benn,
2012; Hargreaves, 2002). In planned change, the resulting organizational configuration faces
the challenge of becoming a normal part of daily practice and being internalized by organiza-
tional members (Brännmark & Benn, 2012). Even if change interventions are successful in
bringing about the conceived organizational state, the resulting organizational state is not
effective in responding to emergent developments in internal and external environments
(Brännmark & Benn, 2012).
Similar criticisms have increasingly been articulated by educational change scholars. These
criticisms reflect dissatisfaction with the way change is conceptualized and practiced in schools
(Gallucci, 2008). As a result, most educational change interventions reflecting the common or
traditional understanding of change do not result in significant improvements in structural and
functional characteristics of schools (Hargreaves, 2002; Nir et al., 2017). Some educational change
scholars maintain that the traditional change practice detach teachers and, in some cases, principals
from the change process, which results in limited ownership of the process (Castelijns et al., 2013).
Planned change interventions are still the most common ways of initiating change in organizations,
including schools. However, planned change provides part of the picture of change in schools
because it characterizes change as a top-down, repressive, and extraordinary organizational prac-
tice. More importantly, planned change ignores the capacity of different school constituencies to
improvise, experiment, and alter their own organizational processes. As a result, successfully
dealing with constant pressure of different forces of change is closely related to the school
796 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

leadership capacity for making change and development as part of daily practices of school
constituencies and capitalizing on small-scale modifications and alterations.
These discussions on the flaws in the dominant approaches to change indicate the need for a
new perspective for change. This need is equally valid for the broader field of organization science
as well as educational organization. Wolf (2011) argued that “planned change may no longer be
sufficient to address the needs of today’s organizations” (p. 20). The author maintained that the
existing view of change represents first-generation management thinking, which is no longer
suitable to respond to the needs of current organizations that are challenged by new technologies,
markets, people, and customers. These new developments challenged the definition of change and
development as well, which brings a new ontology of change and development.

A new perspective
Conceptual bases of continuous change
The brief discussion around the flaws surrounding traditional thinking about change stated the need
for a new understanding of change. The criticisms of pace, scale, and origin of change in traditional
change approaches open the way toward a new perspective on organizational change. Although
different scholars propose various perspectives, most of these perspectives entail appreciation for
the dynamics of continuous change. Continuous change is ongoing, small scale, and embedded in
daily practices of organizations (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
Several scholars highlight the need for a new ontological perspective on change and the
organization (Langley et al., 2013; Michel, 2014; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Tsoukas and Chia
(2002), among the first scholars to articulate the need for a new ontology of change and organi-
zations, suggested a process ontology, rather than an “ontology of things,” for capturing the
essence of continuous change. According to these scholars, process ontology, on the other hand,
enables the perception of a constant state of change and development in organizations. In this
perspective, change prioritizes the organization. In other words, a constant state of flux makes and
remakes the organization. To highlight the ontology of process, the authors suggest the term of
“organizational becoming.” Langley et al. (2013) continued the discussion of process ontology.
These authors argued that organizations are constantly modified, which eliminates the possibility
of seeing the organization as a given object. The organization is not a collection of static objects
and structures. Rather, these objects and structures are modified, altered, and extended on an
ongoing basis (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Orlikowski (1996) argued that the small but frequent
changes go almost invisible to organizational members. Feldman (2000) argued that even orga-
nizational routines, what we know as the most static organizational structures, are constantly
modified on an ongoing basis.
Beycioglu and Kondakci 797

Michel (2014) extended the discussion around a new ontology of organizations. The authors
argued that episodic change is related to epistemology, whereas continuous change is related to
ontology. According to Michel, epistemology (episodic change) is well-known, however, ontology
(continuous change) is less known. The new ontology of organizations first invites the analyzers to
identify the organizational member, rather than top management, as the real “owner” of organiza-
tional practices. Continuous change invites us to focus on process rather than entities, requiring us
to probe how diverse organizational elements keep forming each other. Common terms associated
with continuous change include improvisation, performativity, structuration, and becoming.
Michel (2014) argued that a state of flux reflects the true nature of the organization. Michel stated
that “Personal and structural attributes interrelate and keep forming each other . . . a duality, con-
struing persons and context as a mutually constituted cognitive resource system, which means that
the attributes of the one depends on the engagement with the other” (p. 1083). In that sense,
participants’ alertness to their work enables them to change whole or part of their work.
Although there are a limited number of studies on continuous change, some analyses imply that
changing the ontology of organization from an ontology of things to an ontology of process
contributes to organizational performance. According to Håkonsson et al. (2012), adapting the
thinking of continuous change, though viewing change as a constant and endemic process to the
organization rather than a particular mode or state of organizing, contibutes to organizational
performance. In a similar way, Hatum et al. (2010) in their analysis identified the advantage of
following continuous change.

The functioning of continuous change

The above discussion on the philosophical bases of continuous change does not intend to imply that
debates have led to a robust and unified theory of change. Scholars of continuous change have
adopted different concepts and theories to explain the operating mechanisms of continuous change.
Weick and Quinn (1999), in their seminal work on the comparison between episodic and contin-
uous change, declared sensemaking, learning, and improvisation as the three key metaphors to
explain the operating mechanisms of continuous change. “Sensemaking” refers to the cognitive
processes through which organizational members interpret organizational categories (process and
structures) and how they extend these categories on the basis of this interpretation (Weick, 2000).
Sensemaking helps organizational members develop shared meaning around organizational prac-
tices or work categories (Lawrence, 2015). “Improvisation” suggests that organizational members
have the tendency to produce new products, outcomes, or categories in the absence of a pre-
existing plan or program (Orlikowski, 1996). “Learning” is the process of knowledge acquisition
and interpretation, which gives way to extension of given work categories (Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Flores et al. (2012) argued that organizational learning is a key capability for continuous change.
798 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

Learning includes retaining and sharing knowledge, which gives the learning a social aspect. In
that sense, communities of practices are also a relevant concept in explaining the bases of con-
tinous change (Brown & Duguid, 1991). Recently, Kondakci et al. (2016) added “self-organizing”
as another conceptual tool for explaining the operating mechanisms in continuous change through
mutual accomodation and interdependence within and between systems in a dynamic and inter-
dependent environment. Like in the case of learning, self-organizing accomodates travels between
and/or within the system.
It is important to state that these conceptual tools highlight the role of the social construction of
continuous change (Wolf, 2011). As stated by Brown and Duguid (1991), any modification in the
work practice repertoire made by an individual member is shared with other members, typically in
an informal setting. The arguments of Ford and Ford (1995) deepened our understanding of social
construction of change in organizational context. They argued that change is generated and con-
veyed in interactions and conversations. As a result, we create new meanings that facilitate change
and development. Social construction of language and creation of public meaning enables trans-
formation in the organization. Continuous change offers new ways of understanding the nature of
change.
Another commonality across these conceptual tools is related to the interplay between given and
emergent organizational categories. Conceptualizations of continuous change noted above explain
how continuous change emanates from a given structure or a work category. The conceptual tools
described above indicate that each reactivation of work categories leads to extension of the
categories in an effort to meet local needs, respond to emergent situations or address an unenvi-
saged situation (Feldman, 2000; Feldman & Pentland, 2003). Continuous change is concealed in
interactions and sweeps through these interactions to make an impact on organizational practices
(Brown & Duguid, 1991; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). As a result, change is not an unusual or discrete
practice; rather, it is a constellation of ongoing, pervasive, and constant activities that diffuse
through the interactions and practices of organizational members. Hence, according to continuous
change, change is not a distinct or unusual practice in organizations. It is integral to daily practice
and is embedded in the daily work of organizational members. As a result, contrary to the top-down
nature of planned change, continuous change is a bottom-up process.
Finally, both process ontology and the conceptual tools promoting continuous change suggest
that approaches to continuous change address the human factor. It can be argued that in traditional
change perspectives, the human factor is always an issue in change implementation because of the
way change is conceived and implemented, detaching the owner of the process (top management)
and the implementers (ordinary practitioners). Human behavioral issues are always evident in such
change interventions because, from the practitioner’s perspective, the design is usually alien to
their local reality, and the change plan reflects the perception and conception of the top
Beycioglu and Kondakci 799

management. In traditional approaches to change, the change process and organizing processes are
separate phases. Change agents’ core problems are developing positive behaviors and attitudes
toward change on the part of the organizational members. Participation in the change process,
communication about change, and persuading organizational members about the need of change
are common practices in creating positive change behaviors, such as in the form of openness,
readiness, and/or commitment, on the part of organizational members.
Kim et al. (2011) distinguished between traditional managerial interventions for accomplishing
change through inculcating supportive psychological states and the kinds of adaptive behaviors
essential in continuous change processes, such as responding to change by adjusting to and dealing
with stress, uncertainty, and new demands, coping with change, adaptive performance, compliance
and cooperation, and proactive change support behaviors. Kim et al. (2011) illustrated these by
supportive behaviors in an unplanned change context with “voice, taking charge, taking personal
initiative, proactivity, strategy-supportive behaviors” (p. 1668). In continuous change mode, rather
than resisting, this serves the best interests of organizational members (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002)
because it is the way to successfully accomplish the work, progress on the work, and gain pro-
fessional satisfaction as the owner of the work practice.

Leadership for continuous change

Claiming that change is embedded in the daily practices of ordinary organizational members does
not devalue leadership. Leadership is still very critical in bringing about continuous change in that
leaders have a critical role, first, in creating a culture nurturing continuous change and, second, in
capitalizing on small-scale changes to make these parts of emerging repertoires of practice. These
two leadership tasks are essential to eliminate the risk of failing to capture small changes that are
essential to sustaining change over time. In that sense, the question is not whether we need
leadership; rather, it is which type of leadership is needed for capitalizing on small-scale and
bottom-up innovations and enabling continuous change in organizations. Although continuous
change has been discussed extensively by several scholars, these discussions handle the issue of
leadership in continuous change only incidentally. Some of the analyses focus on leadership for
creating a culture serving continuous change. In that sense, conceptual discussions of leadership in
continuous change is a twofold issue: first, identifying the leadership type facilitating continuous
change, and second, identifying the role of such leadership.
As to identifying the type of leadership serving continuous change, Kondakci et al. (2016)
discussed the potential of distributed leadership as the most appropriate leadership style serving
continuous change both theoretically and practically. Similarly, Seashore (2009) stated that
“articulating the merits of a non-linear approach to change management is compatible with the
continuous improvement and distributed leadership perspectives” (p. 134). Building on the new
800 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

ontology of continuous change, Kondakci et al. (2016) argued that both distributed leadership and
continuous change go beyond traditional frameworks in their respective domains. As indicated
above, continuous change attributes merit to the informal side of organizing practice. A similar
emphasis is evident in different arguments about distributed leadership. Moreover, continuous
change attributes the role of leading change to ordinary organizational members, while distributed
leadership invites ordinary members to undertake leadership roles. Spillane and Zuberi (2009)
argue about the attributes of ordinary members’ leadership roles. Parallel to the socially con-
structed nature of continuous change, Gronn (2002) argued that leadership is a collective property
of the organization, and each individual member has the potential of contributing to leadership
processes in the organization. Although the perspective over formal distribution is more dominant
(e.g., Gronn, 2002; Harris et al., 2007; Spillane, 2006), there are arguments opening space for
spontaneous collaboration and intuitive working relationships, which indicate unstructured distri-
bution patterns and recognizing distribution to nonformal positions as well.
As to the second task in continuous change leadership—identifying the leadership practices
supporting continuous change—again there are limited arguments. Kim et al. (2011) argued that
leaders need to ensure the quality of the employment relationship. Given the properties of continuous
change, control over one’s own work practices, empowerment, and social interaction seems to be key
variables contributing to the quality of employment relationships. Kondakci et al. (2016) extended
the discussion on the role of leadership in constructing and maintaining a culture of continuous
change. Part of enhancing the quality of employment relationships is ensuring that trust, facilitating
knowledge sharing, and giving organizational members power over their practice contribute to
creating a culture of continuous change in organizations (Kondakci et al., 2016).
Lawrence (2015) reported that leadership has the role of articulating a clear message to external
stakeholders to create a necessary dialogue of change. Through communication, leaders pioneer
collective meaning making for change. In that sense, leaders need to understand others’ perspec-
tives. This is essential for creating a temporal and physical space for organizational members to
engage in change and undertake their role in change in their own way. Håkonsson et al. (2012)
argued leaders need to devote from the traditional perception of change over their role and function
in the organizations so that they can facilitate continuous change in organizations. According to the
authors, leaders face two fundamental tasks in ensuring continuous change. One is ensuring the
structural elements that are necessary to achieve and sustain change and the other is identifying
the processes involved in building and destroying inertia. According to Håkonsson et al. (2012),
leaders should not see themselves as initiators of change intervention, but they should be creators
of the structures leading to continuous change in the organizations. The authors recommended that
leaders should invest in continuous, rather than episodic, change and should emphasize continuous,
sustainable change for better performance. As a result, leadership practices toward thinking of
Beycioglu and Kondakci 801

change efforts are essential qualities of leadership contributing to organizational performance.

Incremental leadership moves supporting higher levels of adaptation over time, accompanied by
learning and coaching initiatives that can help sustain change in organizations. Finally, Hargreaves
et al. (2014) argued that leaders’ job is “not to be smarter than teachers at their jobs, but to get them
to collaborate more effectively and capitalize on their skills collectively” (p. 30). Although they
did not do an analysis of continuous change, we believe these statements perfectly illustrate one of
the leadership practices facilitating continuous change culture.
If the core arguments of continuous change are clear, then it should be clear that the intervention
theory of continuous change is largely related to creating a culture facilitating this type of change
rather than approaching the organization and individuals with a predesigned plan to deal with change.
A vital issue to consider for realizing continuous change is creating a culture and context that enables
key process factors, such as participation, communication, and coordination. These process factors
are essential because each component in continuous change interacts with other components. Culti-
vating informed stakeholders is essential for the success of change. Naturally, creating such a culture
is only possible in collaboration with organizational members and leadership.

Conclusion
This review seeks to undertake two missions. The first is to document the state of organizational
change debates. The second is to pioneer alternative way of thinking about change in organiza-
tions, including schools. We believe the first mission has commonly been undertaken by many
scholars. Nevertheless, the educational change field needs to embrace the mission boldly and
consider alternative ways of thinking about change in educational context.
Despite the fact that organizational change has been one of the most commonly investigated
topics in the organization and educational science fields, conceptualizing and practicing change in
organizations is still controversial because most organizational change initiatives fail, and each
failure brings financial and psychological cost to the organization. It is difficult to claim that
change scholars and practitioners possess the sure solution to this high failure rate. The discussion
on the continuous change perspective suggests one key insight, that is, the current planned change
perspective is not enough to respond to the change needs of organizations in today’s highly volatile
environment. Considering change as a break from normal functioning of the organization is a key
issue in the current change practices (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). This approach requires a total
alteration of our understanding of change and organizations. Conceptualizing change as a matter
of normal times, attributing the role of change agency to ordinary organizational members, and
opening up possibilities for bottom-up interventions in organizational practices provide remedies
not only for dealing with the pathologies related to change implementations but also for ensuring
continuous development of work categories, routines, and practices. Continuous change alters the
802 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

compartmentalized and discontinuous understanding of planned change in which change era and
normal era in organizations are separate. Fullan (2016) indicated lack of holistic perspective of
change practice. Continuous change eliminates this shortcoming of planned change by creating a
bottom-up mechanism available for every organizational member to change their work categories
without a top-down imperative to do so.
This understanding of change provides a clear insight on the relationships between planned
change and continuous change. Continuous change does not nullify the formal side of the orga-
nization; as a result, the planned change approach. However, like any other organizational prac-
tices, success of formally defined, planned, or constructed practices largely depends on
recognizing and managing the informal side as well. Continuous change operates not only in
planned change practices but also in other daily organizational practices. As a result, bottom-
up, small-scale, and ongoing iterations fill in the gaps in formally defined, planned, and con-
structed practices, including planned change interventions.
Continuous change requires a culture inhabiting this type of change practice in educational orga-
nizations. Although continuous change is in its infancy, the conceptual and empirical work on the
concept suggest several practices for realizing continuous change in organizations. These studies
suggest that process and content variables such as trust, social interaction, networking, communica-
tion, and knowledge sharing directly contribute continuous change behavior on the part of the teachers
(Kondakci et al., 2016, 2019). Empirical support indicates that these processes and context variables
play a critical role in creating an organizational climate conducive for continuous change because these
variables provide knowledge that is essential for ongoing experimentation of organizational members
on organizational categories including routines as well as change plans. Secondly, the change agency
needs to be altered from an elite, top-level group into attributing the role of change agency to every
organizational member (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Continuous change approach emancipates change as
a concept and practice from a narrow understanding and locate in a more general perspective regarding
management practices in organizations. As a result, change agency is not an elite group designing and
imposing change plans, rather change agency is a typical implementer of work categories. Finally,
distributing leadership practice across the organization is needed to capture small-scale changes and
making these changes as part of the formal practice in schools.
The insights proposed by continuous change need, first, to be located in a theoretical
framework and, second, to be tested further as factors leading to continuous change. In that
sense, the process philosophy and applicability of key concepts serving continuous change
such as improvisation, sensemaking, learning, translation (Weick & Quinn, 1999), and self-
organizing (Kondakci et al., 2016) need more theoretical elaboration. More importantly,
empirical investigations are also needed to test core premises of continuous change on the
scale, pace, and origin of change.
Beycioglu and Kondakci 803

*Editors’ Note
ECNU Review of Education Editorial Office hereby extends our deep condolences and profound appreciation
for Professor Kadir Beycioglu, who passed away in August 2021. Hopefully this article will contribute to his
legacy. Please contact Professor Yasar Kondakci, the second author, for any issues concerning this article.
Professor Kondakci’s contact information is as follows: Department of Educational Administration and
Planning, Middle East Technical University, Dumlupinar Blv. No 1, 06800 Cankaya, Ankara, Turkey.
Email: kyasar@[Link]

Contributorship
This study is a conceptual work, and the two authors undertook equal roles in building the idea and structuring
the article. Nevertheless, the two authors undertook the responsibility of reviewing the literature and writing
up different parts of the paper. Kadir Beycioglu wrote and finalized the “Introduction,” “Change in schools,”
and “Debates on organizational change in schools” parts, while Yasar Kondakci wrote and finalized the
“Abstract,” “Interpretation of organizational change: Meanings and perspectives,” and “A new perspective”
sections. The “Conclusion” part is the joint work of the two authors.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD
Kadir Beycioglu [Link]

References
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: A model for successful
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234–262.
Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the
1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change.
Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. (1999). Paradigms in organizational change: Change agent
and change target perspectives. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 631–658). Marcel Dekker.
Aslan, M., Beycioglu, K., & Konan, N. (2008). Principals’ openness to change in Malatya, Turkey. Interna-
tional Journal of Leadership in Learning, 12(8), 1–13.
Barnes, C. A., Camburn, E., Sanders, B. R., & Sebastian, J. (2010). Developing instructional leaders: Using
mixed methods to explore the black box of planned change in principals’ professional practice.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 241–279.
804 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

Barnett, W. P., & Carroll, G. R. (1995). Modelling internal organizational change. Annual Review of
Sociology. 21, 217–236.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Resolving the tension between theories E and O of change. In M. Beer & N.
Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 1–35). Harvard Business School Press.
Berkovich, I. (2017). Educational reform hyperwaves: Reconceptualizing cuban’s theories of change. Journal
of Educational Change, 18(4), 413–438.
Beycioglu, K., & Aslan, M. (2010). Change and innovation as main dynamics in school development:
Administrators and teachers’ roles. YYU Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 7, 153–173.
Beycioglu, K., & Kondakci, Y. (2014). Principal leadership and organizational change in schools: A cross-
cultural perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(3). [Link]
JOCM-06-2014-0111
Boujos, K. K. (2017). Perspectives of organizational change initiatives and culture in a university’s depart-
ment [Doctoral dissertation]. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 4947. [Link]
4947/
Brännmark, M., & Benn, S. (2012). A proposed model for evaluating the sustainability of continuous change
programs. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 231–245.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified
view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Burke, W. W. (2017). Organizational change: Theory and practice. Sage.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B. (2012). Understanding the emergent approach to change. In D. M. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassards
(Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 113–145). Routledge.
Castelijns, J., Vermeulen, M., & Kools, Q. (2013). Collective learning in primary schools and teacher
education institutes. Journal of Educational Change, 14(3), 373–402.
Cheng, Y. C., & Walker, A. (2008). When reform hits reality: The bottleneck effect in Hong Kong primary
schools. School Leadership and Management, 28(5), 505–521.
Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. (2004). Change management: Time for change! European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 217–239.
Collins, D. (1998). Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. Taylor and Francis.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (1999). Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A
threewave study of total quality management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 439–456.
Dahl, M. S. (2011). Organizational change and employee stress. Management Science, 57(2), 240–256.
Dawson, P. (2003). Understanding organizational change: The contemporary experience of people at work. Sage.
Demers, C. (2007). Organizational change theories. A synthesis. Sage.
Dimmock, C. (1996). Dilemmas for school leaders and administrators in restructuring. In K. A. Leithwood, J.
Chapman, P. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership
and administration (pp. 135–170). Kluwer Academics.
Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6),
611–629.
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility
and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.
Beycioglu and Kondakci 805

Fink, D. (2003). The law of unintended consequences: The “real” cost of top-down reform. Journal of
Educational Change, 4, 105–128.
Flores, L. G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., & Thomas, C. H. (2012). Organizational learning: Subprocess identifica-
tion, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. Journal of Management, 38(2),
640–667.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–570.
Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement: The implementation perspective and beyond. Open Uni-
versity Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces. The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. Routledge Falmer.
Fullan, M. (2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational
Change, 17(4), 539–544.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory to link professional learning
to organizational support. American Journal of Education, 114, 541–581.
Garvin, D. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization at work. Harvard Business
School Press.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international hand-
book of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653–696). Kluwer.
Håkonsson, D. D., Klass, P., & Carroll, T. N. (2012). The structural properties of sustainable, continuous
change: Achieving reliability through flexibility. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2),
179–205.
Hallinger, P. (2004). Meeting the challenges of cultural leadership: The changing role of principals in Thai-
land. Discourse, 25, 61–73.
Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of
Educational Change, 3, 189–214.
Hargreaves, A. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and
implications for leadership. School Leadership and Management, 24, 287–309.
Hargreaves, A., Boyle, A., & Harris, A. (2014). Uplifting leadership: How organizations, teams, and com-
munities rise performance. Jossey Bass.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (2005). Introduction. In D. Hopkins (Ed.), The
practice and theory of school improvement: International handbook of educational change (pp. vii–x).
Springer.
Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., & Hopkins, D. (2010). Second international handbook of edu-
cational change. Springer.
Harris, A. (2006). Leading change in schools in difficulty. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 9–18.
Harris, A. (2011). System improvement through collective capacity building. Journal of Educational Admin-
istration, 49(6), 624–636.
Harris, A., Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., & Hopkins, D. (2007). Distributed leadership and organiza-
tional change. Journal of Educational Change, 8, 337–347.
806 ECNU Review of Education 4(4)

Hatum, A., Pettigrew, A., & Michelini, J. (2010). Building organizational capabilities to adapt under turmoil.
Journal of Change Management, 10(3), 257–274.
Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (2007). Toward a comprehensive definition of
readiness for change: A review of research and instrumentation. Research in Organizational Change and
Development, 16, 289–336.
Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. C. (2001). Designing better schools: The meaning and measure of enabling
school structures. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 296–321.
Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change
Management, 11(4), 451–464.
Jansson, N. (2013). Organizational change as a practice: A critical analysis. Journal Organizational Change
Management, 26 (6), 1003–1019.
Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century: Recent
research and conceptualization. Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education:
Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435–460.
Kim, T. G., Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. (2011). Change-supportive employee behavior: Antecedents and the
moderating role of time. Journal of Management, 37(6), 1664–1693.
Kondakci, Y., Zayim, M., Beycioglu, K., Sincar, M, & Ugurlu, C. T. (2016). The mediating roles of internal
context variables in the relationship between distributed leadership perceptions and continuous change
behaviours of public school teachers. Educational Studies, 42(4), 410–426.
Kondakci, Y., Zayim-Kurtay, M., & Caliskan, O. (2019). Antecedents of continuous change in educational
organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(6), 1366–1380.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2),
59–67.
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Van de Ven, A. (2013). Process studies of change in organization
and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1),
1–13.
Lawler, E. E. III, & Worley, C. G. (2006). Built to change: How to achieve sustained organizational
effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Lawrence, P. (2015). Leading change—insights into how leaders actually approach the challenge of
complexity. Journal of Change Management, 15(3), 231–252.
Louis, K. S., Toole, J., & Hargreaves, A. (1999). Rethinking school improvement. In J. Murphy & S. K. Louis
(Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 251–257). Jossey-Bass.
Mento, A. J., Jones, R. M., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory
and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45–59.
Michel, A. (2014). The mutual constitution of persons and organizations: An ontological perspective on
organizational change. Organization Science, 25 (4), 1082–1110.
Nir, A., Kondakci, Y., & Emil, S. (2017). Travelling policies and contextual considerations: On threshold
criteria. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(1), 21–38.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspec-
tive. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 63–92.
Beycioglu and Kondakci 807

Palumbo, R., & Manna, R. (2019). Making educational organizations able to change: A literature review.
International Journal of Educational Management, 33(4), 734–752.
Poole, M. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2004). Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford
University Press.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development: Theory, practice, and research. In M. D.
Dunnette & L. M. Hough, (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 719–822).
Consulting Psychologist Press.
Rosenblatt, Z. (2004). Skill flexibility and social change. A multi-national study. Journal of Educational
Change, 5(1), 1–30.
Seashore, K. R. (2009). Leadership and change in schools: Personal reflections over the last 30 years. Journal
of Educational Change, 10, 129–140.
Specht, J., Kuonath, A., Pachler, D., Weisweiler, S., & Frey, D. (2018). How change agents’ motivation
facilitates organizational change: Pathways through meaning and organizational identification. Journal of
Change Management, 18(3), 198–217.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study
the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(3), 375–423.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organiza-
tion Science, 13(5), 567–582.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative approaches for studying organizational change.
Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377–1404.
Waite, D. (2002). Big change question: Is the role of the principal in creating school improvement over-rated?
Journal of Educational Change, 3, 161–165.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations. Sage.
Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In B. Nohria & N. Nohria (Eds.),
Breaking the code of change (pp. 223–241). Harvard Business School Press.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology,
50, 361–386.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (Bob). (2003). Strengthening organizational change
processes: Recommendations and implications from a multilevel analysis. The Journal of Applied Beha-
vioral Science, 39(2), 186–207.
Wolf, J. A. (2011). Constructing rapid transformation: Sustaining high performance and a new view of
organizational change. International Journal of Training and Development, 15(1), 20–38.
Zayim Kurtay, M., & Kondakci, Y. (2020). Modeling change implementation behaviors: Teachers’ affective
and attitudinal reactions to change in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory
and Practice. [Link]
Zayim, M., & Kondakci, Y. (2015). An exploration of the relationship between readiness for change and
organizational trust in Turkish public schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
43(4), 610–625.