Role of the Organisational Culture the Development of Innovation and Technology-Based Projects at the Higher Education: Perceptions of the Researchers

Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 15, No 3A, 1422–1433 (2014) Environmental education and training ROLE OF THE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY-BASED PROJECTS AT THE HIGHER EDUCATION. PERCEPTIONS OF THE RESEARCHERS G. SART Hasan Ali Yucel Faculty of Education, Istanbul University, 34 000 Istanbul, Turkey E-mail: gamzegazi@gmail.com Abstract. In recent years, educational technology and innovative programs have been introduced to many education systems. Although these technologies have a great potential to improve teaching, learning and management processes especially at higher education, many obstacles and resistance hinder their implementation. In order to shift towards an entrepreneurial higher education institution, organisational culture needs to be adapted to the present conditions. Given the importance of the subject, there is a need for a deeper look into the nature of organisational culture in the context of its relationships with innovative and technology-based development for educational institutions. This paper attempts to show and critically analyse the role of organisational culture on the development of innovation and technology-based projects (ITBP) at the higher education; particularly by considering the perceptions of the researchers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 researchers from different fields. Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used in this study. Academic people (89%) from well-developed organisation in terms of physical components had better results in developing innovation and technology when compared to the academic people from non well-developed cultural organisation. Furthermore, values of the organisation are significantly important in order to increase the depthless of the innovation and technology-based projects development. Keywords: organisational culture, quality culture, higher education, innovation. AIMS AND BACKGROUND This study attempts to analyse critically how the organisational culture takes role on the development of innovation and technology-based projects at the higher education from the perspective of the researchers perception. In the digital society, rapid socio-cultural, economic and technological changes have forced higher education in terms of improving innovation and technologybased projects in order to empower new generations, to attract more funding and venture capital, to develop new products and services, to increase the number of startups and spinoffs, and to raise licensing and royalties. On the other hand, organisational culture, which is interpreted as ‘shared philosophies, ideologies, values, assumptions, beliefs, expectations, attitudes and norms in organisations’1, 1422 can be developed in organisations by the people who cope with different problems and issues of external adaptation and internal integration2. As shown in the paper, organisational culture and quality culture are seemingly inseparable concepts. It can also be said that there are three levels of organisational culture. ‘Facts’ form the first level, which comprise the physical components of the organisation. ‘Values’ form the second level. The third level refers to the organisation ‘implied assumptions’. Organisational culture is fed and formed in terms of collaboration, trust and learning, and it can shape the behaviours of people in that organisation. As Zhu and Engels describe, organisation culture has three levels that can be shaped over a period of time. The first level is ‘facts’, or the physical components of the organisation that relay cultural meaning. The second level deals with ‘values’, or the culture that the members of the organisation possess. The third level refers to the organisation implicit assumptions. Organisational culture is nurtured and shaped gradually reflected in terms of collaboration, trust and learning, and it can shape the behaviours of people in that organisation3. OVERALL PERSPECTIVE ON CULTURE In order to understand organisational culture, it is crucial to define what culture is. According to Mabawonku4, culture is the ‘definitive, dynamic purposes and tools (values, ethics, rules, knowledge systems) that are developed to attain group goals’. Other researchers, such as Kinuthia and Nkonge5 focus on the definitional concept of culture as knowledge systems by writing they are ‘relevant to people understanding of themselves, their world, and impacts on education.’ Organisational culture was first developed as an intellectual concept designed to help, understand and analyse human forms and systems of interaction. Culture is widely regarded as an important environmental condition that has an impact on the people living within it. J. Monnet, one of the leading figures of the European unification process, stated that if he had to start the European unification process over again from the beginning, he would have started with the culture and not with the economy6. The importance of culture can be observed when an analysis or review is carried out of the varying new strategies that are undertaken by higher education institutions with regards to quality management. Unfortunately, too many times, instruments and tools are promoted and introduced to the academic community and student body without realising the importance of the given cultural situations. As one education scholar points out, although ‘the quality of teaching and learning interaction in higher education is affected by a diversity of components, including attitudes and skills of educators, abilities and motivation of students, organisational backgrounds, contexts and values and the existing structures, such as rules, regulations and so on, the majority of approaches to assess, assure, manage or develop quality’ is only to a certain degree taking these factors into consideration. Ehlers7 1423 also adds that quality approaches are usually conducted in order to improve or regulate ‘organisational processes (in the case of process oriented quality management approaches), the assessment of the outcomes of activities (in case of assurance or evaluations approaches) or the development of individual abilities (in case of quality development through professional training approaches)’. In addition, in higher education quality system there are currently two opposing developments emerging. On the one hand, ‘structures, accreditation, rules and regulations’ are gaining importance, especially with the rise of ‘New Public Management approaches’8. However, there is also a growing interest in ‘culture’ as a fundamental theme in organisational improvement, especially in the sector of higher education9. Essentially, a growing theme in management literature is that there should be increasing emphasis placed on culture, values and norms in analysing the organisational accountability and performance of an organisation10,11. However, due to a variety of factors, in the higher education sector the idea of ‘total quality management’ has not had a significant impact yet, mainly due to the large numbers of potential variables and inputs, such as ‘quality in education, like attitudes and skills of teachers, abilities and motivation of learners, organisational backgrounds, contexts and values, and the existing structures, such as rules, regulations, and legislation’7. Instead, many scholars stress that it is critical to think of this ‘quality’ as a cultural aspect – a form of culture, in other words – rather than seeing simply in terms of quantitatively-measured criteria and set, formal processes. A deeper understanding of the role of ‘quality’ in higher education sector can consist of a multi-angle analysis. In particular, the ‘constitution, measured against the needs and expectations of the stakeholder groups’ is compromised of 2 aspects12. These are ‘a structural dimension (quality management handbooks, process definitions, instruments, tools) and the dimension of values of an organisation (relating to the commitment of its members, the underlying values, skills and attitudes)’7. It might be appropriate to continue with a review of various theoretical concepts of organisational culture. Hoy and Miskel13 define organisational culture as a system of orientations keeping the society or organisation connected and it gives a distinguishing identity to it. According to Schein14, one of the leading theorists on the subject, organisational culture is the result of a group having shared experiences. Schein argues that culture is mostly a concealed influence factor. Members of organisations go about their daily routines without thinking consciously about the values or structures that underlie them. These characteristics of organisations become important if we ask the question, ‘Can culture be affected, and if so, how?’ As Ehlers points out, ‘primarily as the presumptions are invisible and unconscious, while rituals, values and symbols can to some degree be seen…. This characteristic also distinguishes the culture of an organisation from the management or the quality system of an organisation7. Whereas a system can be over time, described, 1424 analysed and measured, the culture is developing largely without measures through interaction and to a large extent unconsciously evolved’. Schein sees culture as a three-layer phenomenon, consisting of underlying assumptions, espoused values, and observable behaviour14. The best way to understand underlying assumptions is to show what they relate to. Underlying assumptions are essentially related to the solutions a group or community learns in response to obstacles or difficulties that arise in their environment. According to Schein, these underlying assumptions are the unconscious basis for many of the behaviours and actions we carry out, as well as the decisions we make. In addition, an accumulated range of decisions often ends up shaping a culture further, sometimes pushing it into new directions. As a result, culture, as a reflection of a ‘shared reality’, is constantly subject to change and is not static14. Espoused values form the second layer in this model. These values are visible in, for example, declared norms operating philosophy and the organisation official objectives. They guide individual decisions and behaviours in the workplace. Of course, espoused values are not always perfectly reflected in a company everyday operations because espoused values are not what people truly value but what they say they value. Thereby, they do not directly represent an organisation culture. Instead, they establish the public image that is more desirable to display15. The third layer of culture, according to this definition, consists of observable behaviour, or apparent organisational processes and various artefacts. For example, dress codes, the (enforced) appearance of the employees, and the general cleanliness or even layout of the workplace are easily noticeable visual and physical markers that can easily signify to observer different aspects regarding to the organisation culture. This level is difficult to shed light on, however, because it acts on behalf of the most superficial cultural phenomena, i.e. only reflections of the true corporate culture14. Despite the fact that underlying assumptions might direct the actions of organisations members, Schein claims that an organisation underlying assumptions can not be directly concluded from these actions. There are situation-specific and individual factors the actions are always affected by. The official rules and espoused norms may be in disagreement with everyday actions Schein also adds that ‘an organisation culture is not only a single new variable which describes organisations and which can be examined separately from the other variables that influence organisations activities, such as the strategy, market orientation, structure, and the technology it uses’. Organisational culture interprets activity in the organisation as a whole and strives to describe organisational culture as a scientific concept16. According to another prominent figure in this field, Geert Hofstede an universal approach to organisational management does not exist, and therefore can not be viewed or analysed as an autonomous process independent from other factors of the organisation being studied17,18. In his research, Hofstede writes that culture can be viewed as a set of typical attributes/behaviours (manifestations of culture) 1425 with four different impact depths: symbols, heroes, values and rituals. They are learnt from the beginning of life and, in contrast to some other anthropological frameworks on culture, are the most stable element of a person life that are resistant against changes over time. According to this framework, culture consists first of symbols, or ‘words, gestures, pictures or objects which carry a particular meaning and only those who share a culture recognizes them’. These symbols can change, evolve, or even disappear, especially under the influence of symbols that come from other cultures. Next are heroes, or people who ‘possess features that are prized in a culture and serve as models for behaviour.’ Next come rituals, or ‘collective activities, technically superfluous to reaching desired ends, but which within a culture are considered as socially essential.’19. According to this framework, one of the most prominent and deepest component of a culture is the values. While evaluating our surrounding environment it can be said that values serve as the paramount source of it and lead to the basic idea for the way people should behave and decide in situations. In addition, values set the basic comprehension of what is ‘good and bad’, ‘natural and unnatural’, as well as other moral and ethical assessments. It is quite accurate to say that members of an organisation are bringing about a perpetual common, collective, communicative clarification process. Active impact is being made by the members of an organisation on the differentiation of the organisation cultural patterns through their discourse. And in that way, are the new cultural structures and symbols formed7. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE Now that culture has been analysed from an overall perspective, organisational culture can be looked at one a more specific level. Organisational culture, according to Morgan, is ‘an active living phenomenon through which people together create and recreate the worlds in which they live’. Morgan adds that different societies and organisations have different patterns of social development, and that it is important to analyse how meaning is constructed in organisations –in other words, how the members collectively interpret and make sense of their shared reality– in order to gain a more thorough understanding of organisational culture. This understanding, of course, may eventually lead to the ability to affect, change, and perhaps even manage this internal form of culture in the future20. Ehlers points out that organisational culture and quality culture are ‘always present’ in an organisation, and incorporate ‘underlying assumptions of what good teaching and learning is’. In addition, quality cultures have visible and invisible, tangible and intangible parts. Ehlers writes that culture of quality is best developed when ‘tangible, structural elements, like quality management mechanisms, tools and instruments are developing in parallel with intangible elements like values commitment, rituals and symbols’. Organisational culture is, on one hand, a collective social that individu1426 als in an organisation –in the high case of higher education, both administrators, students, faculty members, and other stakeholders- contribute and constitute to by negotiating with one another and interacting as a group through shared values and rituals7. According to Schein, an organisation culture can be defined as the way an organisation responds to certain challenges in their path14. There is no certain rule that says that quality culture needs to be a uniform concept spanning across every higher education organisation. Especially in such heterogeneous organisations like those found in higher education, quality cultures can exist in a plurality sense, not a monolithic one. For example, even students learning properties may differ21 and directly affect other variables. Quality cultures may even differ from department to department, some having a few common elements while others being completely different. As Ehlers points out, ‘Quality culture is always a part of the organisations culture as a whole and is situated in the organisational context’ He adds that quality culture is a ‘context-specific concept and can only be seen through actual performance in those elements which are categorised as cultural factors…[it] can be perceived, but not directly placed in an organisation; it is the outcome of individual and collective involvement and interaction against the background of an existing quality system’7. It would be appropriate to say that transforming the culture of an organisation is ‘a very complicated, difficult, and time-consuming process, especially for a mature organisation’22. However, if organisations want to survive and grow, it is an absolute must that they learn how to adapt and adjust to changing conditions. This is also applicable to other kinds of organisations, such as the environmental ones23. At a time when the external environment is changing unceasingly it can be seen that there is no choice left for organisations other than change. There are some strategies recommended by experts to large organisations in helping to manage change. The first strategy is leadership vision that implies the change initiative has to come from the leader of the organisation. The leaders need to acknowledge the imperative for change in the organisation and have to become learners themselves; otherwise this transformation will never occur or succeed24. Second one is anxiety management. Changing and unlearning old values and beliefs can be threatening and disturbing. Setting up a psychological safety environment; offering opportunities for training and practice; providing supports, coaching, rewards, and encouragement; legitimising making mistakes – experimenting and taking risks would be motivating and unfreezing acts. Third strategy includes parallel learning systems. It is important to create a temporary learning system where new assumptions can be practiced and tested. A task force that will lead and manage the change process within the organisation should be involved in this testing ground. Other organisations might be consulted by the task force. In addition, they undergo training and learn the process themselves. They also bring in organisational development consultants. This system provides and encourages opportunities for conversation, conversion 1427 and reflection upon issues critical to the future of the organisation25. Next one is the learning process. The task force can begin to design learning processes for the whole organisation, setting up change targets, developing a transition plan, creating a set of subgroups that focus on specific aspects and areas of the complete learning process, while identifying change leaders and agents. The organisational education is another strategy which refers to encourage change in the ‘technological classroom;’teach teachers not to be afraid of new technologies. Coordinate and implement programs and plans developed by the task force and its subgroups’22. In addition, keeping up a commitment to continuous dialogue and being open to lifelong learning and important markers of an organisation continued ability to be successful. However, there are ultimately many factors that shape an institution culture. This becomes even more critical when it comes to European standards, as Gurel points out26. A list of elements that are combined to create the culture at an academic organisation was proposed by Tierney. These components are its environment, the mission, and socialisation to the institution, information on campus, the college strategy, and leadership27. A school particular traits create a special character that ‘determines the ways in which participants in budgeting will interact and helps shape the framework for their interaction’28. In academy, the reason for failed efforts at institutional change is often cultural resistance. According to Lick and Kaufman many change efforts at institutions of higher education fail because of inadequate planning to rearrange the academic culture, which is very hard to change because of its strength and rigidity29. This concurs with Chaffee and Tierney, who found that the more congruent the dimensions of a culture are, the easier it will be to do things that go along with the culture and the harder it will be to make changes that go against it. The cultural and political aspects of a change determine whether the modifications will be successful or failed, rather than the substantive issues30. One very interesting idea is to attempt to use a significant change in the university budget system to change its culture. One of the major reasons for doing this was to change the school culture into being more entrepreneurial31. As a result, Collins and Porras claim that those organisations with good cultures should choose new goals that will not require transforming the culture32. Moreover, one should always be careful before favouring change on account of the law of unintended outcomes. As Dimen et al. state33, great changes may be possible in higher education as well by integrating sustainable development. On the other hand, it also has been noted that the blind spot of those who want change ‘is their conviction that they can combine all the benefits of their goals with the best of what they are overthrowing. But the forces unleashed by a revolution have their own momentum, and the direction in which they are moving cannot necessarily be inferred from the proclamations of their advocates’34. 1428 EXPERIMENTAL The study group was made up of 34 researchers from two universities. The diversity within educational institutions was taken into account to eliminate the effect of different sub-cultures in organisations. In order to do these participants were selected from the engineering departments, medical school, and social sciences faculties. Stratified sampling method was used for having a representative sample of target population. For data analysis Atlas.ti 7 software35 was used. 34 researchers were coded as R1, R2, R3, etc. and descriptive information was obtained initially. At first, all of the interviews were transcribed by the author and further control of the documents was made by comparing them with the voice records. Participants answers were examined in detail and divided into different categories by content. Interpretative Phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to analyse the data. IPA provides to explore how participants make sense of their experiences and it engages with the meaning of that experiences hold for participants. When using IPA, the best way to collect data is conducting semi-structured interview36. In this process, the transcripts were subjected to case by case analysis in detail. Each transcript was examined a number of times by taking notes including comments. Then, these comments transferred into themes and connected until reaching a coherent thematic integrity for one participant. After completing case by case analysis, themes connected across participants and superordinate themes were made for groups in a table. Finally, the table of analysis translated into a narrative account in order to provide a reportable format. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION According to the findings of the study the following can be said: First of all the findings showed that most of the academic people (89%), who were coming from well-developed organisation in terms of physical components, had better results in developing innovation and technology comparing to the academic people who were coming from not well-developed cultural organisation. Furthermore, the second level, which is related to the values of the organisation, is strategically important in order to increase the depthless of the innovation and technology-based projects development. A similarly large proportion of the researchers (91%) agree that the values, particularly trustworthiness, ethics, transparency, and accountability, improve their commitment and make change attitudes towards their efforts and achievements. However, in the case of the low cultural values, a majority of the participants (88%) mention that the lack of values at their institutions, particularly commonly held values such as like academic ethics, transparency, and accountability, demotivate them and decrease their efficiency and effectiveness in the workplace. Additionally, measuring the third level, (the organisation tacit 1429 knowledge and capacity building in technology transfer), a large number of the participants (80%), who are coming from the well-developed organisational culture, pointed out that if the first two levels are not achieved in a higher education organisation, then transferring knowledge, particularly tacit knowledge, is made much more difficult. As a result, a minority yet large portion of the respondents (46%) said that the transfer of the tacit knowledge at their institutions was ‘limited’ to a noticeable degree. New and different approaches are slowly being introduced to the higher education sector, partially as a response to challenging and constantly changing conditions in the wider economic and societal climate. As highlighted in previous studies, in this new era, different and more holistic quality approaches in order to develop an organisational culture of quality, approaches that ‘focusing on change instead of control, development rather than assurance and innovation more than standards compliance’. In this process, ‘quality instruments and management systems, competencies, and individual and collective values, are not seen as separate entities of quality development but are combined into a holistic concept – the concept of quality culture’7. However, changing the entrenched culture of an organisation is not an easy process, and requires strong and sustained will from the management and administration, as well as specific and long-term efforts. While traditional educational organisations can be ‘notoriously slow to embrace change’, in order to succeed in increasingly competitive markets and environments they will require ‘visionary leaders who can also fulfill the role of change master’37. However, as the results of the current phenomenological study shows, possessing a strong organisational culture is a must at higher educational institutions if they want to fully take advantage of their academic staff creativity and intellect. Otherwise, as many of the respondents pointed out, the lack of a strong or encouraging organisational culture can have detrimental effects on both the quality, quantity, and efficiency of their work. In order to develop more effective organisational cultures, the concept of culture needs to be examined. As mentioned previously, quality culture is often conceptualised as being comprised of four main parts: (1) a structural component; (2) enabling factors; (3) cultural factors (such as values, rituals, symbols), and (4) a strong sense of shared trust, communication, and community amongst the members of the organisation. It is paramount to highlight that ‘viewing quality in the light of a cultural perspective means taking a holistic stand point: Quality culture combines cultural elements, structural dimensions and competences into one holistic framework, supporting stakeholders to develop visions, shared values and beliefs’7. It is of crucial importance to understand that quality culture with regard to expected behaviours and norms can explain why some organisational units exhibit dysfunctional behaviours that are not in harmony with the organisation 1430 expressed values or mission, and which hamper efficiency and effectiveness. If an organisation is suffering from dysfunction or inefficiency, one of the first steps that is recommended in order to correct is to observe the more tangible, easily noticeable aspects of the organisation culture, such as what the members believe are expected of them as members of the organisation and how these expectations manifest themselves. To conclude, it is not an easy task to diagnose, understand, and even measure or observe various aspects of organisational culture, the least of which because there has still not been a large amount of research carried out on this emerging subject yet. Observation and measurement may be more easily obtained, but it still not widely accepted how these observations can be translated into recommendations for change for organisations suffering from inefficient performance. However, as the research in this paper demonstrates, for the sake of higher education organisations continued prosperity and success, undergoing a thorough internal review of this organisational culture may indeed be necessary. CONCLUSIONS As previous studies showed organisational culture has a considerable effect on the people perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards innovative and technology based improvements. Current study aims to extend previous works by analysing the topic in specifically higher education area from the perspective of researchers. Another important and distinguishing factor for this paper is using IPA as an analysis method to understand researchers’ perception in terms of relationship between organisational culture and development of Information Technology Best Practices (ITBP) at higher education from their point of view. With this detailed analysis, current paper can provide a basis for taking the right steps in the development of ITBP in educational institutions. As consistent with the literature data and the current study findings people who are coming from well-developed cultural organisations are more open to change which is based on innovation and technology. The people who cope with different problems and topics of external reconstruction and internal unification can improve the organisational culture, and in turn, it can foster the development of ITBP at higher education. REFERENCES 1. D. LUND: Organisational Culture and Job Satisfaction. J Business Indl Market, 18 (2), 219 (2003). 2. E. H. SCHEIN: The Corporate Culture Survival Guide: Sense and Nonsense about Culture Change. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1999. 1431 3. C. ZHU, N. ENGELS: Organisational Culture and Instructional Innovations in Higher Education: Perceptions and Reactions of Teachers and Students. Educ Manag Administration & Leadership, 42 (1), 136 (2014). 4. A. O. MABAWONKU: Cultural Framework for the Development of Science and Technology in Africa. Sci Public Policy, 30 (2), 117 (2003). 5. W. KINUTHIA, B. NKONGE: Perspectives on Culture and E-learning Convergence. In: Proc. of World Conference on E-learning in Corporate Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Ed. G. Richards). AACE, Chesapeake, VA, 2005, 2613–2618. 6. H.-S. HAAS, P. G. HANSELMANN: Qualitatsmanagement im Kontext der Gestaltung sozialer Dienste in Europa. In: Die Zukunft der sozialen Dienste vor der Europa¨ ischen Herausforderung (Eds C. Linbach, U. Lu‘bking, S. Scholz, B. Schulte). Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 2005, 463–464. 7. U. D. EHLERS: Understanding Quality Culture. Int J Quality Assur Educ, 17 (4), 343 (2009). 8. C. HOOD: The Art of the State. Culture, Rhetoric, and Public Management. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998. 9. S. LOFFLER: Qualita¨tsmanagement unter genderrelevanten Aspekten Bericht u¨ber die Pru¨fung von ausgewa¨hlten Qualita¨tsmanagementsystemen an Hochschulen auf die Beru¨cksichtigung genderrelvanter Aspekte. Center for Higher Education Research, School of Education, Psychology and Sports, Mannheim, 2005. 10. D. MARTIN, J. W. PETTY, W. J. PETTY: Value Based Management: The Corporate Response to the Shareholder Revolution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Stratton, 2000. 11. R. STRATTON: The Earned Value Management Maturity Model. Management Concepts, Vienna, 2006. 12. H. D. SEGHEZZI: Integriertes Qualita¨t smanagement – Das St. Galler Modell. Hanser Wirtschaft, St Gallen, 2003. 13. W. K. HOY, C. G. MISKEL: Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice. 8th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, 2008. 14. E. H. SCHEIN: Organisational Culture and Leadership. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass, San-Francisco, CA, 1992. 15. S. L. MCSHANE, M. von GLINOW: Organisational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace. The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, 2005. 16. E. H. SCHEIN: The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. John Wiley and Sons Inc., San Francisco, 2009, p. 44. 17. G. HOFSTEDE: Kulturen und Organisationen. Wiesbaden, 1991. 18. G. HOFSTEDE: Lokales Denken. Lokales Denken, Globales Handeln. Kulturen, Zusammenarbeit und Management, Verlag C. H. Beck, Munchen, 1997. 19. G. HOFSTEDE, G. J. HOFSTEDE: Cultures and Organisations. Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York, NY, 2005. 20. G. MORGAN: Bilder der Organisation. Klett-Cotta, 2002, p. 141. 21. C. CETINKAYA: Sakarya Science and Art Center Nature Education Program. J Environ Prot Ecol, 14 (3A), 1317 (2013). 22. W. SHIH, M. ALLEN: Working with Generation-D: Adopting and Adapting to Cultural Learning and Change. Library Manag, 28, 89 (2007). 23. G. TSANTOPOULOS: Communication and Greek Environmental Organisations: Means of Communication and Influencing Factors. J Environ Prot Ecol, 10 (1), 266 (2009). 24. D. L. COUTU: The Anxiety of Learning. Harvard Bus Rev, 80 (3), 2 (2002). 25. E. H. SCHEIN: How Can Organisations Learn Faster? The Challenge of Entering the Green Room. Sloan Manag Rev, 34 (2), 85 (1993). 26. A. GUREL: How Fit for Europe are Turkish College Youths? J Environ Prot Ecol, 12 (1), 327 (2011). 1432 27. W. G. TIERNEY: Organisational Culture in Higher Education. J Higher Educ, 59 (1), 2 (1988). 28. R. J. MEISINGER, L. W. DUBECK: The Faculty Role in College and University Budging. Academe, 70 (1), 25 (1984). 29. D. LICK, R. KAUFMAN: Change Creation: The Rest of the Planning Story. In: Technologydriven Planning: Principles to Practice, Society for College and University Planning (Eds J. V. Boettcher, M. M. Doyle, R. W. Jensen). Ann Arbor, MI, 2000, 25–38. 30. E. E. CHAFFEE, W. G. TIERNEY: Collegiate Culture and Leadership Strategies. MacMillan Publishing, New York, NY, 1988 p. 178. 31. M. D. CLASS: Organisational Culture Change as a Result of a Change in Budgeting Systems. EdD diss., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 2004. 32. J. C. COLLINS, J. I. PORRAS: Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. Harper Business, New York, NY, 1994. 33. L. DIMEN, I. IENCIU, N. LUDUSAN, M. POPA, L. OPREA: Possibilities of Integrating Sustainable Development in Higher Education Curricula. J Environ Prot Ecol, 13 (1), 368 (2012). 34. H. KISSINGER: Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 1994. 35. ATLAS.ti 7 Data Analysis Software Set. Retrieved from http://www.atlasti.com. 36. E. CHAPMAN, J. A. SMITH: Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and the New Genetics. J Health Psychol, 7, 125 (2002). 37. R. KANTER: The Change Masters. Allen & Unwin, London, 1984. Received 28 August 2014 Revised 15 September 2014 1433