Lidership Style

Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 17 (November, 2010) 102

Can Cultural Change with Different Leadership Styles

Enhance the Organizational Performance?

Kamran Majeed University of east London, United Kingdom

Afkar Majeed Bhatti

Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +92-333-5359743

Ali Raza Nemati Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan

E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +92-345-590-5581

Ijaz Ur Rehman

Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan E-mail: [email protected]

Tel: +92-333-5359741

Arshad Rizwan Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan

E-mail: [email protected] 1. Introduction In todays fast moving business environment there has been a realization that static leadership, management and organizational paradigms can stifle economic growth. Most organizations seek to change and adapt new culture and leadership style according to their business environment with the objective of gaining an increased competitive advantage. The study of leadership, culture and employee motivation determining organization performance has become more complex in recent years as the understanding of the nature of organizations has advanced towards globalization. Many organizational corporate cultures are now viewed by researchers as being central component in the organizations. This gives rise to the question as how does one try to define and apply such a subjective term as culture and leadership and what implications does it have for management practitioners?

The issue of organizational culture and different leadership is currently the subject of much empirical research as the increasing complexity of the subject area has become apparent in recent years. Senior (1997) argues that change is a progressive experience that is best understood by considering the metaphor of strong and weak winds. Throughout the history there have been times when the wind of change has given birth to strong forces which have caused enormous changes to how organization works. Examples of these times would be the shift from agriculture age to the industrial age, and more recent one is the influx of the information technology age. These periods have brought along significant change, which has forced organizations to adapt to severe consequences that are coupled with stagnation. Similarly there have been times when relative calm and the winds of change have been light in nature. However when the need for change accelerates, it brings with it new challenges and opportunities. The advent of the information technology age has these elements as we


have stepped into the 21st Century. The pace of change is constantly accelerating and organizations are adapting to the challenges that an integrated global communication and information system are bringing to the international business environment. Burnes (1992) argues that to properly initiated change, one has to have a full understanding of the nature of an organization. Gaining this understanding has sparked much debate as how an organization actually operates.

If we do not have this knowledge then decisions are made using false assumptions rather than informed judgment.

The topic of leadership and organizational culture is one that has sparked fierce debate among business and management circles due to its very subjective nature. As will be discussed in depth later in the thesis, there is no single agreed definition of what Leadership and organizational culture actually is or what connotation it has in the wider business context. Senior (1997) states the culture can fundamentally be interpreted from two different perspectives; the objectivist or interpretive perspective. The former perceives culture as a variable that can be changed or manipulated to aid organizational performance. The interpretive perspective used culture as something that an organization actually is, as opposed to something that it has. Culture from this perspective is highly complex and un-quantifiable and thus impossible to change or manipulate. According to Lakomski (2001) an organizations resistance to change in the face of environmental pressures and uncertainty as Schein (1985, 1992) argue that at root it is the organizations culture that causes resistance and needs changing. In order to change an organizational learning process needs to take place which pushes the organization beyond its currently held understandings of itself and its ways of dealing both with its internal and external reality (Lakomski, 2001). The prime mover of change is the leader who transforms the current stagnating culture into a productive one (Schein, 1985). The perception and understanding of leadership and culture is central to how one would view the issue of organizational change. It is this central debate that forms the basis of this study. 2. Literature Review Impact of Leadership on Organization Culture

2.1. Leadership and Culture Leadership is interpreted in various ways by different authors. Leadership is defined as an influence, that is, the art or process of influencing people so that they will strive willingly and enthusiastically toward the achievement of group goals. (Cole 1996). Ideally, people should be encouraged to develop not only willingness to work but also willingness to work with zeal and confidence. Zeal is ardour, earnestness and intensity in the execution of work; confidence reflects experience and technical ability. Armstrong (1990) suggests that leadership happens: when there is an objective to be achieved or task to be carried out and when more than one person is needed to do it. Sandra Dawson (1996, pg: 216) offers the following definition of what is involved in leadership

Leadership exists when someone (the leader) exercises influence over others (the followers) in their group or organization. Their influence may be wide ranging or narrowly focused but within formal organizations particular emphasis is given to influence over:

Values which are espoused Directions in which future developments are guided and the manner in which everyday

tasks are accomplished. Hence leadership is mandatory for achieving goals because someone has to point the way

ensure that everyone concerned gets there a leaders aim is to get people to do what he wants by obtaining willing co-operation, not unwilling submission. According to Martin (2001) A standard definition of culture would include the system of values, symbols and shared meanings of a group including the embodiment of these values, symbols and meanings into material objects and ritualized practices. The stuff of culture includes customs and traditions, historical accounts be they mythical or


actual, tacit understanding , habits, norms and expectations, common meanings associated with fixed objects and established rites, shared assumptions and inter-subjective meaning (Sergiovanni & Corbally, 1984)

Adler (1997) presents most comprehensive and accepted general definition i.e. culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit and behavior transmitted by symbols constituting an individual achievement of humans including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consist of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas especially their attached values. On the one hand, be considered as product of action and on the other conditioning elements of future action. (Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952, pg: 181). Kotter and Heskett (1992) argue that At the deeper and less visible level, culture refers to values that are shared by the people in the group and that tend to persist over time even in group members changes. At the more visible level, culture represents the behavior patterns or styles of an organization that new employees are automatically encouraged to follow by their fellow employees. Each level of culture has a tendency to influence the other (Kotter and Heskett, 1992, pg: 4). Schein (1985) argues that in organization culture operates at three levels, ranging from basic assumptions, which are closed as invisible artifacts that are visible within the organisation. Figure 4. Demonstrates Scheins three level of culture (See Appendix: 4). 2.2. Leadership and Organizational Culture The culture in an organization is very complex and there are many factors involved in both internal and external environment that influence it .Figure: 3, Appendix: 3) graphically illustrates this point and similarly, Appendix: 4 analyses Johnson and Scholes (1999) cultural web insight into the assumptions that are prevalent in the organizations as well as the physical manifestations that constitute a corporate culture.

Schein (1991) identified four main areas that have an influence on organizational culture. They are business environment, leadership, management practices and formal and informal socialization process.

The business environment that an organization operates within will influence its culture. It will also be affected by the geographical region, which relates to Hofstedes (1991) work on the effects of national culture. This is also an evidence to suggest that different cultural attitudes depend on the social strata that exists within a region. The type of industry that a company is in will similarly have an impact on how a culture develops i.e. Wilson (2001) states that bank and bankers will have a risk-averse culture whereas stockbrokers will have a deal-orientated culture. The level of competitiveness, different type of technology and customers demands all influence the values, attitudes and behavior of that work within particular organizations.

It is evident that the leadership of an organization may have an influence on the culture. The extent of that influence is one of the most debated issues within the study of organizational culture. Pettigrew (1997) argued that most prominent link between leadership and culture development can be found in new companies that have an entrepreneur at the helm. In this situation the leader influences the values and beliefs of the individual members by setting certain standards of behavior. A culture then emerges that may be in keeping with the unique vision of founder. Kotter and Heskett (1992), further this argument by setting categorically that the primary function of any leader is to begin cultural change and better the performance within the organization. Whether this planned culture, leadership, and organizational change can occur in an established organization which is the main focus of this study.

Management practices and the formal socialization process also have a strong influence over an organizations culture. It is the way in which a company is actually managed will have influence over the behavior and attitudes of its employees. Harrison and Carrol (1991) argue that the management has control over various factors that will have an influence on culture. The most important of these factors are recruitment, formal socialization procedures and turnover of employees. Evidently the type of person that an organization employs will have an impact on the culture. Thus the interview procedure


is geared to find individuals that would fit in within the current culture of organization. Once a new member of staff is selected, they go through formal socialization processes such as training courses, which has the effect of viewing individuals how the organization operates and what is expected of them. Similarly, management can use reward and control system to highlight the enforce behavior that is deemed appropriate to the organization. It is also evident that aspects such as decentralization, empowerment of employees and the recognition of unions will have an influence on corporate culture (Wilson, 2001).

The informal socialization process has its origins within group dynamic theory (Schein, 1969, McGrath, 1984), which argues that an individual in a group has three primary needs. Firstly, one wants to feel a part of the group with a specific role, but with an individual identity. Secondly, a group member wants to have power to influence other individuals and the group as a whole, whilst recognizing others need to do likewise. The third factor is acceptance among the group so that one has a developed feeling of security. Shared meanings and norms will then develop which set the parameters for behavior and group membership. The formal socialization process is reinforced by the telling of anecdotes and myths, which again highlights acceptable and un-acceptable. 2.3. Leadership and Change The role of leadership is critical to the success of a management of a cultural change. Dyer (2001) states that with out a new leader or leadership team, coupled with a crisis culture change is not possible. Further more Dyer (2001) states that new leadership has to come into place to bring a new set of assumptions and beliefs to the organisation thus rectifying the crisis. Leadership also has to manage the conflict that inevitability comes with widespread organisational change. Schein (1985) argues that leadership has the responsibility to guide the company through the three stages of organisational development that he identified. With out visionary leadership, significant culture changes will not occur. Change management can conjure up many different ideas of what it involves apart from those mentioned previously, in addition to the assumption that when companies need to change the organisation in some form, it is anticipated that such changes will be 'enforced' from the top-down. It Causes unnecessary problems during and probably before the whole change process has begun. For it could be felt on the employees behalf that any changes to be made are going to be purely made without the consideration of, or for these employees at the lower levels of the company. These people being the one's who usually feel the changes the most, result in time-consuming and costly disputes. Some of this resilience maybe due to the process of being changed rather than the actual changes that are to take place if organisational success is to be achieved (Senge, 1999). Therefore it is often the way people are managed and their perceptions of management that will shape their thoughts on change and how it should be conducted, but this is not only done on the part of the employee, managers can also feel dissatisfaction from the outcomes of change (Bjerke, 2001). According to Bass (1989) theory of leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how people become leaders. The first two explain the leadership development for a small number of people. These theories are:

Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the Trait Theory. A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which brings out

extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the Great Events Theory. People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is the

Transformational Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted theory today and the premise on which this guide is based. This could be linked to the idea that if employees feel that the changes to be made did not

consider their input, then perhaps they will not fully welcome the change and therefore not implement change procedures to the best of their abilities resulting in negative outcomes such as poor performance and lower productivity levels which in-turn will disappoint managers who may also be confused on what path they should follow that will make everyone happy and achieve organisational change - which is probably impossible to do (Burnes, 2000). Considering this, it is important to look at


the aspects of leadership involved, if companies want to achieve successful organisational change and a problem they may be facing is the lack of employee commitment then building morale and commitment could be achieved through the adoption of a new leadership style or through reinforcing the current leadership approach for leadership can be simply defined as "influencing people to get things done to a standard and quality above their norm and doing it willingly" (Kotelnikov, 2004). Then the role of a leader could be a valuable tool for the company, using the manager as a leader, some may argue that these roles are distinctly different but used together they can be described as the ideal attributes of someone in a position of authority. Change requires a sense of direction which a leader can generate, but it may also need someone who can manage the change process effectively proving to be a valuable asset to the company at the times when changes are required rapidly. Whether these are at present or in the future. If change is to be a constant feature of business life, a leader needs to be aware of this to encourage their team not to fear change (Carnell, 1991).

In relation to being a leader it could be argued that there is no 'one best-way' of leading the workforce, Callan (1997) argues that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style is always "situationally contingent", no universally appropriate style of leadership exits, there are varying styles - autocratic, participative or even supportive roles for example (Lussier & Achua, 2001). However it could be argued that when transformational changes it requires aa need for transformational manager who has charisma and inspiration to successfully implement new changes with the relative full support of their workforce (Saunders et al, 2000). Yet like with culture, leadership skills or approaches cannot be changed, adopted or eliminated over night, they too are often deeply rooted due to the culture of the company and are not subject to "push-button control" (Bjerke, 1999).

Therefore when companies need to change they can not just adopt a particular leadership style that is thought to bring instant results, for many factors affect the style of leadership adopted. Leadership styles can be shaped just like culture, but when doing this as consideration and appreciation of both leadership and culture is important. To develop a style shaped by the culture yet also devise a way of leading that can slowly change the company culture and attitude for the future. For culture provides the workforce with a sense of how to behave and react (Lussier & Achua, 2001), understanding this can unlock the key to the successful harmonisation of leadership and culture to manipulate the change process, benefiting the company with as minimal effort and cost as possible. 2.4. Leadership Style and Culture Change In relation to being a leader it could be argued that there is no 'one best-way' of leading the workforce, Callan (2003) argues that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style is always "situationally contingent", no universally appropriate style of leadership exits, there are varying styles - autocratic, participative or even supportive roles for example (Lussier & Achua, 2001). However it could be argued than when transformational changes are required a transformational manager is required who has charisma and inspiration to successfully implement new changes with the relative full support of their workforce (Saunders et al, 2000). Yet like with culture, leadership skills or approaches cannot be changed, adopted or eliminated over night, they too are often deeply rooted due to the culture of the company and are not subject to "push-button control" (Bjerke, 1999, pg: 49).

Therefore when companies need to change they can not just adopt a particular leadership style that is thought to bring instant results for many factors affect the style of leadership adopted. Leadership styles can be shaped just like culture, but when doing so a consideration and appreciation of both leadership and culture is important. To develop a style shaped by the culture yet also devise a way of leading that can slowly change the company culture and attitude for the future. For culture provides the workforce with a sense of how to behave and react (Lussier & Achua, 2001), understanding this can unlock the key to the successful harmonisation of leadership and culture to manipulate the change process, benefiting the company with as minimal effort and cost as possible.


Carell et al, (1997) states that when major factors external to the organisation change, a new strategy may be required to meet the change. Here, the organisational leaders have to respond by attempting to change the culture of an organisation to meet the demands. ( Carrell et al, 1997).

Following are the keys to cultural change a leader has to have an idea of before implementing cultural change.

1. Understanding of the old culture: A leader has to have a good insight of the old culture prevailing within the organisation in order to imply the new process, understanding of the old culture will ease the leaders task of educating the employees about the new system or culture.

2. Encourage innovative employees: a leader should identify the innovating employees amongst the group and encourage him to impart his ideas to the other members of the group in order to bring out new ideas that would bring changes for the betterment of the organisation.

3. Not to rely on a new vision: it is important for the leader not to rely immediately on the new vision of change; the leader should gain a common consensus of the group before making any changes to the culture of the organisation.

4. Expect some time for change: the leader should not expect the change to take effect immediately, the old culture is a set of strong beliefs and norms which cannot be altered quickly, the leader has to be patient in order for the change to take effect.

2.5. Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Change 2.5.a. Organisational Culture and Organisation Change According to Serigovanni & Corbally (1984) definition of culture would include the system of values, symbols and shared meanings of a group including embodiment of these values, symbols and meanings into material objects and ritualised practices. The stuff of culture includes customs and traditions, historical accounts be they mythical or actual, tacit understandings, habits, norms and expectations, common meanings associated with fixed objects and established rites, shared assumptions and inter-subjective meanings.

Culture is a concept that is here to stay unlike many other business concepts, for the importance of an individuals culture, the organizational culture, in addition to that of the nation state, all play an influence on how the company thinks and operates, and the choice of corporate strategy to be adopted (Blair, 2000). Senior (1997) states that culture can fundamentally be interpreted from two different perspectives; the objectivist or the interpretive perspective. Along with leadership, culture is an important feature of any company especially when change is taking place, for culture can help change to occur smoothly if accepted by the workforce but culture can also be one of the main obstacles to change (Bjerke, 2001). For if managers expect to implement a new style of leadership for example, in theory this may seem like a feasible idea but in practice it may be more difficult than anticipated. For the present culture of the company may be one that has always been left to get on with their work so-to-speak, without many boundaries placed upon employees by mangers, allowing creativity to flow (Times, 2003). Then if senior mangers decide to restructure the company and expect employees to report more regularly to their superiors, employees may feel restricted, especially if deadlines and targets are more rigidly set, restricting their level of freedom to be innovative and creative for the competitive advantage of the company (Senior, 2002). This will not have been the manager's intentions but if all parties involved do not communicate and share ideas, then the actual level of successful change will not be as high as anticipated.

Where organisational change is not a new concept but one that is becoming more apparent in management literature and terminology. For due to the ever-changing business and social environments caused strongly by globalisation, this has meant that companies must keep themselves up-to-date, whether it is through using the latest form of technology or through the latest management fad. In order for their company to survive and successfully adapt to the constant challenges that


"change management" presents them with. Therefore through looking at the relationship between leadership and culture it is important to understand how each of these factors alone, and together can have a significant impact upon the success of the organisational change a company can achieve.With globalisation occurring, it affects many people including organisations and those employed within it, therefore businesses need to be able to adapt and compete as successfully as possible whilst faced with often new and uncertain environments (Luthans, 2002). However when the need for change accelerates, this brings with it new challenges and opportunities. Senior (1997) argues that change is a progressive phenomenon that is best understood by considering the metaphor of strong and weak winds. Therefore companies need to be susceptible and ready to acknowledge the challenges that change presents them with and try to overcome these for the benefit of the company as a whole. This element of change management that companies may be faced with may consist of many contradictory elements such as external changes in technology, customers and the social environment. Plus it can also refer to the internal changes a company faces due to these external factors or in relation to how the organisation adapts to such changes, internally, such as their practices, strategies and views for example (Senge et al, 1999). There are many factors involved with change and the successful management of it which can often be a difficult time for companies, especially as some may state that to manage change is to manage people, which can be the most difficult part of the process (Dewitt, 2004). According to Burnes (1992).To properly initiate change, one has to have a full understanding of the nature of an organisation. 2.5. b. National Culture and Leadership At times, leadership has to counter the culture of the organisation, which is affected by the culture of that country, which is known as the national culture.

National culture is the ideas, set of beliefs and norms followed by the people of a certain country; the countrys history, religion and traditions make up for the national culture. However, sometimes, the national culture clashes with the organisational culture and can create challenges for the leadership.

According to Lok and Crawford (2004) state that the national culture and leadership has influence on organisational leadership styles, organisational culture and their subsequent effects on employee's job satisfaction and commitment.

As Loc and Crawford (2004) find out values, attitudes and beliefs which are reflected in different national cultures where they have compared the organisational culture of Hong Kong with the organisational culture of Australia and its effect on the leadership of the organisation. Loc and Crawford (2004) further argue that the culture in Hong Kong as their relative high power distance preference and where Confucian values can make significant influence on the organisational culture. Confucian values are often associated with obedience, respect of authority and loyalty and Leadership. For example, the leaders and senior management of the Hong Kong firms make important decisions. Owners and leaders are on top of any senior management bureaucratic structure in these firms. Direction and orders tend to be top-down and there is little delegation and empowerment. On the contrary, this is generally the reverse in western firms. Both US and Australia are relatively low power distance countries and values of democracy, equalitarianism and participation are more prevalent. In the US and Australia, authority is legitimised more on performance and merit. There is greater delegation and decentralisation of decision-making and control. (Loc and Crawford, 2004).

Thus on the basis of this study on differences between Chinese and Australian cultures in power distance, control, decision making and governance, it can be predicted that national cultures can influence the firm's organisational culture and leadership style along with their level of job satisfaction and motivation in an organisation.


2.6. Motivation, Leadership Style & Organisation Performance Motivation is also grounded in a sound understanding of culture. The way in which manager motivates employees in one culture is often different from that which will be used in other culture. According to Appelbaum (1998) the biggest challenge for management is to have their change initiatives supported by the employees of the organisation. These change initiatives are likely to encounter serious resistance from various levels in the organisation, and especially middle management. Appelbaum (1998) further state that at the individual level, it has been argued that the organisation members willingness to buy into a culture of change can be facilitated by applying the principles of behaviour modification. These principles, derived from operant conditioning concepts, are not applicable to all behaviour modification attempts. In designing jobs, organisations have to assess individuals capabilities to adapt to change (Appelbaum, 1998). For example, it has been advanced that the degree to which individuals will translate organisational change initiatives into higher performance achievement is related to their locus of control. Since internally oriented individuals (internal locus) believe that their own actions determine outcomes, internals are more likely to take an active position with respect to their environment. Externals (external locus), in contrast, may adopt a passive role (Kren, 1992).

The ability of any organisation to motivate individuals, whether they have an external or internal locus of control, to superior levels of performance is closely related to their reward systems. Therefore, strategic organisational change efforts must establish that different types of rewards which are offered to employees who might have quite a different attitude set towards organisational change.

To implement a new organizational vision and strategic organizational change, it has been suggested that organizations should undergo transformational change. By transformational (change) we mean areas in which alteration is likely caused by interaction with environmental forces and will require entirely new behavior sets from organizational members (Burke and Litwin, 1992). For senior teams of organizations, it will require the different leadership style and strategies that will lead to superior organizational performance. 2.6. a) Motivation and Leadership Style According to Kell and Carrot (2005) states that corporate cultures influence employees' leadership styles more than any other aspect of their jobs.

Conditions are ever changing in the business organisations today, people change, and processes change. Even the cultures need to change. For the ever-changing environment, the leadership needs to be flexible in order to implement these changes into the organisation to motivate employee and increase performance.

Participative leadership. A participative leadership style can have an positive affect on employees expectancies, instrumentalities, and valences. This leadership style occurs through eliciting members ideas and opinions and encouraging participation in management and decision-making. Allowing subordinate to participate actively in decision-making is likely to increase their knowledge of what is expected of them in terms of their performance and what rewards and support might be attained from exerting extra effort. It also provides employee a clearer understanding of the ways to receive various rewards and for identifying the rewards they value most. Further, by allowing subordinate to provide input into problem solving, they may be more motivated to resolve problems affecting the organisation. A participative leadership style, which is a key management practice in strategic alliances and relational exchange arrangements, should be associated with higher levels of motivation because of employees beliefs that a high level of effort will lead to desirable outcomes.

Involvement in decision-making also increases the perception of control a subordinate in performing distribution tasks. Bucklin (1973) indicates that when a leader does not allow other member to have input into marketing programs, the ability of member to adjust to the individual needs of their customers is impaired. Hence, a participative channel environment that encourages employees


to influence decisions that affect their status in the channel may produce a highly motivated management system (Schul et al., 1985). According to Mehta (2003) research shows that participative leadership style and motivation in organisational behaviour and management allowing subordinates to participate in decision-making leads to increased motivation (e.g. Kohli, 1985; Mitchell, 1973; Teas, 1981, 1982; Tyagi, 1982, 1985).

Supportive leadership. A supportive leadership style can be motivational to the extent that it causes the initiation, intensity, and persistence of work related behaviours in subordinates. Thus, a supportive leader is perceived as displaying feelings of trust, encouraging the development of close, mutually satisfying relationships, and creating a favourable atmosphere for interaction. Further, he or she not only recognizes, but also is responsive to subordinate needs by offering support (thus enhancing their expectancy, instrumentality, and valence estimates). This is likely to result in an increase in the level of effort employee exert on various distribution tasks associated with the products or services of the leader. According to House and Dessler (1974) suggests that supportive leadership behaviour is associated with higher levels of motivation (Evans, 1974; Tyagi, 1982, 1985).

Directive leadership. A directive leadership style can be an effective means to plan, organize, coordinate, and maintain control over the work-related activities of subordinates. Established through formalization, the institutionalization of explicit rules and operating procedures to govern organisation activities in which leaders can use to structure the performance of distribution tasks (Dwyer and Oh, 1987; John, 1984). When employee engage in ambiguous or unstructured tasks, they might feel that by following explicitly stated guidelines of the leader who usually has more expertise and knowledge about products they may be more successful in attaining overall performance objectives. That is, by adhering to codified rules and regulations, employee should have adequate knowledge regarding what they are to do and how to perform these distribution tasks. To the extent that the rewards are consistent with their needs and expectations, and employee exert a higher level of effort.

3.2. Summary of Selected Research Methods It was decided that a case study method was the most appropriate for use in this study. In order to offer a valid, triangulated argument, the use of documentation evidence was used extensively with support from two semi-structured interviews. There were four organisations that were analysed extensively and their culture change programmes were evaluated with reference to established culture change models. 4. Results and Analysis 4.1. Changing Corporate Culture in the Hospitality Industry

Research conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2002) analyzed culture change within the hospitality industry. The data was collected in the UK between December 1999 and July 2000. It utilized three forms of data collection methods; in-depth interviewers, document analysis and observation. The four organizations that were studied were International five-start hotel chain, a national four-star hotel operator and two national restaurants and wine bar groups. 4.2. Level of Invention

Their data analysis highlighted three areas that are of particular interest in the context of this study. The first issue analyses the level to which culture change can occur. Schein (1992) identified three levels of culture; basic assumptions, values and artefacts. The study found that there were specific industry factors that prevented the changing of a culture at the deepest, basic assumption level. This is consistent with the findings of Wilson (2001) highlighted in the literature review. The level to which a


company targets its culture change inventions id related to the conduciveness of critical industry characteristics. The interviews from all four organizations indicated that a certain aspects of working in the hospitality industry, e.g. working conditions and terms of employment, put up a barrier that stopped deeper level cultural transformation. High staff turnover and pay were highlighted as the two most important and influential factors in preventing deeper cultural change. A director of one of the organizations commented that;

In terms of culture change, the big problem weve got is staff. Weve had all sorts of changes pushed through There are basically new issues every three months. Well these changed are good but they do not get through to the right people. If we have 150 staff in a unit, 100 of them would only have been with us for three months. Its just the industry. There as also significant evidence to show that a lack of pay has a negative impact on the

commitment of the workforce. Is they perceive that they are not getting paid enough then they are unlikely to willingly embrace culture change. This opinion is expressed by a front-line worker in the four-star hotel group;

In this business they pay you peanuts but they expect you to give the best service to people. They have to be realistic. Nobody is going to work their socks off if the companies dont give a damn about giving people decent wages. A senior manager from the four-star hotel group who had just completed a culture change

course run by outside consultants was unimpressed with the interpretive argument that suggests that culture change can only be said to have occurred, if there is deep-rooted change to the basic assumptions of the workforce. He argued that all he wanted was for his staff to create the impression that this new culture was prevailing;

Happiness, friendliness, smiling; all false cultures thats what our customers like to see. Away from the real world, they come here to experience relation, leisure and entertainment. We try to create the ambience so we encourage our staff to perform and generate those feelings in front of the customers. It is therefore evident from this research, that the level at which planned culture changes are

aimed will have an effect on their perceived success. This argues therefore, that you can change the artefacts of an organization, which will in turn impact employee behavior. Whether this constitutes a culture change will be discussed in depth later in the study. 4.3. Should the Management of Culture be Formalized?

The second element of the research that is relevant to this study is the issue of whether the management of culture should be a formulized process. It was evident that all of the four companies involved in the study utilized management techniques that were consistent with the established culture change models. An emphasis was placed on training, rewards, communication, recruitment and selection and internal promotion policies. However, many of the subjects that were interviewed from the four-star hotel chain were unimpressed at the amount of senior management involvement in the culture change process. A typical response was;

Sometimes they roll out a program and you think, why are they doing this? Why didnt they talk to me first? What is the thought process behind this? What do they hope to get out of it? I think its a case of we need to do something and somebody gets on to it. In contrast, the research found that the other three companies adopted less conventional

approaches to the management of the culture. Two of the organizations adopted an approach that was more ad hoc and the other company utilized an approach that Ogbonna and Harris (2002) refer to as being organic. The as hoc method centered on the culture change management techniques being introduced when and if it was deemed necessary by the unit level managers who were closer to the ground, so to speak, that top-level management. The interview comments support this approach;


We are treated as an autonomous unit. They (head office) formulate the overall strategy of the group and we are given some freedom to make these work at a local level As far as managing our culture is concerned, we think we understand our employees and our customers better than people from head office. We know how to get our people to give the best to the customers. When you think about it, this is really the only thing that the central office should be concerned with. The organic approach entailed employees outlining a number of beliefs and values, which they

believed were central to the success of the organisation. The local managers then interpreted this and developed them in congruence with the local community. Managers were empowered to adapt the company to the needs of the local environment. This proved successful and the interviews showed that it was a popular method;

It is quite dynamic because people are free. We encourage our manager to run the business as though they owned them. If something is your own you do your damn best to make it successful The research showed that this process had the best support from the front-line employees and

the local management. There was hostility to organization-wide culture change initiatives that came directly from senior management. Empowerment received notable support. 4.4. How Changes are Made

The research indicates that changes to culture can be made either as part of a discontinuous or a continuous strategy. The former, which was found to be operating in two of the organizations, sees culture interventions as being periodic and at predetermined points in time. The following comment by a manager in the five-star group underlines the rationale of this approach;

We usually have a great idea every twelve months or so. When we do, we implement it and wait for the next good idea. The continuous approach considers culture adaptation as an ongoing process that is

incorporated into every management action. The alignment of culture and strategy is viewed as an ongoing and incremental process. Numerous interview comments highlighted this;

We see culture as an ongoing thing We have a group of people at head office whose primary responsibility is to develop new programmers. We always strive to build on what we have done before. We are given a new change programme every three months or soEach programme builds on the one before; this gives us an opportunity to improve things and it helps to make the system more efficient. Ogbonna and Harris (2002) make a series of conclusions that stem their research into culture

change in the hospitality industry. Firstly, they again argue strongly that industry specific characteristics will be an important factor in how successful a culture change program will be. They continue to argue that their research has uncovered numerous examples of structural/strategy changes, which have helped to improve organizational performance. They also highlight and dispute the pessimistic argument, which questions whether these changes actually constitute a genuine culture change. They state that the evidence from the four organizations appears to support the realist argument. They continue to argue that change should be viewed, conceptualized and modeled as a continuum rather than as a dichotomous event. they call for culture frameworks to incorporate many potential outcomes regarding not only the degree and depth of change, but also how it is diffused. 4.5. Case Study Analysis

The thesis will now analyze case studies of four International organizations that have claimed to have purposefully and successfully initiated program of cultural change. A brief overview of the companies


and their culture change programm will be given, followed by an in-depth analysis centering on the super-ordinate research question of this study. 4.5.1. NISSAN Case Study Nissan as an organisation has its origins in Japan at the start of the twentieth Century. By the beginning of the Second World War it had become the second biggest automobile manufacturer in Japan. After initial problems at the end of the war, the company grew rapidly and in 1955 they embarked on a joint venture in the United Kingdom and by the early 1960s they had achieved break through success in the USA. By the end of the decade, Nissan exported 26% of its total production. As the growth of the company increased, the future President, Tukata Kume identified that there was a problem due to the extra layers in the chain command. Communication in the organization was deteriorating and this was causing the decisions by top management to become seemingly inaccurate. In response, the organization introduced new rules and regulations, which upset the workforce because it added extra bureaucracy to the system. Similarly at the same time, there were significant labor difficulties, with the organization taking a tough stance on the trade unions. Strikes occurred which served to highlight the difficulties that they were facing. In 1972, Nissan began to experience declining, market share, which many people close to the company attributed to the internal problems that they were prevalent in the organization. The corporate culture then came under intense scrutiny, as many believed that it had become too bureaucratic and autocratic. Therefore the question was then posed as to whether the culture could be changed to boost the performance of the organization.

Yukata Kume then assumed the role of President in June 1985 ad set about trying to change the ailing culture of the organization. He immediately sanctioned a task force called the Product Market Strategy Group (PMSG) whose objective was to change the atmosphere at the Technical centre of the company. They tried to achieve this by encouraging delegation of authority and responsibility. Similarly, they encouraged lower management to communicate more directly with them and to question rules and procedures. By January 1986, the companies research and development department officially embarked on a program of organizational change. Managers were put in charge of a single car model as opposed to the three or four that was current standard practice. This gave the employees a more focused approach by narrowing down their sphere of operations. Further ideas were implemented that were similarly designed to change the culture. Rewards were offered to employees that out forward interesting and innovative ideas and all indications of rank were removed from the company uniforms. Then subsequently, uniforms themselves were made optional in the hope that this would aid creativity. Flex-time was then introduced, which again was another management technique that was designed to change the culture and foster creativity and innovation. A Challenge Creation Club was similarly established which provided employees with a social forum through which they could generate and share ideas. Kume then developed what he referred to as a new corporate philosophy where he identified four main principles;

We must keep in touch with the global market, creating attractive products through our innovative and reliable technology. We must be sensitive to customers needs and offer them maximum satisfaction based on steadfast sincerity and ceaseless efforts to meet their requirements. We must focus on global trends, making the world the stage for our activities and to nurture a strong company that will grow with the times. We must foster the development of an active and vital group of people who are ready and willing at all times to take on the challenge of achieving new goals. A new division called the Product Market Strategy Division (PMSD) was formed to help the

planned changes come into fruition. They oversaw a reorganization of the organization, which centered on the integration of certain departments and the management of the power struggles that existed between the different factions. Kume himself then personally made visits and speeches to different plants to communicate his new vision of the company. Departments were then given ten-fold increase in the amount of money that they were directly in control of without interference from the


headquarters. In return, the individual departments had to develop a management control system, which allowed for them to monitor issues such as quality, delivery and costing. At the Zama Plant, between 1985, (when the system was introduced) and 1988, costs decreased by twenty percent, quality increased by seventy percent and delivery time decreased by seventy percent.

There were two further specific changes that were made by the organization, which may have had a bearing on the implementation of Kumes vision. Firstly, the interdepartmental rotation of employees was started and the promotion and reward packages were focused on performance as opposed to seniority, as had been the case is the past. This was done to encourage action-orientation and to drive employees to a high level of performance.

A further example of Nissans drive for change occurred when they attempted to design a car that was aimed at younger customers. A young management team and a young design team were tasked with designing a car that they would want to buy. This process was carried out with complete autonomy with no interference from senior management. There was a de-centralization of the decision making process, which again underlined the changes that Nissan had initiated. Kume himself left the final decision of which design would go into production to those who had directly worked on the project. This highlighted the break from a top-down bureaucratic structure. Kume himself commented that;

Six years have passes and I believe we are now about halfway through this process of changing the corporate culture, I think it may take another six years to finish the job Takashi Hisatomi, the manager of the Product Market Strategy Office, interestingly pointed out

that they had initially used crisis as a way of motivating change. Now the crisis was over he predicted that further changing the culture would prove much harder.

After experiencing a steady decline in their domestic market share for some years, Nissan experienced a small rise between 1988 and 1989 from 23.6% to 23.7%. In the same period, their US market share rose from 4.8% to 5.2%. More impressively, between 1987 and 1990, their net income rose from $165 million to $940 million. 4.5.2. Case Study Two: British Airways British Airways was for a long period a nationalized institution. After it became privatized, it found that its political influence dropped significantly as it became exposed to increased competition. In September 1981, Roy Watts the Chief Executive warned the organization that it faced a severe crisis. It was projected that the company was going to total losses over hundred and fifty million pounds over the next two-year periods. The culture in the organization was very militaristic in nature and due to the sheer amount of pilots, especially those that had come from an Armed forces background. This is best demonstrated by the name of the managements control centre at the headquarters; the Senior Managers Mess. In January 1983, Colin Marshall took over as chief executive and he immediately started to make changes within the organization, initially this was not well received as internal conflict became fierce as people tried to resist the changes. Marshall argued however that the organization was too inward looking and there needed to be more of a focus on the customer. One of the first changes he made was to take all symbols of rank off uniforms and office doors because he argued that these were acting as symbols of achievement, when they showed nothing of the sort. There was distinct attempt to move beyond this militaristic culture. He recognized that how the customer perceived their service was critical to their success. Between 1983 and 1987 a training program called Putting People First was put into effect. This was designed and co-ordinate by Time Manager International, who were an outside consultancy firm. Cabin crew were empowered and encouraged to use their initiative more when unforeseen situations occurred. Marshall himself was present at a vast majority of the training program to add impetus to the process. He argued forcefully that it was better to make a decision and get it wrong than not to make a decision at all. He personally spent time speaking to as many employees as possible so that he could listen to their grievances and any suggestions that they had. The


program was soon extended beyond just the customer facing employees to the rest of the members of the organization.

The traditional top-down, hierarchical structure that BA had always had was now seen as counter-productive in the quest for success. A program called Managing People First was introduced which was a five-day course for all of the 1400 BA managers. When Marshall had taken over control of the company he had fired 66 senior managers because of their incompatibility to his new strategic and culture vision. The course was designed to advise managers how to train and be supportive of their subordinates. They were instructed to empower them by delegating responsibility down the chain of command. Everybody needed to understand the vision of the organization and know what their place was within that framework. This was coupled with the implementation of a reward system that was based on performance indicators. A new corporate logo was designed and the airplanes were re-furbished. This was all due to the need to boost their service in the eyes of consumer. If the employees were contented and felt as if they were both trusted and needed, then this theoretically should be transferred to the customer. The economic indicators proved beyond doubt that British Airways achieved enhanced performance for a sustained period after the implementation of their change program. However it was interestingly noted by Mike Bruce, that the British people were naturally very individualistic in nature and it would take a crisis to bring them together and share values. After the crisis had passes, the organizations improvements leveled off and they found I difficult to put more emphasis back into the program of culture change. 4.5.3. Case Study Three: BAHCO BAHCO are a Swedish based tools and equipment manufacturer that were experiencing severe losses towards the middle of 1983. As a result, a new managing director, Anders Lindstrom, was appointed and his arrival had a remarkable impact on the fortunes of the organization. By the end of the year, losses had fallen from twenty million to seven million pounds and by the end of 1985, the company registered profits of twenty million pounds. Lindstrom had had a history of turning around ailing companies and he stated that his method was to analyse the history of an organization and work out why and how it had got into predicament. By using this knowledge he then implemented turnaround strategies. He argues that the organization was over-stretched due to the vast out-sourcing of manufacturing that had occurred. It was also highlighted that many of the separate entities did not work efficiently together. He started that their styles, perspectives and behaviors were all different. He then set about trying to resolve this streamlining the organization and separating those national cultures that did not work productively together.

He started by cutting the number of employees who worked in the headquarters from 75 to 15 within his first month and then proceeded to improve the communication channels with the organization. He held a defining meeting, which was later called the coffee table talk. It was videoed so that all members of the organization could view it and 5000 pamphlets were made and distributed throughout the organization. The full transcript of the text can be found appendix 7. He explained that everybody within the organization must work hard to turn this situation around. He similarly encouraged team-work and idea generation from all levels of the organization. It was also essential that the issue of redundancy was handled in an affective way. They town where the organization was based was very reliant on the company for employment. Lindstrom commented that it would be folly to promote the concept of trust and teamwork and then lay off 26% of the workforce with no regard. As a result all were found new employment by a variety of means and the only eight individuals that could not, were kept on at the company. The new managing director now had the trust, respect and loyalty of the workforce. Many employees who appeared enthusiastic about the company and offered good and innovative ideas were subsequently promoted which sent out a clear signal to the rest of the organization. Lindstrom then ordered that every department in the organization to produce a new product by the end of 1983. This was designed to galvanize the innovation that he believed was there but was being stifled. This proved very successful and morale within all departments was reported to


have risen dramatically. Some of the new designs even won awards, which again gave the organization desire and belief.

1984 was declared the year of sales and Lindstrom instructed all heads of departments and the outsourcing companies to spend an extra ten per cent of their time actually going into the field and speaking to the customers. Again competitions were started to see which section could generate the most sales. Rewards were again linked to these internal competitions. Lindstrom then encouraged more travel between plants and departments so that they could learn from each other and further generate ideas. By the end of 1984, BAHCO were ten million pounds in profit.

The next phase of Lindstroms plan was to make 1985 the year of ideas. This was done so that the creativity and innovation could be further enhanced. No ideas were deemed stupid and all of them were considered. Lindstrom drew on stories such as the telephone being rejected by the US patent office and the announcement in 1915 that no further automobile innovation was possible. It became policy to respond to all suggestions within a week and if they were used rewards were tailored suitability. An extra months wages were not uncommon and in some cases a years extra salary was given for excellent ideas. By the middle of 1985, three hundred and twenty implement-able ideas had been utilized, which had significant impact on improving the performance of the organization. The year of ideas was a great success and by the end of it, the company registered twenty million pounds in profit. Therefore within two years the organization had gone from being twenty million pounds in debt, to twenty million pounds in profit. 4.5.4. Case Study Four: ICI Britains Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) was formed in 1926 through the merger of the four largest chemical companies in the United Kingdom. The company played an important role in Britains war effort by supplying, munitions, light metals and guns. It similarly helped in the development of polythene, which became a component in radar, which helped the Britain repel the threat from mainland Europe. As a result of this, and due to its sheer size, it had fundamental links to the British government. However during the 1950s the company started to go into decline. Large American and German producers performed significantly better eroding the market share of ICI. The situation deteriorated throughout the 1960s as a condition in their home market worsened. The 1970s saw the British economy suffer from low growth rates, high inflation and increased labor demands. It has also been noted that the strength of the Pound between 1979 and 1982 was particularly harmful to the companys exports. The organization was criticized for being too bureaucratic and failing to recognize and exploit new opportunities. It was governed by traditional values and mechanisms that were not adaptive to changing business environments.

Sir John Harvey-Jones, as he now is, assumed his role as Chairman in 1982. Having been a member of the board for a number of years he knew the organization very well and recognized its failing. He then set about trying to implement what he perceived as the necessary change. He realized that the ICI culture was very dated and did not facilitate the strategic direction that the company needed to take. He firstly made it easier for people to challenge the opinions of the boards by erecting a board where members could make their point without having to directly challenge the board. Similarly at this time there were environmental conditions that made the need for change more urgent and desirable. The Thatcher government had made it more socially acceptable to make changes at an industrial level. This was coupled with the weakness of the trade union movement due to the policies of the Conservative government. Similarly, the recession in the country made the crisis the company was in more visible, prompting the board to take a more favorable attitude towards change. Harvey-Jones proposed that the organization should become more market driven as opposed to being product driven, as was the case at the time. He firstly restructured the role of the board making members more collectively responsible for the organization as a whole, as opposed to them all championing the causes of their own particular sections. He then directed that divisional heads should be given more power and freedom to run their operations. He formed nine world-wide business unite of which four were


headquartered outside the UK. This decentralization made the organization more adaptable to the changes and differences in the world-wide markets. Harvey-Johns then streamlined both the board and made meetings far less informal by abolishing arranged seating and making the dress code far less official. The number of people operating out of head office was also reduced from twelve hundred to four hundred. This was done to improve communication by reducing the layers in the chain of command. Responsibility was further devolved out to the division at this time.

The Chairman continued to restructure the organization by merging different parts of the company to significantly reduce costs. This was done so that they could acquire new operations around the world, thus increasing their international presence. This greater diversification left then less exposed to economic downturns. As a consequence, Harvey-Jones had to reduce the organization UK workforce by twenty-five percent. This was done sensitively by using early retirement schemes, outplacement and re-training program supported by generous severance payments. The morale of the workforce remained strong as those that left were trained fairly and those that stayed were in a very strong and stable organization. The feelings towards Harvey-Jones were summed up by an employee;

He as able to have a very clear focus for people to identify with. Its very important that people identify with the objectives and purpose that are being enunciated by the chairman. The identification with Harvey-Jones was almost at a personal level. Employees did not think of him as a chairman so much as they thought as him as the leader-and a guy they could respect- because he was able to relate to all the people. It is therefore evident that the changes at ICI did have a positive impact on the performance of

the company. In 1989, profit before tax was a record for the organization, standing at one thousand four hundred and seventy million pounds. 4.6. Congruence with Culture Change Models

It is evident from analyzing the case study that there were significant congruence between what occurred in these organizations and the theories of culture change put forward by Lewin (1951), Lundberg (1985), Dyer (1985), Schein (1985) and Gagliardi (1986). One will now methodically demonstrate the evidence that brings one to this conclusion. 4.6.1. Perception of a Crisis The culture change models were united in their belief that culture change is born out of the perception of a crisis. Lundberg (1985) describes this as precipitating pressures and triggering events. like wide, Dyer (1985) also refers to triggering events in his framework. Lewin (1951) argued that management would initiate culture change program after a negative appraisal of organizational performance. Similarly, Schein (1985) refers directly to the fact that, desire for change is fuelled by a perception that the organization is experiencing a crisis. Gagliardi (1986) also stated that change is fostered by the feelings of failure that can exist within companies.

It is evident that the four organizations that were analyzed were experiencing a crisis when they proposed their cultural change program. Nissan were experiencing significant difficulties with their labor force and trade union movement. This was very uncharacteristic for a Japanese organization at that time, as they traditionally had always had very good relations between all layers of the hierarchy within their companies. This was coupled with deterioration in the communication channels within the organization. British Airways also faced severe problems after it was privatized in the early 1980s. It was predicted that the company would lose two hundred and fifty million pounds between 1981 and 1983, which would amount to the worst crisis in the companys history. BAHCO, were also suffering from vast financial difficulties in the middle of 1983. Their recorded losses for the year preceding that date registered twenty million pounds. This was similarly a very critical time for the organization as they faced going out of business unless the situation was rectified. The situation at ICI was more gradual in nature but it still brought the organization into crisis. The strength of the Pound impacted the competitiveness of their exports, low growth rates in the British economy, coupled with high inflation


and increased labor demands made the home market less stable. These factors occurring simultaneously forced the organization to take action. We can therefore deduce that the first condition, outlined by the researcher4s, necessary for culture change has been met y the four studied organizations. 4.6.2. The Role of Leadership It was once again evident from analyzing the objectivist literature, that the role of the leadership is critical to the successful management of a culture program. Kotter and Heskett (1992) argued that the Primary role of any leader is to implement change. Dyer (1985) in his analysis proposes that without new leader or leadership team, coupled with a crisis, culture change is not possible. Lundberg (1985) describes how leaders have the responsibility to engage in cultural visioning and to implement action plans that will attain the vision. Dyer (1985) argues that new leadership has to come into place to bring a new set of assumptions and beliefs to the organization, thus rectifying the crisis. The leadership also has to manage the conflict that inevitably comes with widespread organizational change. Schein (1985) places significant responsibility on the leadership to guide the company through the tree stages of organizational development that he identified. Without visionary leadership, significant culture changes will not occur.

The four case studies indicated that new leadership was sought in each instance to get the organizations out of their perceived crisis. When Kume took control of Nissan he devised a new corporate philosophy that outlined four principles for taking the company forward. This is an example of cultural visioning (Lundberg, 1985) or the bringing of a new set of assumptions and beliefs (Dyer, 1985) to the organization. Colin Marshall at British Airways, communicated his vision to the rest of the organization, but it was not well received. He then had the task of managing the conflict that was created by his strategy. This is consistent with what Dyer (1985) advised was the likely outcome of any new proposed cultural change. This view is supported by Senge, (1990) who commented that people are likely to resist changes to their reality. When Anders Lindstrom became managing director at BAHCO he relayed his cultural vision to the entire organization by using videos and pamphlets. He recognized the need to open up the communication channels within the organization. He also recognized that this should start from the top; with himself. Similarly, Harvey Jones on taking control at ICI,recognized that many of the old pattern maintenance symbols (Dyer, 1985) needed replacing because they were stifling success. He realized that the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy were self-defeating and set about changing and streamlining tem. Predictably there was conflict, in an organization that had been referred to in the past as a British Institution, this was inevitable. However, he utilized appropriate leadership sills to enforce the necessary changes.

The evidence then supports the premise that having a new leader or leadership team is the best or perhaps the only way of truly achieving culture change within an organization. 4.6.3. Changing the Artefacts of Culture The evidence clearly indicates that all of the four organizations analyzed for the purpose of this study, changed what Schein (1985) described as the Artefacts of the organization. These are the visible elements of an organizations culture, which help to shape the behavior patterns of the individual members. A number of management techniques that are consistent with the established culture change theory, identified in the literature review, were utilized (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002). The organizations encouraged greater communication between the lower and upper levels of management. Nissan, British Airways and Bahco all introduced a reward system that recognized creativity and innovation from all levels of the company. There was a real focus on idea generation. The research also showed the companies shifting away from formality and rigid hierarchies. Uniforms were changed and the important of rank was taken out of everyday organizational life. The organizational structures of the companies were also manipulated to create more open, de-centralized and less bureaucratic hierarchies. Restructuring was advocated by Beer et al, (1993) who argued that it was the most successful way to


change a corporate culture, because of its ability to change working practices and relationships within the company. ICI appear to have utilized restructuring to the highest degree. Some theorists would argue that this therefore does not constitute a genuine culture change. One would argue however that the structure is an artefact of the organization and therefore changing it is does impact the culture to some degree. Promotion and redundancy were also used as a way of enforcing the new cultural order. All these changes to the Artefacts level of the organization, helped the organizations to enhance their performance.

It was also evident that the analyzed organizations passed through the various stages of the culture change models. For example, Nissan quite clearly had a perceived crisis, which was followed by a breakdown in pattern-maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures. The new leader then came into place, bringing with him a new set of assumptions and a new philosophy. Kume managed the conflict that ensued and the result was the establishment of the new cultural order. This was then sustained by the formation of new pattern-maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures. Therefore it is evident from the research that what Nissan experienced at the time of change was consistent with Dyers (1985) cycle of cultural evolution.

Similarly, British Airways cultural change was consistent with the Lewinian model (1951). There was an unfreezing process when the organization was faced with the prospect of the worst crisis in its history. It downsized and introduced structural changes and training to support the unfreezing process. Then the organization evolved through the change phase, again by a high level of training and the introduction of a reward system to facilitate the needed changes. The refreezing process occurred with the development of a new performance appraisal system and a new performance based compensation system. The British Airways uniforms and planes were updated and refurbished respectively to further cement the new cultures in place.

It is evident from the research that there are a lot of similarities between the culture change models. The breaking down of pattern maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures in Dyers model (1985) is very similar to the unfreezing stage of the Lewinian model (1951). This can also be likened to the triggering events; that Lundberg (1985) describes. The situation at BAHCO and at ICI can also be directly linked to the culture change models. There are striking similarities between the patterns of events that occurred within these companies. BAHCOs transformation is strongly congruent with Lundbergs organizational cycle of culture change (1985). The organization experienced external enabling conditions, internal permitting conditions and precipitating pressures. The new leader Lindstrom, engaged in cultural visioning and evoked action plans to translate the vision into reality. ICI used a lot of restructuring to change the relationships and working practices within the organization. There are also great similarities between the situation at ICI and Lundbergs organizational learning cycle (1985). The same enabling and permitting conditions were present and Harvey-Jones similarly constructed a cultural vision, which he translated primarily by utilizing a restructuring action plan. One would also argue that the incremental culture change process abdicated by Gagliardi (1986) is also relevant in the case of ICI. Due to the size and history of the organization, radical and swift culture change was never likely. The process took a number of years ad was enacted in distinct stages.

The research therefore indicates hat the four organizations that were studied, did follow the theories of culture change that have been put forward by leading academics. There was distinct and definite congruence between the models of culture change and the process that occurred within these companies. This then leads one back to the super-ordinate research question of this study. 4.7. The Super-Ordinate Research Question

It is clear evident that all of the organizations that were studied,utilised management techniques that successfully contributed to them enhancing their performance. However, does this constitute a culture change? One will now refer to the super-ordinate research question for this study; Can corporate cultures be changes to facilitate enhanced organizational performance. If one takes an objectivist


(Senior,1997) and an optimistic (Ogbonna and Harris 2002) stance, then the answer would be a definite yes. the research indicated that the organizations recognized that their cultures were no longer supportive of their strategy, so they sought to change them. They utilised a variety of management techniques, which were consistent with sound culture change principles. The results of those changes were more de-centralized, autonomous organizations that appeared to have an increased commitment from their workforces. This is consistent with the research conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2002). Similarly, the performance of the companies improved significantly at the time when the changes were initiated. This evidence points to the fact that it is possible to change and manipulate a corporate culture to enhance organizational performance.

However, if one adopts an interpretive or a pessimistic approach, then it could be argued that a deliberate culture change has not occurred within these organizations at all. What has been evident is that the visible levels of culture have indeed been adapted or changed. However, this does not constitute a complete cultural change as it is out of the bounds of managerial achievements to change the basic assumptions of those members of an organization. These assumptions are preconscious and therefore out of reach of management techniques. Culture is too complex an entity to manipulate purposefully. There are too many independent factors that governs it and management have only the ability to control a few. The reason that the organizations experienced economic growth in the period after the changes has been made was due to a number of factors. The perceived crisis that bestowed them made them realize that they needed to improve operationally in order to survive and then subsequently prosper. The reason for the crisis was mix of internal failures and external environmental conditions. The organizations then made structural and internal changes, which appeared to improve how they operated. This in turn enhanced their organizational performance. However, from this perspective, this still does not constitute a purposeful and successful cultural change. This is a strategic success but it was not born out of purposefully changing the culture.

One would argue however that both of these polarized arguments are too static and rigid in nature to offer a full and comprehensive explanation of the complex situation that occurred within these organizations. There is evidence that the use of certain management techniques had a positive effect on how the company operated, which subsequently led to them enhancing their performance. Therefore it could be argued that a level of purposeful culture change occurred. However, there is no evidence of any meaningful culture change at a deeper level. As a result, the crutch of the argument hinges on ones perspective of what constitutes culture and to what level it can be changed. it is evident that the theoretical discussion needs to progress beyond this point. We need to conceptualize organizational culture in a different manner.

One would also argue therefore that the realistic perspective that was outlined in the literature review (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002) provides a more balanced perspective on culture change, than either of the polarized objectivist or interpretive viewpoints. It allows us to view culture not from one perspective or the other, but from a fusion of the two. One would argue that the interpretive argument is too caught up in the theoretical discussion on the nature of culture, to be of use to a management practitioner. However, it doesnt provide those from the objectivist side of the argument with a credible foil to their optimistic assumption that all corporate cultures can be fully controlled and manipulated to enhance organization performance. One would argue that Ogbonna and Harris (2002) visualizing culture on a continuum is a very credible conceptualization. The actual ability to successfully change a culture lies at a point between those two polarized arguments.

Evidence from the case studies show that there are many factors within the organizations that have an influence over the development of culture. The degree of influence which each of these factors has, is still unclear, as they would have a greater or lesser impact depending on the type pf organization and the type of industry that one is operating in. this is consistent with the findings of Ogbonna and Harris (2002) and Wilson (2001) who commented that different industries have different cultural characteristics. One can take this argument to the next level by further drawing on the research presented by Hofstede (1991) and Trompenarrs (1993). As well as organizational and industry


differences there are also national and regional differenced. All the influences on corporate culture from both the internal and external environment all interact to strengthen or weaken the relative influence of each other. The strength and weakness of these factors is dependent on the nature of an organizations internal and external operating environments. From this viewpoint it becomes evident that an organizations ability to manage culture is dependent on numerous factors that are both controllable and uncontrollable. Each organizations ability to effectively manage culture change will vary significantly from each other. Some organizations will be more successful than others due to the nature of their organizations and their operating environment. Therefore returning to the super-ordinate research question, one would argue that it is possible to change an organizations culture to enhance organizational performance. The level to which this can be achieved is dependent on the organizations themselves and their operating environment. Having weight up the evidence from the literature and from the case studies, ones theoretical standpoint, which is critical to how the issue of organizational culture is viewed, would best be described as optimistic realism. one recognizes the complexity of culture, but the fact remains that the research shows that the artefacts and the patterns of behavior were changed within these companies, which enhanced organizational performance. One argues that this constitutes a deliberate culture change. Admittedly there has been little evidence of a culture change on a deeper level. The fundamental assumptions and beliefs of the individual members of the organizations most probably remains the same. However, as one stated previously, the issue is the level to which culture change can occur, and not whether the process is itself possible or not. 4.8. Implication for International Organizations

The research has shown that there are many facets to organizational culture and many influences on it. The work by Hofstede (1991) and Trompenarrs (1993) highlighted that there are large differenced that exist between national cultures. A national culture can then manifest itself within the corporate cultures of organizations that operate within that country. The modes of societal conduct that exist within the Japanese national culture and in their corporate sector are a good example of this process. It is therefore essential that International organizations recognize and understand the importance of culture and how it can impact organizational life. The research showed that different organizations will find culture change more or less easy to implement, dependent on both internal and external conditions that they face. Truepennies (1993) argued that different cultures will suit different types of organizations better. He cites the Eiffel Tower culture and its tendency to e found in bureaucratic organizations with a strict division of labor and specific jobs and tasks, as an example of this. One would therefore argue that International organizations that have operations in numerous countries, will find it harder to change the culture in certain countries due to the influence of the national culture. What the research also interestingly showed, was that although corporate cultures all differ from one another, the method by which they are changed do not. The culture change models appear to be universal in nature. This study analyzed organizations from the UK, Sweden and Japan. It was evident that there were distinct similarities in the pattern of events that occurred during the culture change processes. This brings one to the conclusion that although it may be easier for certain organizations to change their culture, the methods for doing so are applicable across the entire International Business environment. The study also indicated that regardless of the type of corporate culture that existed pre change, the desired culture was similarly universal for all of the studied organizations. This leads the analysis onto what constitutes a desirable culture. 4.9. Adaptive Vs Un-adaptive Cultures - Research conducted by Kotter and Heskett (1992)

The components of adaptive and un-adaptive cultures were described in the literature review. In this section one is going to analyze the research that Kotter and Heskett (1992) utilized to form their view. The research starts from the premise that only firms whose management care about all the key constituencies (customer, stockholders and employees) will be able to adapt successfully to the


changing business environment. The logic will strive for economic excellence over an extended experience. This however is only possible in a competitive industry if the customers are treated well and looked after. This in turn can only be achieved in a competitive labor market if those who serve the customers are themselves looked after - the employees.

The research looked at twenty- two organizations, eleven which were deemed as being high performers and eleven that were deemed low performers. The first question posed was How much does the culture value excellent leadership from its managers. The responses were on a scale from one (doesnt value leadership) to seven (highly values leadership0. The higher performing companys averaged 3.9, with the highest being 4.8. The full results from this can be viewed in Appendix 8. When the better performers were asked to describe which cultural traits helped them to do well in their business environment, the answer included leadership, entrepreneurship, prudent risk taking, candid discussions, innovation and flexibility. These factors are all associated with what would be constructed as an adaptive culture. Similarly, when the low performing organizations were asked to explain the reasoning behind their failing, too bureaucratic, emphasizing short-term and individuals concentrating on their own careers as opposed to collective goals were cited.

When asked what value the organizations placed on customers, the results were again conclusive. The higher performing organizations averaged a score of six once again, with the lowest score being 4.8. The lower-performing companies averaged 4.6. The same pattern repeated when value on stockholders were proposed. The higher performance firms averaged 5.7 and onl

Lidership Style

Documents

winds of change

cultural change

wind of change

significant change

initiated change

pace of change

islamabad pakistan email

nature of organizations