|
Article Excerpt
Change resides at the heart of leadership. Organizational culture is one of many situational variables that have emerged as pivotal in determining the success of leaders' efforts to implement change initiatives. This article introduces a process model of organizational change in cultural context ([OC.sup.3] Model) derived from ethnographic analysis. The model delineates the differential impact of organizational culture at every stage of change implementation. Eight stages of cultural influence are identified and illustrated. Research propositions are stated to encourage refinement of the model. Theoretical and practical implications for leadership are explored; applications for resolving organizational immunity to change are discussed.
Keywords: organizational culture; organizational change; leadership theory; sensemaking; process model; ethnography;
Purpose and Research Questions
The primary objective of this study was to model the interaction between organizational culture and change, delineating the ways in which a leader's knowledge of organizational culture affects the process of implementing change, and identifying the stages of the change process at which the interaction between organizational culture and change implementation holds functional significance. Many existing models of organizational change acknowledge the influence of tacit dimensions of organizational life at one or more stages of the change process (Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000; Burke, 2008; Demers, 2007; Wilkins & Dyer, 1988). These models reflect differing levels of granularity with respect to the process of effecting organizational change, and each recognizes distinctive stages of change implementation (By, 2005). The Model of Organizational Change in Cultural Context ([OC.sup.3] Model) introduced in this article was developed to reflect critical stages in the process of change implementation where organizational culture exerts differential influence.
The [OC.sup.3] Model was derived from an ethnographic study undertaken to investigate how organizational culture shapes the development and mediates the implementation and impact of change initiatives introduced by newly appointed leaders recruited from outside large, complex organizations. Research questions focused on (a) how knowledge of organizational culture is acquired by newly appointed leaders, (b) how cultural knowledge affects the process of change implementation, and (c) how tacit elements of organizational culture influence efforts to effect change. This article presents theoretical propositions of the [OC.sup.3] Model, positioning it within the context of existing conceptual and process models of organizational change and establishing an agenda for future research. Implications for leadership and organizational studies are explored.
Models of Organizational Change
Leadership scholars have studied organizational change from both conceptual and process perspectives. Conceptual approaches focus on the antecedents and consequences of change (the "what"); process views address roles and strategies required for implementation (the "how") (Burke, 2008, p. 154, emphasis in original).
Conceptual Models
Conceptual models of change concentrate on the content and magnitude of strategic initiatives, with particular emphasis on the cognitive mechanisms implicated in effecting intended outcomes. Golembiewski, Billingsley, and Yeager (1976) conceptualized three levels of change--alpha, beta and gamma--based on the degree to which individuals are required to modify their underlying cognitive mechanisms for assessing the behavioral outcomes of change initiatives. Other conceptual models of change emphasize the mental constructs that mediate sensemaking in organizations. These content theories of change invoke the notion of schemata (Bartunek & Moch, 1987) or theories-in-use (Argyris, 1976) as mental constructs functioning to focus attention, interpret experience, and assign meaning to events. In the context of organizational culture, these conceptual models of change draw attention to the importance of considering the extent to which a change agenda requires new strategies of sensemaking.
Bartunek and Moch's (1987) first, second, and third orders of change require increasing levels of examination with respect to tacit assumptions of meaning and decision making in organizational settings. The ability to surface and hold as object the underlying assumptions embedded in organizational culture is particularly important in third-order change, which requires the dynamic consideration of alternative systems of meaning, not just the substitution of a new perspective for an old one, as is sufficient for second-order change. Content models of change draw attention to the need for leaders to take into consideration the mental demands of affecting shifts in shared sensemaking embedded in organizational culture when charting a course for change because the ability to conceive and consider alternative perspectives is understood only at high levels of psychosocial development (Kegan, 1994).
Process Models
Process models of change designate the sequence of events necessary to effect organizational change, focusing more on the essential steps of implementation than on the conceptual tasks required. All process models bear homage to Lewin's (1947) classic three-stage model of change, denoting the essential progression through phases of unfreeze, change, and refreeze. Subsequent process models outline sequences of events that elaborate to varying degrees upon these essential underlying stages of change (Bate et al., 2000; By, 2005; Kotter, 1996; Luecke, 2003; Mintzberg & Westley, 1992; Reardon, Reardon, & Rowe, 1998). In his recent reprisal, Burke (2008) emphasized the role of leadership at each stage, adding a prelaunch phase focused on preparing an organization for the disruptive effects of change.
Process models of change have been categorized with respect to the underlying philosophical perspectives and definitions they embody, major underlying assumptions, and types of sensemaking that characterize each approach (de Caluwe; & Vermaak, 2003; Kezar, 2001; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Although the number of categories and labels in each classification scheme varies, five distinct process models have been distinguished: evolutionary (inevitable), teleological (planned), life cycle (maturational), political (strategic), and social cognitive (conceptual). Organizational culture is afforded differing roles and functional significance in each of these process models of change. Kezar (2001) reserved a sixth category of cultural change for process models specifically aimed at altering organizational culture. Process models of cultural change are now recognized by organizational theorists despite the fact that "the concept of culture was originally developed to explain permanence, not change" (Demers, 2007, p. 80).
Organizational Culture in Models of Organizational Change
Organizational culture has consistently emerged as a pivotal variable in determining the success of efforts to implement institutional change (Bate et al., 2000; Curry, 1992; Hercleuous, 2001; Wilkins & Dyer, 1988). Both conceptual and process models of organizational change have been modified to reflect the role of cultural dynamics in moderating leaders' efforts to influence the attitudes, norms, and behavior of followers in organizational settings. The ways in which organizational culture has been integrated into these models of change provides a context for understanding the research questions addressed in this study.
Organizational Culture in Conceptual Models of Change
Conceptually, Gagliardi's (1986) fan model of cultural change accounts for the differential effects of apparent, incremental, and revolutionary change on existing cultural tenets in organizations. Change initiatives approached from each of these strategic perspectives serve respectively to reinforce, extend, or essentially undermine existing basic assumptions and values implicated by the change initiatives. Cultural tenets lie at the heart of the strategies and modes of implementation adopted for introducing planned change, and they determine whether leaders can expect cultural assimilation, resistance, or modification as a result of their influence. Gagliardi's (1986) model draws attention to the importance of leaders' considering the deeper cultural implications of the strategies they adopt for introducing change initiatives into organizational settings.
Hatch's (2006) cultural dynamics model provides another conceptual framework for considering the cognitive impact of organizational culture on change implementation. Change is conceived within the cultural dynamics model as an ongoing cycle of interpretation by which individuals continually reinterpret events that enter the stream of cultural meaning from all levels within the organization: Four interpretive acts mediate the interactions among cultural elements, translating artifacts into symbols, symbols into basic assumptions, and basic assumptions into values that are in turn realized as artifacts. The interpretive acts that link these elements of culture are symbolization, implementation, manifestation, and realization, respectively (Hatch, 2000). Although the cultural dynamics model does not outline a sequential process of change implementation, it does offer an explanation for many of the underlying cognitive transformations at work within the sensemaking mechanisms implicated by efforts to implement organizational change.
Organizational Culture in Process Models of Change
With respect to process models of change, organizational culture has been incorporated by theorists who recognize the importance of accounting for tacit dimensions of sensemaking as moderating the impact of planned change. These models vary with respect to whether culture is identified as the target of the change initiative or merely serves as a context for affecting other strategic objectives.
The Burke-Litwin model illustrates an approach adopted by many process theorists for incorporating organizational culture into models of organizational change (Burke, 2008). Cultural factors function in this model as one of four dimensions influencing leadership, with systemic links to organizational performance, mission and strategy, and the external environment. Within this framework four phases are defined: prelaunch, launch, postlaunch, and sustaining the change. These phases encompass activities relating to leader self-examination, establishing and communicating need, clarifying vision, dealing with resistance, maintaining consistency and persistence, dealing with unanticipated consequences, sustaining momentum, and choosing successors. Organizational culture is conceptualized in this and other process models of change as one of many systemic factors affecting the context in which change is introduced.
The preceding review of content and process models of organizational change leaves open the question of whether cultural dynamics influence the process of effecting organizational change in a uniform manner or have a differential impact at each stage of implementation. This study was conducted to address this empirical question. Results suggest that organizational culture influences the process of effecting change differently at each stage of implementation. The [OC.sup.3] Model was developed to aid leaders, human resource professionals, and other change agents in anticipating and accounting for the impact of organizational culture at every stage the change implementation process.
Method
The target institution in this qualitative study of organizational change was a public research university ranked among the top 25 members of the Association of American Universities. Ethnographic data were collected over a 4-month residency during which the researcher was granted unrestricted access to organizational leaders, administrators, faculty, and students. Observations, interviews, and reflexive hypothesis testing served as the primary means of data collection (Fetterman, 1998). One hundred interviews were conducted with 86 individuals at all levels in the university, representing current and previous administrators, academic middle managers, and faculty at every rank. Interviewees were systematically recruited from four upper administrative units, six colleges, and 15 academic departments, representing a cross section of disciplinary perspectives. Some interviewees served as key informants, providing opportunities for repeated interaction throughout the 4-month period. The overall response rate for interview requests was 93%; one interviewee declined permission to be audiotaped.
Interviews consisted of open-ended questions designed to elucidate interviewees' recollection and perspectives on critical incidents influencing the implementation of change, dimensions of organizational culture, personal reflections, and emotional reactions to campus events both historical and ongoing as well as subjective assessments of the progress of change implementation. Because the focus of analysis was on the implementation of change, one of the key informants was the university provost, who had been recruited...
|
