Inclusive practices within cultures of educational organizations; the implications of implementing inclusive policies on educational organizations

Inclusive practices within cultures of educational organizations; the implications of implementing inclusive policies on educational organizations.

 By

Partson Musosa Phiri

Introduction

There appears to be a growing body of knowledge suggesting the significance of organizational culture in reform efforts created by the growing level of globalization, marketization, heightened volatility, hyper-competition, demographic changes and the explosion of knowledge (Evans and Lunt, 2002; Leisen, et.al., 2002; Prange, 1999; Sheffield, 2007; Tierney, 1988). The significance is further highlighted by the need by organizations to remain viable in a climate that is characterized by change and uncertainty (Prange, 1999). Recently, ideas such as ‘inclusion’ seem to have made meaningful contributions to organizational reform efforts. Reforms towards inclusivity can be viewed as effective means by which organizations such as colleges, or universities, can achieve positive learning cultures because inclusion can a better model for educating a wide array of learners whose differences can be a resource for social and economic development. Reform can entail that, schools, colleges and universities, as organizations, intent on creating inclusive and diverse learning cultures must be able to transform by making self scrutiny (Edmondson and Moingeon, 1999), of all their policies, procedures and practices to ascertain that not only are they not discriminatory, but also that the structures, systems, employee beliefs and values do not inadvertently contribute to the creation and cementing of exclusionary practices. In effectuating reform, it can be insufficient to merely implement incremental changes to existing policies and procedures, if the undergirding old systemic and cultural factors that reinforce and propagate exclusionary practices and values are not identified, addressed and eradicated. This paper therefore, identifies some of the cultural factors necessary to transform an organization towards inclusivity. It also suggests a reform strategy that schools, colleges and universities can adopt in developing a conceptual framework for policies and practices that promote and support inclusive cultural values.  To facilitate an understanding of the issues presented in this paper, the terms ‘inclusion/inclusivity’ and ‘culture’ will be defined and how they relate to education 

What is Inclusion/Inclusivity?

To understand the terms ‘inclusion’ or ‘inclusivity’ one needs to scrutinize the etiology of the term and other suggested definitions in the context of current and previous research studies. Inclusion viewed as a philosophy, tends to contrast with the earlier traditional educational practice of ‘mainstreaming’ (Livingston, Reed and Good, 2001). The term came to the forefront of educational dialogue during the 1980s but during the last decade, inclusion was elevated to be a crucial educational policy issue (Frederickson et al. 2004). The Salamanca Statement, with over ninety governments as signatories to it, calls on all to embrace the principle of inclusive education by enrolling all individuals in the regular schools unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise (UNESCO, 1994; 44). Regardless of that however, its meaning was not very well defined and appeared to be vague. A precise definition of the term ‘inclusion’ is therefore, important because disagreement among scholars and practitioners over the characteristics of an inclusive educational model has tended to complicate its meaning and the definition is yet not fully understood and continues to be divisive. In practice, some construe ‘inclusion’ to be synonymous to ‘mainstreaming’ (Barth, 1996). However, ‘mainstreaming’ tends to segregate and place disabled students into special education settings; whereas, ‘inclusion’ describes the placement of disabled students in regular classes for all or nearly all of the school day. The term tends to imply an educational model where diverse and disabled students coexist alongside their age-appropriate peers in general education classrooms with the provision of appropriate aids and services (Gilhool, 1989). But Potts, et.al. (1995), view the term ‘inclusion’ in a political sense; as rhetoric used by politicians driven by a desire for political correctness. Stout (2001) views inclusion, as a term which emphasizes commitment to educate each learner to the optimal extent appropriate, in the least restrictive school and classroom setting, one would otherwise attend, if one was not disabled.

Mittler (2000; 10), frames inclusion as implying “a radical change of the school in terms of curriculum, assessment, pedagogy (and andragogy) and grouping of pupils.”  Cited in Mittler (2000; 11), Booth (1999) further argues that inclusion cannot be considered in isolation from exclusion. He considers inclusion as, “…the process of increasing participation of learners in and reducing their exclusion from the curricula, cultures, and communities of neighbouring mainstream centres of learning.” Ainscow (1999; 218), concurs with Booth (1999) and says inclusion has to do with overcoming limitations to participation that may be encountered by students’ bid to learn. To Booth et.al., (2000; 12), inclusion is a set of never ending processes involving the specification of the direction of change and is relevant to any institution regardless of how inclusive or exclusive its current cultures, policies and practices may be.

However, it appears the notion of inclusion provokes a range of assumptions. Some of which underpin the construction of the concept ‘inclusivity’ and the direction an institution might follow to achieve a particular type of inclusivity (Nunan, et.al. 2000). According to Wyatt-Smith and Dooley (1997) two views about inclusivity illustrate this range of assumptions in education. On the one hand, one view can be associated with liberal ideals; while on the other, another view derives from critical approaches.

Booth et.al. (2000), in the Index for Inclusion appear to subscribe to the liberal view and describe inclusion in education as enabling all individuals to participate fully in the life and work of ordinary school settings, whatever their needs. Booth et.al, (2000) view inclusion as a just and ethical approach to education and society; an attempt to put values into action with equity, participation, respect for diversity, community, rights, compassion, and sustainability. This principle entails the disestablishment and gradual closure of separate special schools. By implication, inclusion connotes a re-engineering of ordinary schooling and tends to mean a transfer of resources to the ordinary school so that every school, college or university can accommodate every individual irrespective of race, gender socio-economic status, ethnicity, age and disability’ (Nunan, et.al. 2000).or learning difficulty and where disadvantages are not reproduced. Inclusion ensures that all learners belong to a community. Thomas and Loxley (2001), concur and observe that in a broader sense, inclusion entails transferring the support services to the learner (rather than taking the learner to the support services) and ensuring that only the learner gains as a student in the class (rather than competing with his or her peers). It is a situation where the school community adapts to the needs of its students and staff. Within the liberal view, activities can involve widening the base for ‘recruitment and selection, affirmative action, with respect to particular target groups and provision of support in various forms to enable success’, (Nunan, et.al. 2000: 65). Inclusivity is construed as widening access to opportunities for the reproduction of specific professional knowledge and practices. However, Marginson (1997) challenges this and argues that widening access to opportunities might not make sharing of resources equitable in any way because those positioned to take up the enhanced opportunities are those already advantaged. However, in my view, Marginson’s argument depends much on the leverage the advantaged may have; with the right policy framework, this may not be allowed to happen.

Another critical approach views inclusivity in the educational sense ‘as concerned with the successful participation which guaranteed greater options for those in education and beyond’ (Nunan et al. 2000). Accordingly, the construction of inclusivity within this critical approach tends to focus on factors that directly affect participation, access and success as well as the criteria for assessment of that success. The approach tends to represent an entire array of options as well as affirming the decisions that guarantee basic human values of democracy, participation, emancipation and equality (Inglehart and Welzel, 2005). While this approach to inclusivity is about achieving equitable learner outcomes, it also is integral to the overall professional outcome.

Wyatt-Smith and Dooley (1997) describe the other view of inclusion as traditional and as premised on the development of tolerance, sensitivity and empathy within the broader community. Inclusion framed in this way, is mainly to do with the manipulation of resources and processes and has little to do with the challenging outcomes that bring about social and economic inequities. Invariably, this may not be a model of inclusion dynamic and modern organizations may wish to pursue, because it seems to align itself to the medical model of disability. The medical model assumes that a disabled individual has an ailment hence needs a medical diagnosis. Disabled people are perceived as passive recipients of services, and the impairment is perceived to be the problem. The impairment is the focus of attention. This results in a society that discriminates and practices exclusion through the creation of “special” facilities away from community life; hence, disabled individuals become limited in their participation in social and economic activities (Watermeyer, et.al. 2006).   

However, Nunan, et.al, (2000) took up the inclusivity reform agenda and argue that the problem is not so much in the limitations in participation or the manipulation and inequitable distribution of resources in educational services and provision to the disadvantaged, but is in pursuit of curricular justice. This assertion appears to auger well with Booth’s (2000) argument presented above.

To me, these views reflect some of the controversies and arguments surrounding the issue of inclusion or inclusivity in education. This paper, therefore, explores the applicability of the philosophy of inclusion and how inclusivity can impact on the culture of colleges or universities, if implemented to the letter and spirit. But first, a precise understanding of the concept and definition of ‘culture’ needs to be arrived at.   

The concept and definition of organizational culture

The concept of culture in general, appears to be broad and this paper will only discuss a few specific aspects that this concept seems to entail. According to Brown (1998), the intellectual origins of the term are embedded in anthropology and sociological studies. As a concept, the term culture appears to have created debate over many years. For instance, from as far back as 1871, Tylor defined culture as ‘that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’ (Tylor, 1924;1).  Later, other early definitions of culture tended to focus on differentiating levels of culture by comparing strong from weak cultures (Brown, 1998).  By the 1950s, Brown (1998) observes, that the term ‘culture’ had been defined in more that a dozen ways. In fact, Brown (1998) asserts that anthropologists Knober and Kluckhohn had in 1952 isolated more than one hundred and sixty four definitions of culture and that was even before the terms ‘culture’ and ‘organization’ were used as a compound term.

The latter coined concept of organizational culture specifically seemed to appeal to organizational practitioners as a result of the growing disillusionment with the products of the quantitative enquiry (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Riley, 1983). Riley (1983), explains this disillusionment as grounded in at least two major research traditions in the study of organizational culture; namely a functionlist approach and. an interpretive approach. Riley (1983) postulates that,  

..the functionalist research tradition considers culture to be an organizational variable, something the organization has; while the interpretive tradition studies culture as a pattern of symbolic discourse, something the organization is.(1983; 414).

Subsequently, the significance placed on organizational culture then shifted attention away from the practical and technical aspects of management that could be readily quantified and empirically analyzed, to the interpersonal, symbolic and interpretive aspects of management that demanded deeper qualitative analysis of organizational life (Riley, 1983). The shift towards qualitative, symbolic aspects of organizations and management stimulated a large literature on culture (Baker, 2002). Authors such as Kilmann, Saxton and Serpa (1985), and Schein (1985) explain that the emergence of the topic of organizational culture has resulted in myriad meanings of culture. Additionally, contenders Baker, (2002) and Chanchani and Theivanathampillai (2002), note that literatures around other particular variants of culture such as change culture, learning culture, innovating culture, team culture and project-oriented cultures also emerged with enormous recognition and became increasingly important for success in the modern market driven industry and have been central to subsequent work on organizational effectiveness.  

As a concept, organizational culture became a business phenomenon in the early 1980s; just about the same time the concept of inclusion was becoming a catch phrase in educational circles (Baker, 2002). Writers Kilmann, Saxton, and Serpa (1985) define organizational culture as ‘the rules of the game’-the interrelated psychological qualities that knit an organization together. Other definitions appear to broaden the concept to include behaviours and artifacts, (Schein, 1985; Nunan et al. (2000); thus, leading to a common distinction between observable and unseen aspects of organizational culture. Deal and Kennedy (1982) define organizational culture as synonymous to a system of shared values and beliefs that interact with an organization’s people, structures, and control systems to produce behavioral norms and values.

The concept of organizational culture seemed to appeal to educational researchers and practitioners who then seemed to increasingly take up the topic in the context of schools (Harris, 1992; Jones, 1996). Knowledge and understanding of culture gathered from the business studies appeared to be increasingly used and applied successfully to educational settings. Thus, a plethora of ideas on organizational culture became as relevant to schools as they were to private sector business organizations.

As such, in this rapidly evolving global environment where schools, colleges and universities are getting more and more competitive and inclusive, they need to critically rethink, what they choose to do and ho  w they can most appropriately define their cultures in order to achieve the right competitive and inclusive organizational climate. Their aims and objectives need to be clearly identified before they concentrate on the type of culture needed for successful inclusive programmes.

Of late, literature on organizational culture appears to have been placing a lot of emphasis on the significance of inclusion as a factor in motivating and maximizing the value of human capital capacity building in organizational development (Baker, 2002; Nunan et. al. 2000). According to Baker (2002) it appears  apparent that inclusivity is vital for both successful organizational reform and for maximizing the outcome However, an important challenge for educational leaders is to determine what the most effective culture is, and how to reform existing cultures to obtain effective inclusive cultures for their institutions; especially in the light of the current context of organizational studies, where various definitions of culture tend to give primacy to cognitive components, such as assumptions, beliefs, and values (Baker, 2002).

Evidently, a plethora of other definitions of culture have been provided in the literature. But to me, this constellation of definitions seems to indicate the imprecision in understanding the concept of culture. One would view culture, as Schein (2004) notes, as the differences between the observable and unseen aspects of an organization. These aspects can also be seen as conflicting multiple sub-cultures interacting with each other within the same organization. The interaction of the conflicting aspects of the organization’s sub-culture would also be viewed as the basis for common understanding underpinned by assertions (own view). To me, these assertions can connote assumptions that are constitutive of the core and most significant aspect of organizational culture. Schein (2004) construes these assertions in organizational culture as;

A pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (2002;12).

A pattern of shared basic assumptions connotes a theoretical basis upon which the experiences of working life are organized (Brown, 1998); because assumptions tend to guide the understanding why individuals and groups behave the way they do (Schwartz, 1990s). Shared basic assumptions also seem to indicate that individuals within the same organization will often possess similar views (Schein, 2004; 5), such as how to meet and achieve organizational goals as set out in a charter or mission statement, regardless of the that they may also belong to different subcultures. Organizations such as educational institutions tend to consist of subgroups that have specific traits and some classification. Within the same organization, people can simply classify themselves and others into various socio-dynamic groups based on their identification with their primary work; such as occupational or professional skills, membership to associations or unions and, or age cohort. (Ouchi, 1980). Subgroups in organizations can create subcultures that manifest specific dynamics of meaning; yet, at the same time, remain associated with the ideologies and values of the organization’s vision. To me, organizational culture appears to be a product of the sum interaction of these subcultures; rather than a single overarching culture. This aspect, to me, is what leads to the creation of the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the culture forms of every organization.

Culture forms and their aspects

Literature is replete with cultural typologies drawn from theory and business techniques (Chanchani and Theivanathampillai, 2002; Schwartz, 1990). Additionally, Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) and Brown (1998)   offer classification of cultures on five value orientations. They cite more recent typologies of culture which include those of Hamilton, Whitley, Harrison, Deal and Kennedy, and Quinn and McGrath and Hardy and Dore (1974). 

Handy (2000), famous for his portrayal of four primary types of leaders as analogous to the Greek gods of mythology, makes a distinction of the key forms of organizational culture which he corresponds to Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and Dionysus (club, role, task existential cultures respectively). Hardy (2000) asserts that these gods point to the different organizational forms that characterize the different organizational cultures. These distinct cultures seemingly, are associated with organizations that have similar characteristics across numerous other organizational dimensions (Brown, 1998). And these have been called by different names, as evidenced by the typologies suggesting an attempt to understand organizational cultures over time. The typologies appear valuable, however, because they seem to provide broad overviews of the variations that exist between organizational cultures. For example, Cameron and Quinn (1999) insinuate an understanding of Hardy’s gods of management and equate them to the clan culture, hierarchy culture, market culture and adhocracy culture.    

However, regardless of the type of culture form an organization may take, it appears there are common values and beliefs that are unique to any one organization; and these may be positive or negative aspects of the culture. Some cultures may be strong and others weak. But generally, in any one organization, there are hidden issues of the culture such as the socio-dynamics and values. The positive aspects of an organizational culture can help guide decision making, provide for professional identity to the members in the organization, guide employee behaviour and provide justification of member actions. Strong cultures can help the organization adapt to the rigours of the environment. Strong organizational cultures can be evidenced by historical narratives people tell about the organization. In organizations with strong cultures, heroes associated with the organization are seen to be revered and venerated. The strong culture is also evidenced by the way ceremonies and rituals are conducted. For instance, do these bring a sense of belonging and nostalgia to the members? The existence of symbols, signs and regalia and organizational charter and mission statements are also ways a strong organizational culture can manifest itself. One other element a strong culture must manifest itself in it its ability to be inclusive. It however, appears this aspect is a challenge modern organizations seem to lack.

 Drawing from personal experience, as an educational policy maker and planner in a developing country, it appears too, that many schools, colleges and universities in Zimbabwe lack an element of inclusion in their culture. Yet, a desirable inclusive organizational culture can be nurtured by an intelligent leader by diplomatically utilizing elements from existing subcultures. To me, organizational culture can therefore, be thought of as that which makes one school uniquely different from the next regardless of their proximity and also takes cognizance of what occurs among the subcultures and classes within it. The successful reform to policy and practice and subsequent evolution of an inclusive culture within an organization can depend much on the underlying assumptions subcultures operating within it hold and impact on the general organization’s daily operations. Ideally, the evolution of an inclusive organizational culture should be effectuated with the support and commitment of a diverse group (Schein, 2004); although of course, it may not always be possible for all organizations to guarantee that such diversity takes place.

Diversity connotes an understanding and recognition of each individual in an organization as uniquely different (Cox and Cox, 2001; Schein, 2004). The differences can be along race, ethnicity, socio-status, gender, age, disability, religious beliefs, political beliefs, sexual orientation or other ideology (Cox and Cox, 2001). Diversity can therefore, be viewed as an embracement and celebration of differences inherent in people coexisting in proactive, positive, nurturing and learning environments (Cox and Cox, 2001). It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing the rich dimensions of idiosyncrasies among people in an organization (Schein, 2004). However, systems, structures, practices and espoused beliefs and norms in an organization sometimes tend to reflect the values and life situations of the organization creators. But Schein (2004) notes that nevertheless, leaders in an organization should stimulate diversity and promulgate the assumption that diversity is desirable at the individual and subgroup levels. However, individual idiosyncrasies can be impediments to the successful implementation of an inclusive and diverse culture. Therefore, an audit of all cultural aspects in the whole organization needs to be done if the implementation of enabling inclusive policies is to be effected. 

The following section will therefore, deal with aspects that an organization can audit in order to ensure that a culture of diversity and inclusion is evident. Aspects of diversity and inclusion that can impact on organizational culture embrace what Schein (2004) terms visible and invisible artifacts. Visible artifacts comprise, for instance, an organization’s mission statement, recruitment and selection procedures, the organizational structure, policies and practices and information and communication protocols or curriculum (in the case of education). These artifacts will be discussed in the ensuing sections and in the process examine the implication of the artifacts in the development of an inclusive organizational culture.

 Inclusive policy and the organization’s mission statement

Developing an organizational mission statement can demand commitment and hard work, let alone, a mission statement that needs to reflect an inclusive culture. Even though the conceptualization, writing, and or revision of the mission statement can be arduous, the statement will nevertheless, be one of the most essential documents in the organization. A critical initial step in the process is the construction of a solid and shared sense of purpose, mission, or vision. The importance of having a shared vision is in constructing a successful mission statement in an organization, such as a school, is a clear sense of purpose shared by parents, students, staff, auxiliary staff and the school committee. For instance, a common vision of what it means to be an inclusive school and how schools become inclusive can form the basis of an articulate curriculum design. An inclusively phrased mission statement can also guide the school’s decision-makers in every aspect of research, planning and development. It can therefore, not be over-emphasized how paramount an inclusive policy should be in ensuring a mission statement that is focused.    

Recruitment and Selection procedures

Developing inclusive recruitment and selection procedures can entail sending jobadvertisement notices to a wide variety of contacts through different media to capture diverse audiences. For instance, an organization could send advertisements both electronic as well as paper through network contacts such as minority-led and community newspapers or magazines whose primary readers are from the target group. Person specifications and application forms should be specific on requirements. Applications that ask for irrelevant skills and experience may turn away potentially qualified applicants. Language and vocabulary used on advertisements that demand applicants “must have ‘excellent’ English” may scare people whose second language is English language but whose skills and competencies are adequate. Therefore, instead of asking for language skills, advertisements can ask if one understands, reads, writes or speaks languages required for the job (Buchanan, 2001).

Recruitment by canvassing will most likely limit access only to people from similar political, social, economic and cultural categories. An established broad-search procedure will widen this access. Targeting diverse media for advertisements may help. Advertisements could ask if the applicant can meet transfer or travel requirements if these are elements of the job instead of asking whether an applicant is single or married. Where the job requires one to work unsociable hours, the applicant could be asked if they would be able to work the required hours and, where applicable, overtime; instead of asking for the number of children or dependants one has. In terms of one’s disability, questions should focus on a person’s strengths and abilities and not ask if one has a disability. For instance, all applicants, regardless of whether or not they have a disability should be asked if any accommodations are needed to participate in an interview. Such a practice can ensure that an organization’s culture remains inclusive. 

Interviewing can be reviewed ensuring sensitivity to cultural and physical diversity. From person experience, in the Western culture, certain body language can have a different meaning to them; for instance eye to eye contact leg positioning, hand positions. Eye to eye contact is considered good practice in the English culture for instance, but this is not always true of other cultures such as the Indians or people from Southern Africa, where eye to eye contact can be construed to mean disrespect. The same cannot be said of African Americans or Chinese. Therefore during interviewing or oral examinations such as the viva voce, body language should not be used as a determinant of one’s personality. 

Self marketing of one’s previous experience and accomplishments may be viewed as egocentrism and may not be desirable. Therefore during interviewing, questions such as ‘Tell us about your strengths’ might be difficult for some cultures to answer. But asking a question such as ‘Tell us what your family would be proud of you for?’- could help elicit the required information. Previous employment and experiences can be considered and valued. Merely asking for references from local sources, for instance British sources negates and undervalues the experiences someone may have acquired abroad, making it hard for applicants to provide their best references.The diversity of the interviewing panel should show interviewees that inclusion and diversity is respected in the organization; an aspect that should provide comfort levels for any interview diiscussion. However, working towards a successful inclusive organization should not be the sole responsibility of people from marginalized cultures; everyone working within the organization should be culture and diversity sensitive (Buchanan, 2001).

Impact of inclusion on an organization’s policies and practices.

An organization’s governing board such as the management committee, board of governors or development committee, that has a diverse appearance has the benefit of bringing together a wider range of perspectives from the differing experiences resulting in a greater capacity building for innovation and ability to solve the increasing organizational challenges. An organizations governing body should not be dominated only by a certain culture or sex. Doing so can encourage exclusionary practices. As a policy inclusive and diverse organizations should have a ‘zero’ tolerance for discrimination of whatever nature. Board meetings should be scheduled at times that are convenient to a majority of the members. For instance, having meetings on Saturdays or Sundays may make it difficult for people with child care responsibilities or those from certain religious persuasions, to attend. The approach new board members are recruited, inducted and encouraged to participate, can help ameliorate exclusionary practices and take steps towards being truly inclusive. Induction of new members into the organization should include an explanation of their roles policies and how the tie with the organization’s mission statement. 

Overall, this can help to increase the level of participation. The induction could be used as an opportunity to discuss and agree on possible accommodation needs of all members. Accommodating new members can enhance their ability and willingness to participate on equal terms, fro instance through the use of special needs equipment such as hearing devices, interpretation services, readers and note takers. A policy procedure that opens up members to say their preferred expressions about themselves can contribute to the creation of an inclusive organization.

Implications of inclusion on an organization’s staff complement.

A diverse staff complement appears to bring with it a greater variety of skills and perspectives to an organization. An inclusive and diverse staff complement should be reflected in the location of the different people within the organization. The audit of an organization seeking to be inclusive and diverse in its staff complement can ask questions such as; 

At what levels of the organization are persons located and could there be a pattern? If there is a pattern, is the pattern inclusive or exclusive?  
If there is no diversity, is particular staff marginalized, and what might be the organizational practices that could be leading to such exclusionary staffing?
Could there be evident differences in the manner the organization functions resulting from a diverse staff or is everyone in the organization expected to conform to a norm?
Is it only the staff diversified and not the work?
How do persons in the organization accomplish their tasks?
What helps them succeed?
What steps might be taken to make the organization more inclusive?

A diverse or an all inclusive organization increases people’s opportunity to assert their individuality at work creating environments that can encourage the sharing of new and innovative ideas and that may translate into stability, increased productivity and output. For example, in an inclusive school, the roles of regular class teachers and special needs education coordinators (Senco) are re-drawn and are complementary. While the regular class teacher is principally responsible for providing services for students with disabilities he/she is supported by the special needs education coordinators (Senco) (Walther-Thomas, 1997). The Information and Technology department, for example can work across the whole organization to coordinate the use of computers and other assistive devices. Involving a diverse staff selection which also includes disabled members can greatly enhance the inclusive thrust of the organization. Impact of inclusion on organization’s leadership culture

 According to Harris (1992) every organization has a distinctive cultural climate that is formed partly by leadership decision making and by other actions. It can be argued that a leader is as good as his/her organization and that his/her values can greatly influence an organization’s leadership practices (Begley, 1990). One of these leadership practices is the capability to manage one’s public etiquette (Foley, 1991). The other leadership practice can be the ability to market the positive inclusive image of the organization and to protect the organization from negative environmental influences and also, to provide essential services that counteract factors that place the organization’s inclusive culture at risk (Englert, 1993). In the case of schools, colleges or universities managing instructional diversity can enhance the culture of inclusion. Inclusive leadership practices can create conditions for success and achieving wide bench marks such as improving academic achievement (Purkey, 1970). An inclusive school culture could incorporate a democratic approach, which enhances value-driven leadership so as to provide a model of influence.

 An inclusive leader should value the diversity of people within the organization-disabled or not, and be able to protect their rights within the organization. Inclusive leaders can take a broader view of inclusion that tends to hold that all individuals are potentially excluded (Booth, 1999); and therefore, envision inclusion as a way of thinking about embracing the idiosyncrasies among individuals. Sergiovanni (1994) argues that a successful leader should lead in values and beliefs. Leadership that emphasizes coordinating resources for instance, in teaching, tends to create caring, nurturing inclusive relationships that help to incorporate the talents of all individuals within the organization. Implementing inclusive leadership should ideally create support systems for all in the organization, such as a professional counseling service.  

The implication of inclusive policy on an organization’s physical infrastructure

The inclusive environment should be welcoming to all people doing business in the organization. There should be easy access to all building locations. For example, there should be evidence of hoists on staircases; ramps on door ways; wide door ways for wheelchair access; sonorous warnings on road crossings where there is possibility of moving traffic; culture tailored ablution blocks. Muslims, for instance have a different way of maintaining personal cleanliness after using the rest room. In offices, there should be no images or pictures that are likely to offend other people. Furniture lay out in meeting room, classrooms staff rooms or conferences should such that it promotes a sense of oneness and belonging. Members should be able to sit and talk to one another. Sitting plan should not reinforce power dynamics. Individuals who are unable to sit or long periods should be allowed to stand or move about and refresh themselves. In fact the physical environment should be as user friendly as possible.

The implication of inclusive policy on information and communication

Communication of information and messages of the organization can be used to promote and enhance inclusion rather than encourage exclusion. An inclusive organization considers how information, messages and images might reflect and impact on others. When individuals within the organization see themselves reflected positively, they are more likely to be supportive of the aims and objectives of the organization.

Information about the organization should be readily accessible to as many people as possible. Information should be provided in more than one language to access audiences who speak and read other languages other that one considered to be dominant. The language used in all public notices and advertisements should be inclusive. This can mean the avoidance of inappropriate terms or words that are denigrating. The use of professional language should be encouraged. Promotion of the use of inclusive language, that is non-racist, non-sexist can contribute to feelings of togetherness. Vocabulary such as ‘staffing’ instead of ‘manning’;  head teacher’, instead of ‘headmaster’; ‘African’, instead of ‘coloured’ ‘people with a disability’ instead of ‘handicapped’ are some examples of inclusive language. Jargon and other rubric whose meanings are ambiguous should be avoided. Printed materials should be clear and in font size and sans-serif fonts that allow everyone in the organization to read. Where possible, information should be available in other formats such as Braille, audio tapes and electronic media such as on the organization’s website both on internet and intranet. The use of images such as cartoons, photos, brochures and presentations that show people in respectful, non-stereotyped roles which reflect the full extent to which the organization is inclusive and diverse should be encouraged. Dissemination of information about the organizations should target a wide range of print and electronic media and advertisement links of minority ethnic cultures other that only those of the dominant culture.

Summary

In summary, the implications of an inclusive culture in an organization should be viewed from the perspective that the world, in all aspects, is fast getting globalized and ‘there is little doubt (too) that global forces have an impact on organizations, individuals and values (Bottery, 2000). Organizations the world over cannot afford to ignore the flow of human capita across national and political borders. This human capital can be captured and effectively utilized by any organization to its best advantage because capturing from a global market has the benefit of harnessing the most appropriate person for a position. The philosophy of inclusion and cultural diversity therefore becomes very relevant in the current status quo. Therefore, exclusionary and discriminatory practices do not seem to fit well for forward looking organizations such as colleges or universities; which is why I am about to embark on a case study research on problems and predicaments disabled students at university access services and other provisions that enable effective learning.  

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper examined definitions of the key terms. Dimensions that can impact on the development of an inclusive organizational culture were examined. The identification of the core elements an organizational culture and how inclusive culture can be formed, provides essential insights into what can constitute successful inclusion. In an inclusive organizational culture, individuals are not viewed as strangers that need to be ‘integrated’ into the organization they already belong to. Individuals should be valued. An organization’s culture should be considered and understood in the social context of implementing an inclusive model. Inclusion principles may require an inclusive organizational culture in order to succeed. Organizations that seemingly fail to assume the characteristics of the inclusive culture may not be sustainable in this global village. It may therefore, be folly to overlook the organizational culture of, for instance a school, college or university when implementing a reform as complex as inclusion.

References

Ainscow, M. (1999) Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools, London: Falmer Press.

Baker, K.A. (2002) ‘Organizational Culture’, accessed ONLINE: – http://www.wren-network.net/resources/benchmark/11-OrganizationalCulture.pdf.

Barth, F. (1996) Integration and inclusion: Equal terms? British Columbia Journal of Special Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 36-42.

Begley, P. T. (1990) The influence of values on school administrator practices, Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 3, pp. 337-352.

Booth, T. (1999) “Inclusion and Exclusion Policy in England; who controls the agenda?” In Mittler, P. (2000) Working towards Inclusive Education; Social Contexts,  London: David Fulton Publishers.

Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughan, M. and Shaw, L. (2000) Index for Inclusion; Developing Learning and Participation in Schools, Bristol: Centre for Studies in Inclusive Education.

Bottery, M. (2000) Education, Policy and Ethics, London: Continuum.

Brown (1998) Organizational Culture, Harlow: Perason Education Limited.

Buchanan, A. (2001) ‘Towards an inclusive organizational culture: Applying a ‘diversity lens’, Paper for Canadian Council for International Co-operation Organizational Development Team, April.

Cameron K.S. & Quinn, R. E. (1999) Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, Reading: Addison Wesley.

Cox, T & Cox, T. (Jr.). (2001) Creating the Multicultural Organization; A Strategy for Capturing the Power of Diversity, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chanchani, S. & Theivanathampillai, P. (2002) ‘Typologies of culture’,  University of Otago,  Department of Accountancy and Business Law Working Papers Series, 04: 10/02. Dunedin: University of Otago.

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate cultures, Reading, MS: Jossey-Bass.

Dore, R. (1974). British Factory, Japanese Factory: The Origins of National Diversity in Industrial Relations. London: George Allen and Unwin.

Edmondson, A. & Moingeon, B. (1998) ‘From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization’, Management Learning, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 5-20.

Englert, R. M. (1993) ‘Understanding the urban context and conditions of practice of school administrators’, In P. B. Forsyth & M. Tallerico (Eds.), City schools: Leading the way, Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Evans, J. and Lunt, I. (2002)‘Inclusive education: are there limits?’

European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 1 pp. 1–14.

Foley, D. (1991) Rethinking school ethnographies of colonial settings: A performance perspective of reproduction and resistance. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 35, pp. 532-551.

Frederickson, N., Dunsmuir, S., Lang, J. and Monsen, J. (2004) ‘Mainstream-special school inclusion partnerships: pupil, parent and teacher perspectives,’ International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol.  8, Number 1, pp. 37-57(21)

Gilhool, T. K. (1989) ‘The right to an effective education: From Brown to PL 94-142 and beyond’, In Lipsky, D & Gartner, A. (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all,Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1994) ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, in Handbook of Qualitative Research, Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds), Thousand Oaks: Sage.    

Hardy, C. (2000) Gods of Management: The Changing Face of Organizations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Harris, E. (1992) A principal and the evolution of a school culture: A case study. Planning and Changing, Vol. 1, No. 23, pp. 29-44.

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005) Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy:The Human Sequemce, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .

Jones, R. (1996) ‘The school culture inventory: A tool for identifying values, setting goals and bringing about school improvement’, Education Canada, 6-10.

Kilmann, R. H, Saxton, M. J., & Serpa, R. (1985) Introduction: Five key issues in understanding and changing culture: Gaining control of the corporate culture,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kluckhohn, F.R. & Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Leisen, B., Lilly, B. and Winsor, R.D. (2002) ‘The effects of organizational culture and market orientation on the effectiveness of strategic marketing alliances’, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 201 – 222.

Livingston, M. Reed, T. & Good, J.W. (2001) ‘Attitudes of Rural School Principals toward Inclusive Practices and Placements for Students with Severe Disabilities’ The Journal of Research for Educational Leaders, Vol. 1, No. 1, Fall.

Marginson, S. (1997) Educating Australia, Government, Economy and Citizen since 1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mittler, P. (2000) Working towards inclusive education; Social Contexts,London: David Fulton Publishers.

Nunan, T., George, R. and McCausland, H. (2000) ‘Inclusive education in universities: why it is important and how it might be achieved,’ International Journal of Inclusive education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 63-68.

Ouchi, W. G. (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Potts, P. Armstrong, F. & Masterton, M. (Eds). (1995) Learning, Teaching and Managing in Schools, London: Routledge.

Prange, C. (1999) ‘Organisational Learning-Desperately Seeking Theory’, In Masreby-Smith, M. & Araujo, L., Organizational Learning and the learning organization: developments in theory and practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage.  

Purkey, S. C. & Smith, M. S. (1983) Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, Vol. 83, pp. 427-552.

Riley, P. (1983) ‘A Structurationist Account of Political Culture’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, 414-437.

Schein, E. H. (1985) ‘How culture forms, develops, and changes’, In R. Kilmann, M.Saxton, & R. Serpa (Eds.), Gaining control of the corporate culture,San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schein, E. H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Leadership, (3rd. Ed), San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons.

Schwartz, S.H. (1990) ‘Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 21, pp 139 – 157. 

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994) ‘The roots of school leadership’, Principal, Vol. 74, pp. 6-9.

Sheffield, D. (2007) ‘Leadership Requirements for the Multi-Cultural Congregation’, Mac Master Journal of Theology and Ministry Vol. No. 9.  

Stout, K.S., (2001) ‘Special Education Inclusion’, paper accessed ONLINE; – http://www.weac.org/resource/june96/speced.htm  

Thomas, G. and Loxley, A. (2001) Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion, Buckingham: Open University Press.

Tierney, W.G. (1988) ‘Organizational Culture in Higher Education: Defining the Essentials’, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 59, No. 1.

Tylor, E.B. (1924) Primitive Culture, Gloucester: Smith. 

UNESCO, (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, Paris: UNESCO. 

Walther-Thomas, C. (1997) We gain more than we give: Teaming in middle schools, Columbus: National Middle School Association, pp. 487-521.

Watermeyer, B., Swartz, L., Lorenzo, T., Schneider, M S. Priestley, M. (Eds). (2006) Disability and Social Change: A South African Agenda, Cape Town: Human Science Research Council.

 Whitley, R. (1992) Business Systems in East Asia: Firms, Markets and Societies, London: Sage.

Wyatt-Smith, C. and Dooley, K. (1997) ‘Shaping Australian Policy on cultural understanding’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 1, pp. 267-282.