Master Thesis Cand - Merc HRM Synnøve Holgersen Mentor: Stine Staffeldt (External)

Master Thesis Cand.
merc HRM
1

Master Thesis
Cand.merc HRM
Synnve Holgersen
Mentor: Stine Staffeldt (external)

Research question:
Change Management Theories - is there an optimal way of
implementing change in an organisation, and how can this be seen in
an intercultural perspective?

Problemformulering:
Endringsledelsesteorier - finnes det en optimal mte implementere
endring i en organisasjon, og hvordan blir dette sett p i et
interkulturelt perspektiv?

Copenhagen Business School
Total number of pages: 79
J anuary, 2011

Master Thesis Cand.merc HRM
2
ABSTRACT

This text presents the different sciences related to change management rationalism,
functionalism and social constructivism, and with the basis of these three fundamentals, one
has tried to identify ways that change can be implemented in an organisation. The aspect of
culture has further been brought in to perspective, by looking at how theories of change and
organisational development (OD) can be seen and implemented in the different national
cultures. Are there some models which are better suited in some cultures, or is it one model
that in general could be used in all organisations and / or cultures?

First one look at the reasons for change, where this may be due to planned change, as well as
change as a coincidence, where one in the text focus on implementing change as a planned
change. The basis of the analysis and discussion are functionalism and Kotters eight step
model, together with the new and not quite finished research area of social constructivism and
the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model. The two different models are compared, and in the
social constructivism one say that humans think, feel and see the things they want to see
hence some things are being taken into consideration in a process of change, while others are
left out. This contributes to the fact that there is not only one reality, and that in the
communities of practices, together one create meaning within the organisation. In a social
constructivism approach this means that change does not happen and make sense until the
change is negotiated and meaningful within the communities of practice. Functionalism looks
at both the classic rational approach and the visionary approach, which emphasise on a more
analytic approach; whereas Kotters eight step model and a linear approach are the basis for
the implementation of change (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

The models used for comparison are Organisational Development (OD) and Total Quality
Management (TQM), where an OD definition and model is used as material for the analysis
and discussion. Further the TQM and quality programmes are themes which may be used as
an example and key determinants for implementing change, with focus on quality throughout
the change process. These are both models where a common goal is for the organisations to
be more competitive, and where a strategic change could benefit the entire company by
simple steps, concerning both a quality concept and a definition characteristic which departs
substantially from a traditional approach.
3

When relating these different theories of change and culture, one seek to explore if there is a
best possible and optimal way for an organisation to handle and implement change at every
level of the organisation, both on a short and long term basis. The main models of Kotter and
the AI model, together with OD and TQM are reviewed and when looking at the different
evaluations in this paper, it is difficult to see and explore which is the most optimal for
implementing change, and consequently one may say that there is not only one way of doing
it, or one culture that is better suited compared to the others. Suggestions are made when
comparing change models and different cultural features, and evaluations are made, both
concerning the comparison of the two main models, but also the comparisons related to OD
and TQM, as well as involving the cultural aspect. One may presume that there does not exist
only one optimal model for change, however,based on the discussion and analysis one have
found, that this is something that depends on the entire situation as a whole. Something that
works in one situation does not necessarily work in another organisation, and for that matter,
another country. The findings of the text suggest that the choice of change model should be
situational, where the organisations history, management style and what kind of change one
has to deal with are important aspects to consider, before starting the process of change
(Guldbrandsen, 2010). To have knowledge about this and the existing composition of cultures
within the organisation, could be an important advice for the future, because then, one may be
able to know and recognise what to do in specific situations involving change.
4

Contents
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5
2. METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 6
2.1. Research question: ................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Research design and ontology ................................................................................................. 7
2.3. The three isms ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.1. Rationalism ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2. Functionalism ................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.3. Social constructivism..................................................................................................... 12
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 15
3.1. Types of change what is the reason for change? ................................................................ 15
3.1.1. Planned change .............................................................................................................. 15
3.1.2. Change as lifecycle ........................................................................................................ 16
3.1.3. Change as evolution ...................................................................................................... 17
3.1.4. Change as dialectic process and power battle ............................................................... 19
3.1.5. Change as contingency / coincidence ............................................................................ 20
3.1.6. Different models competitive or complementary? ..................................................... 22
3.2. The two main models ............................................................................................................ 24
3.2.1. Kotters eight step model ............................................................................................... 24
3.2.2. The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model ............................................................................ 27
3.2.3. Change Management ..................................................................................................... 28
3.3. Comparative models .............................................................................................................. 31
3.3.1. Organisation Development and Change ........................................................................ 31
3.3.2. Total Quality Management (TQM) ............................................................................... 37
3.4. National cultures and demand of management ...................................................................... 46
3.4.1. The four dimensions ...................................................................................................... 48
3.4.2. Practical differences of culture - a Norwegian perspective. .......................................... 54
4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 61
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 75
5.1. Further research ..................................................................................................................... 77
6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 78
6.1. Books and articles: ................................................................................................................ 78
6.2. Internet sources: .................................................................................................................... 79
5

1. INTRODUCTION

Change can vary in complexity, from introducing relatively simple changes into a small work
group to transforming most features of the total organisation, and although change
management differs across situations, it is important to address some points that need to be
performed when managing any kind of organisational change. Aspects like motivating
change, creating a vision, developing political support, managing the transition and sustaining
momentum, are some of the theories that needs be taken into consideration when
implementing change (Cummins & Huse, 1989). The culture is seen as the invisible web in
a society, and it is a prerequisite for theories to be valid and secure that behaviours such as
managerial behaviours are effective, when managing change. As long as we are in the
culture, there is a tendency where one may have troubles with discovering it, or taking it for
granted. However if one try to manage and organise after ones own well-known principles in
an unknown and different social and cultural context, one may experience that some of the
fundamentals one relies on, no longer are valid, and that one needs to open up ones mind and
use the differences to something that could benefit the entire organisation.

I start by looking at the sciences of change management, which both Kotters eight step model
and the situational Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model are mentioned and based upon.
Rationalism is mentioned, but the main argument involves mostly functionalism and the
theory of social constructivism. These are the sciences that the theories are based upon. The
Further in the theoretical framework I examine the different reasons for change, whereas this
is seen as the basis for understanding change, before one begin exploring the different change
models and their applications. The main models are, as mentioned above, Kotters eight step
model and the AI model. The models which they are compared with are the OD model and
TQM. I finalize my theoretical framework with including culture and the four cultural
dimensions of Hofstede, which also are the basis for analysis and discussion, together with the
change theories mentioned above. The analysis looks at different change theories and
different international cultures, to seek to find a correlation between change theories and
cultures, and a possible optimal solution for implementing change.
6
2. METHOD

Social science tries to understand and explain phenomenons that occurs. To give rich, well-
informed and well-substantiated descriptions is one of the responsibilities of social science, as
well as explaining and trying to understand how the human world is put together. The basis
for science is the causal belief; meaning that one thing leads to another. The quantitative and
qualitative approaches do not demand strong causal coherence. It explains the probability of a
phenomenon occurring, and that some degree of regularity is present. The aim is to look for
tendencies, regularities or correlations (Skog, 2005). The object of this chapter is to
substantiate the chosen methods, and give an account for the rational, functional and social
constructivist assumptions and theories, together with the more ontological assumptions and
the theoretical basis and paradigm pragmatic constructivism.

First one may consider some general qualitative and quantitative theoretical assumptions,
where these quantitative and qualitative ontological assumptions vary. Quantitative
researchers isolate and define variables and variable categories to frame hypotheses.
Hypotheses are often produced before the data is collected, and are then tested upon the data.
Variables are the means of the analysis. It is often pictured like a researcher looking through a
narrow lens, at a specific set of variables (Brannen, 1992). Quantitative method is according
to J acobsen (2005) and Skog (2005) mainly based on a deductive approach. Data collection is
based on survey where different alternatives for an answer are given. The goal is to perform
an affective statistical analysis, and present the results in enumerative analysis. The purpose is
to find frequencies, and how many and what kind of people in general have the characteristic
which has been found to exist in the sample population (Brannen, 1992). The object is to
make connections or to reveal regularities between variables.

With qualitative research it is the concepts and categories that matter. One of the purposes is
to test theory, and participate in analytic induction. Brannen claims that analytic induction,
which often begins without a clear hypothesis, can be combined with deductive methods, and
the testing of hypothesis. Qualitative researchers may begin with defining general concepts.
During the process of the research program the definitions may change. Variables constitute
the product or outcome. The research is described as looking through a wide lens, searching
for patterns of inter-relationships between a former unspecified set of concepts (Ibid.).
Qualitative method collects information often of a more interpretive and descriptive character.
7
Interviews, group interviews, observation and documentary research are the main approaches
(Blaikie, 2000; J acobsen, 2005). Qualitative research can also be descriptive.

Enumerative and analytic induction have different starting points therefore: enumerative
induction abstracts by generalizing whereas analytic induction generalizes by abstracting
(Brannen, 1992, p. 7).

Several schools discuss whether designs and methods should be mixed, combined or
triangulated (Blaikie, 2000; Creswell, 1994; Ellefsen, 1998; J acobsen, 2004; Morgan 1998).
Traditionally quantitative and qualitative research is seen to belong to different paradigms. It
is assumed to be a connection between epistemology, theory and method.
2.1. Research question:
Change Management Theories is there an optimal way of implementing change in an
organisation, and how can this be seen in a intercultural perspective?
2.2. Research design and ontology
The object of this study is to complete an analysis of different change management theories
compared to international cultures, and to look at how cultural similarities and differences
relates to and accepts the different terms of change in an organisation. By answering this
research question, our contribution is placed within the literature concerning voices in
organisational fields, especially considering theories of change management and culture.

The paper is based on secondary data and literature, where other researchers and authors have
made some distinctions of the different theories described in the paper. It is worth mentioning
that not all of their theories and aspect have been used in this paper, only the terms that were
seen as preferable in relation to the argumentations of the text. I have used Guldbrandsen`s
paper Den fjerde isme as a basis or fundamental for the theories concerning the
implementation of change, the discussion and analysis, and also the summary and conclusion
of this paper. The main arguments are based upon functionalism and social constructivism,
whereas J ohn Paul Kotter`s eight step model is one of the models, which are seen as a tool to
understand and implement change. The models counterpart is the model within social
constructivism and Appreciative Inquiry, the AI model. In comparison with these two models
I have used OD and TQM, where Almaraz (1994) and French and Bell J r. (1999) are used as
empirical sources. The reason for choosing OD is the substantially difference from the
8
traditional approach to implementing change, whereas this could be seen more similar to both
Kotter`s model and the AI model. The TQM model or initiative is chosen due to wanting to
explore further the aspect of quality as a way of implementing change. One can also mention
that both models, OD and TQM, contains some perspectives on the behaviour of humans,
when implementing change, and this is something that I, personally. Think is an aspect that is
interesting, but also a crucial determinant to consider when handling change. Further I have
used literature from known authors like Schein and Hofstede, where both of them are well
known voices within cultural theory. I also choose to take an Norwegian perspective in the
evaluations concerning cultures, and this is due to my own nationality, but also in the sense of
looking at the Scandinavian countries like a unity, when comparing it to the other continents,
countries and cultures that are mentioned in that section. In general one can say that most of
the mentioned literature used in the paper, including books and articles except for
Guldbrandsen, are part of the curriculum in the master programme Change Management at
the University of Stavanger, Norway, this is also one of the reasons for my choice of
literature, however only to some degree. The following will represent the ontological
assumptions used in this paper, whereas pragmatic constructivism is the practice paradigm
involved.

In this paper a paradigm is taken to mean, a set of ontological and scientific assumptions that
make up a framework within which knowledge can be obtained, acted upon, evaluated, and
developed. It follows that a paradigm includes the basic presumptions made about the nature
of our environment and our place within it. They are based on what we consider to be truth
and knowledge and reflect on how these are obtained and used (Nrreklit, Nrreklit &
Mitchell, 2010). Not only do they reflect on how people behave and why they do so, but also
why a particular behaviour is appropriate. A paradigm can be implicit or explicit. It is widely
recognized that validity is determined by inter-relationships between the paradigmatic
components of ontology and epistemology where certain ontological assumptions imply a
particular epistemology with the task to safeguard the validity of our knowledge. In particular,
the modern founder of the concept of scientic paradigm, Kuhn, points to a paradigm as a
disciplinary matrix involving:

Some general metaphysical assumptions about the composition of the field under
consideration;
Some general laws, principles and concepts for analyzing questions and presenting the
9
results;
Shared values of what forms the qualities of a scientic theory that are applied in the
choice of competing theories/paradigms; and
An exemplary result including artefact paradigms as the ideal norm to be transferable to
other closely related problem areas.

Pragmatic constructivism is based on the thesis that four dimensions of reality must be
integrated in the actor-world relation if the construct is to be successful as a basis for
undertaking actions. These four dimensions are facts, possibilities, values and
communication. The argument for the inclusion of these four dimensions and the relationships
among them is as follows. Facts are necessary as a basis of action, whereas facts alone are
insufficient. If there are no possibilities, there can be no action and if one has no possibilities
then one is dead. The possibilities must be grounded in the facts, if not they are ctional.
Further, possibilities create room for choice, but they only function if there is a reason to
choose and prefer one possibility to the other, hence if the actor has values and the values lie
within the range of ones possibilities. Finally, the integration of facts, possibilities and value
must be expressed in communication in order to enable action in a social setting. If the
integration of facts, possibilities, value and communication dissolves, then the ability to act
intentionally breaks down because the distinction between true and false in the pragmatic
sense, for example between successful and unsuccessful action, breaks down (Ibid.).
Further the paper will represent the quantitative and qualitative ontological assumptions,
which the literature relies on.
2.3. The three isms
2.3.1. Rationalism
The management theory and practice within change management has its roots in three schools
or isms, where rationalism is the first one. Rationalism has its source from the metaphorical
picture of an organisation as a goal-seeking machine and it the goal is to be as effective as
possible considered the problem and the different solutions to the problem (Guldbrandsen,
2010). To execute this, the management has some structural and administrative
measurements;

1. Organisational structure, which defines the different units purposes, references and
authority.
10
2. J ob descriptions, which connects the tasks and authority of the actual positions
3. Process descriptions, which describe the best way to execute the work
4. Explicit performance criteria, which makes the goals clear for the employees
5. Recruitment procedures ensuring the proper qualifications
6. Control, sanctions and reward, which ensures that structure, rules and procedures are
being delivered

The rationalists recognize that there are irrationalities in the organisation, but these are meant
to be reduced as much as possible because they are in the way of the optimum, which have
been created by the existing order and structure. The aspect of rationalism can be expressed in
the way rationalism relates to culture, where culture and cultural leadership are not very
widespread. Instead they use norms to explain the irrationality that exist in the organisation
and the term normative control to bring the irrationality under control and the means to
control this is done by classic bureaucratic management and control (Ibid.).
The rationalist saw a change as something disturbing to the organisation and therefore the
changes should be executed as fast as possible to recreate stability and efficiency. This should
be done through a top-down access and change management were, due to this, not seen as
an important management discipline, but more as an opportunity to those management
disciplines, which are connected to the normal managerial optimization.
Later, a tendency which was called planned change rose within rationalism and behind this
idea one can seek to find that a change should be planned and executed by a change agent,
which often should be the senior manager or an external consultant. The change agents task is
to secure that the necessary changes are carried out, which means that the organisation needs
to adapt to the environmental changes outside the organisation (Ibid).

The theorist that contributed most to the development of the rationalistic view on planned
change was Kurt Lewin. Lewin says that change occurs, when there appears a disturbance in
the tension which ensures organisational stability and when the powers that wants the
change are stronger than the powers that seeks to maintain the already existing state. In the
process of change, the change agents first task is to ensure that the change can happen by
staggering the existing equilibrium, and the second assignment is to take initiative to ensure
that the activities that are being done due to the change can ensure re-freezing around a new
equilibrium. This is stated in Lewins tree-stage model for planned change and this model
contradicts some of the other models for change management, where Lewins models is
11
empirically grounded from World War 2, where he did a survey for the U.S. Government.
Even though Lewins model is more than 50 years old, can the linear and one-dimensional
change strategy be seen as base for much organisational theory. For example the tree-phase
model is seen as soundboard for Kotters eight step model, which we will look closer at later
in the text. In organisational practice the models for planned change are still very popular
today and many management practices take their impetus in rationalistic thoughts, where the
change agent is seen as the most important actor for recreating order, with a top-down
strategy, with structure, culture and systems as the primary areas of effort (Ibid.).
The second ism is functionalism and has its roots in the system theories and is based upon
the perception of that an organisation is a living organism, which needs to take care of four
important functions to survive: Ensure access to the necessary resources from the
environment - adaption, formulate and follow goals, coordinate activities integration, and
also maintain and adapt the mindset through the culture. To maintain, develop and coordinate
the four important aspects described above the functionalism has developed a new
management discipline; Strategic management, which is described as a process that consist of
two separated steps: The formulation of the strategy and the implementation of the strategy.
Within functionalism there are two schools which have different permissions related to
strategy and change management and the two will be further addresses below (Ibid.).
2.3.2. Functionalism
There are two approaches / models within functionalism, whereas the first one to be described
is the classic rational approach and the second one, which is to be described later, is the
visionary / ideological approach to strategic management (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

The classic rational approach to strategic management consists of a set of steps, where the
first thing is to make some assumptions about the future and the strengths and weaknesses of
the organisation, where a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis
could be a suggestion. The next step is to set the goals and to describe the actions to which the
goals are reached. After this the plan is tested for its acceptability can it generate the wanted
results? How will stakeholders and competitors react and does the strategy march the cultures,
or does the culture also need to change? Finally the plan is tested for how it fits to the
situation; Product portfolio (lifecycles), financial resources and cash flow, in addition to the
human resources (competencies). The result of the process is a written plan for the future,
where success demands effective implementation (Ibid.). J ohn P. Kotter wrote the book
Leading Change, where he presents the eight step model, which is a model that need to be
12
executed in the right order to succeed with the implementation of the change. A second model
is the visionary / ideological approach to strategic management, where this model seeks to be
inspired by best practice from other organisations, and with this create an attractive vision
for the future, which can be the driving force in the organisations strategic development. We
will address further attention to these models in the theoretical framework section below.
2.3.3. Social constructivism
The third and last ism is social constructivism which is a practice field that is still under
research and development and due to this is not entirely solid cast yet. One of the most
important messages in this way of thinking is that humans do often look at things differently;
we have a different focus and / or goals. We therefore, consciously or unconsciously, choose
to see something and to overlook something else (Guldbrandsen, 2010). Secondly we
experience what we see differently, we have our own attitude, moral and ethic, which is a part
of the way we see and experience things the way we do. This term within the social
constructivism is called selective perception and leads us to the first important point: In an
organisation there is not only one reality. The second important point in this theory is:
Together we create our reality. The reality and the truth are born through dialogue and
negotiation together with those that we attach importance and meaning to. Within the theories
of management one often use the term communities of practice, when referring to the network
we use when we constructs reality. This is where we together create meaning within the
organisation. In a social constructivism approach this means that change does not happen and
make sense until the change is negotiated and meaningful within the communities of practice.
First, the consequences is that the change should be facilitated and adapted as a process,
where all are involved, and where there is room for meaning creation in the communities of
practice. Second, there is also a consequence related to that it is hard to predict the outcome of
a change, which again challenges the process of change as a planned change, which consist of
a number of limited steps. A third principal within the social constructivism is: The positive
expectations of refugees magical power - the thought of organisations as heliostats tropical
systems that grows with the sun, just as plants. Thus, when there is a change it is important
that the energy is directed towards the positive expectations to the future, instead of directing
it towards the problems in the past. Therefore, with function in the terminology from the
functionalism approach, this means that one in the process of change should be based on the
vision, rather than the burning platform. Further we will describe these to aspect within a
social constructivism approach to change. The burning platform gives a negative emotional
reaction, where feelings such as fear, guilt, uncertainty, anger, powerlessness and
13
hopelessness are prominent. This leads to defensive actions, whereas people start blaming
each other, or they do nothing at all, and / or thirdly they could start fighting against it and
resist to the change. However, the visions the burning wish, contributes with positive
feelings to the process of change. This could be feelings like trust, curiosity, happiness,
optimism and openness. These feeling will again create actions like creativity, commitment
and involvement, and vigour (Ibid.).

The fundamentals that the social constructivism rests on challenges the whole fundamental of
the modernism and functionalisms approach to change management, and there exist some
critique from the social constructivism towards the classic approach to change management.
The change is not a deviation, but a state and the consequence is that complex models cannot
handle the turbulence we face. At the same time the fundamental attitude (disorder) is
contributing to create a mood, where change is considered something unpleasant, which needs
to be over and done with as fast as possible. According to Kotter the source is to get the
humans to change their behaviour and behind this definition there is an assumption that some
people do the change and use power, while others are being changed and feel powerlessness.
The social constructivism approach says that resistance to change appears when one feel
powerless and the negative feelings are further enhance when dealing with the problems in the
past and there is no room for meaning creation within the communities of practice. If the
change also relies on simple cause and effect relationships and does not reflect the complexity
that characterizes social systems, the meaning creation will have very narrow circumstances
and this could easily result in distrust towards the management and resistance. The
organisational world is not linear, but circular everything affects everything. The phase
section relies on a thought that it is possible to separate the analysis, recognition, plan and
influence. This idea is rejected within the social constructivism where life is lived forwards,
but acknowledged backwards. We learn as we act, and learning leads to new insights and new
actions. Learning and action cannot be separated the phases should be more floating and
contain many reflection and reorientation points. The meaning of resistance to change is an
important aspect within this and from a social constructivism view the classic approach to this
is quite critical. The problem is that the basic assumption, disregard from the things
mentioned above, prevents a more nuanced view on the changes that are being executed. If
the employees express doubt of parts of the change due to for example that the management
have not considered the what type of information the employees possess and that there is a
chance or risk that they will not be heard they are immediately stamped as opponents.
14
The problem becomes amplified when the employees have experienced this psychological
mindset and further in the future does no longer want to contribute with their knowledge and
information, because they have learned that it is wrong to be negative. The consequences of
this are repressed emotions, frustration and apathy, which confirms the leader saying
resistance to change is the biggest challenge when it comes to change management. From a
social constructivism approach one can say that the assumptions that the classic approach
relies on when considering change management, creates a self-reinforced negative spiral,
whereas we experience, that the biggest challenge in relation to change is to handle the
employees resistance, the problem is really within ourselves. The resistance appears due to
the way we think and act i relation the change. When we think of top-down, the burning
platform, and linear process, we create resistance to change (Ibid.) Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
is a model that has been more and more widespread as a method within social constructivism,
which can be used in several classic management tasks including change management
(Ibid.).
15
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

UNDERSTANDING CHANGE

3.1. Types of change what is the reason for change?
One can find four different models for change that represents fundamental different sequences
of happenings and causal mechanisms which explains how and why change occurs (J acobsen,
2004).

3.1.1. Planned change
The first model is a teleological model which shows planned change. Planned change occurs
because people see some problems they want to solve. Organisations change because people
want a change to reach a new goal (Ibid.). This model have some requirements, where the
most important one is the one we can call intentional. This means that there are certain
intensions or goals behind the process of change. A group of people have analyzed the
problems, new possible solutions and then taken actions to solve the given challenges (Ibid.).
It can be illustrated as follows:

Phase 1: Diagnosis: recognition of need for a change experienced problems / possibilities
Phase 2: Solution: descriptions of a future ideal state of mind for the organisation and a plan
to further execution
Phase 3: Execution of planned action interventions in the organisation
Phase 4: Evaluation of planned actions and stabilization of the new improved state

Figure 3.1.1: The four central phases in a planned change process (J acobsen, 2004, pp.20)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
16
One can call this an analytic and rational approach to change, which means that the change is
based on a perception that there is a need for change, problems have been analyzed and
strategies been made for improving and give solutions to the foreseen problems. In phase 1
one recognize these problems, whereas this could be a decrease in the overall sales, conflict
between major group internally in the organisation or failing customer loyalty (Ibid.). In
phase 2, one tries to find the reason for the problems. Why have the overall sale decreased
from one period to another? What are the reasons for the internal conflicts that have appeared
the last couple of years? Typical activities related to this could be surveys, interviews and
focus groups, often organized by external consultants or scientists. Phase 3 is where the plan
is being settled with a time limit, prioritized activities and key personnel for each activity. The
activities are being executed in form of teaching, advice from experts or work groups. At the
end in phase 4 one evaluates the activities that have been executed. Has the overall sale
increased? Are the internal conflicts sorted? Can we see an increase in customer loyalty? If
the change is seen as successful, one needs to stabilize or institutionalize the change, which
means that one wants to get the support from the employees and the management to enhance
the change. This is often done by adapting the payments systems, structures and procedures to
the changes that have been made (Ibid.).

This way of thinking is strongly used in western cultures, but it is not the only way a change
in an organisation can happen. One major feature with social organisations is that they are
undetermined, which means that it is not possible to say what is going to happen, even in near
future, so planned change does not always lead to the results one wishes to achieve, which
leads us to the other models (Ibid.).

3.1.2. Change as lifecycle
In this model change can happen due to intentional choices, but there is a perception that
organisations develop in a special and a pre-determined way. The changes follow a particular
development pattern, so that every organisation, from birth, has an underlying form, logic,
program or code which regulates the process of change, and moves the units from one start
point to a finished form. This means that changes happen because every organisation goes
through a set of phases in their life (Ibid.). Henry Mintzberg says that when organisations
are established born they often have a simple structure, they are small and consist of a few
number of people. Once time goes by the organisation grows larger and more people start
working there, a need for more formalities arises and this often means that the organisation
17
develop a more sophisticated system for surveillance and control, through more extended
hierarchies. As the organisation increases in both size and number of people, it creates
problems due to the divided structure, and the result is an organisation that has difficulties
coordinating the different divisions and keeping it together. Mintzberg suggests in these
situations, the possibilities to make a structure matrix, where one could integrate the different
division by creating more lateral connections where several units work together for example
in projects. Mintzberg is describing organisations that move through a set of phases of life due
to growth, where an increase in size implies a need for change in the structure. Age and size
are the two most significant elements which provokes an organisational change (Ibid.).

Larry Greiner suggests that organisations that grows, always goes through five phases, where
there always is a possibility that the organisation makes it from one phase to another. The
phases are the creativity phase, management phase, delegation phase, coordination phase and
cooperation phase. In between every one of these phases one find different crises, which are
the reason for all the different phases the organisation has to go through. In this approach
there is always room for what we call human choices and if an organisation can`t go from one
phase to another it will die. The point of action is that when an organisation reaches a certain
size, there are few choices concerning the planned change to get to the next phase the
alternatives are in some way given. This can be seen as a sort of planned change, the only
different is that there are fewer options to choose in this model, but if the organisation wants
to make it to the next level it is crucial that the right decisions are made at the right time
according to the situation and also in relation to where the organisation is situated (Ibid.).

This model of change has been criticized because of its deterministic nature, which means
that the development of the organisation follows a permanent pattern. Empirical research has
also questioned the necessity of the different phases. Many of today`s organisations are
bureaucracies, while others manage to grow without establishing any bureaucratic or
divisional organisation forms. Change from one form to another could also often happen
where an organisation skips some phases or goes back to a previous phase, so even if this
model, together with the planned change model, can explain a lot of the reason for change,
there is still a need for other models (Ibid.).
3.1.3. Change as evolution
This model focuses on change as a natural development, a perspective which gets its
inspiration from theories on evolution amongst living organisms. The model focuses on
18
change on a population level and a central term in this is organisational fields which means
an area or marked where a set of organisations compete for limited resources. This could be
banks or insurance companies that rivals over customers, or universities which competes over
students (Ibid.). In large companies there are powers that resist to the effort of change and
there are certain features by an organisations environment which resist change and makes sure
that stability is maintained (ibid.). Three aspects in the evolutionary model are central;
variation, selection and maintenance. This can be illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 3.1.3: Central elements in evolutionary change (J acobsen, 2004, pp. 26).

The idea behind this model is that only the organisation that are best adapted or fit to their
environment, will make it against hard competition, others who fail to adapt will die and be
exchanged with other and new organisations. This could happen with establishment of new
small organisations in a small part of the initial field and that this steals whats left of the
market. In this perspective change happens due to changes in the mix of populations of
organisations, but still there is no consistent rule on who lives and who don`t. As a part of
some fields there are strong ideals on how organisations should look like and behave. Some
organisations are connected to certain values and it is difficult to exchange these fundamental
institutions with new ones, because of their knowledge, seniority and depth. The process of
change is seen, in this situation, as a natural selection where the environment and
surroundings decides which organisations who lives and which dies. This model is not far
from what we call planned change, because those who wants to be the best, has to make
New "spicies"
arrives
Variation Selection
Maintenance
19
adjustments along the way to adapt to its surroundings, to create a balance between the
demands of the environment and organisation form (Ibid.). The powers behind these types of
changes are, at first, the competition of scarce resources, but secondly new theories have
suggested that the competition is also about legitimacy. In some fields there are norms which
are based on how an organisation should look like, be established and behave. The
organisations that symbolize these messages out to its customer and clients in a best possible
way will also get the most support from its environments. In this way it creates a pressure,
which is called isomorphic, where the organisations are getting more and more similar
trying to satisfy and fulfil the dominating values and perception of its surroundings. Change
then often happen like imitation where organisation imitates other organisations that are
considered as the best. Either way, organisational changes are seen as a reflection of the
changes which exists in the environments. When preferences, utility curves and perceptions
on whats hot and whats not changes, organisations also change and there exist an
interpretation that the process of change is a change for something better or together with the
relations to society (Ibid.).
The evolutionary model could also exist, whereas outside changes transfers into
organisations, and the change in the organisation reflects the changes in the environment.
Overall changes in this model adapts to changes in the environment, where the central aspect
is that the changes are not something that the organisation can control (Ibid.).
3.1.4. Change as dialectic process and power battle
This model gets its inspiration from the fact that the development of the society happens
through a confrontation between different parties. Change is a result of a power battle
between different interests, where a hypothesis meets an anti hypothesis and ends up as
something new - a synthesis. This can be seen at an organisational level, where the change in
the organisation happens because problems are confronted, bases of power are activated and
the part that wins changes the organisation after their interests. Politics and power battles,
becomes the reason for change, and the result depends on the conflicts and their solutions. In
a given point of time there will always be a dominated coalition, which creates a stabile state
of mind for the organisation. This coalition creates structures, systems and values, and as long
as one accepts that there are different groups of interests, the existence of resistant groups will
always be valid. Over time, changes internally in the organisation and the environment may
and can affect the base of power. An example of this could be the power balance between
employer and employee, depending on weather there are good access for labour supply or not.
If the unemployment rate is high and the supply of labour is high, the wages decreases and the
20
working terms and conditions for the employees are less attractive, while if you have the
opposite situation the wages decreases and the employees have more influence on the terms
and conditions that are being settled in relation to employment (Ibid.). One could also look at
the situation where the power balance in an organisation is more even, the change in these
situations will often appear after negotiation between the different parts, and the outcome will
often be a compromise. This could turn out to be a worse outcome than either of the parties
wanted and the rational participant could end up in a relatively less rational solution. The
dialectic perspective has a less positive fundamental idea, where it is not necessary the best
who wins, but rather the strongest one. One example of this could be where a financial
company buys up another company with the intention of closing it down and in this way one
dispose one of the competitors. It could well be that this organisation is better adapted to the
environments and more effective, but it dies because a strong part wants it to. This type
of change has been in focus within what we call horizontal integration change happen, but it
is not always that this change is for the best (Ibid.).

3.1.5. Change as contingency / coincidence
This model looks at change as a result of coincidences something that appears without
any life phases, solution to a problem, competition of scarce resources, or politics and power
battles. J ames March quotes: Organisations are in a continuous process of change, routine,
practical and respondent, but not always controllable. Organisation seldom do what they
been told to do. (J acobsen, 2004, p. 31).

Behind this statement there is an assumption that organisations are complex units, where there
happen many things at the same time without any participants having control or a total
overview over the specific situation. A central point in this is uncertainty and ambiguity and
on a general basis one can say that change happens when there is a modern (temporary)
concurrence of different organisational streams. It is fundamental that humans (participants)
meet each other on an arena (a decision opportunity), where everybody has a different set of
ideas and ways to solve a problem. Who meets where and when, will determine how the
connections of problems and solutions happens. It is not the best solution to the problem that
is the main choice, but rather the solutions, which are available at that particular point in time
(J acobsen, 2004). The main point in this model is that it is where and when the different
participants connect, which creates the outcome. Which participants who meets at the
different arenas of decision will in many cases be quite structured, but it could also be more
21
random who meets, and then also how problems and solutions resolves. Change can appear
with individuals or groups changing their routines in the daily work. This could be change in
systems, structures, routines, which maybe not have the function that the participant wants, so
he or she changes it. These small adjustments takes place on an individual level, but summed
together it makes a difference in total, for the organisation (Ibid.).

Another source to a more incoherent development in an organisation comes from the number
of turnovers some people resign and new ones begin. One should often think that once a
new person enter a new position, he or she would do close to the same as the previous did, but
research has shown that this is in fact, not true. A position or job will never be totally defined
and there will always be room for execution of assessment, which leads to personification of
the position in favour of the new employee. On a more aggregated level, organisations often
experience big changes when changes in so-called cohorts occur. In periods with a lot of new
arrivals it may be that the organisation gets in a large group with one particular education, for
example lots of women or men, or many young of age. In this way the power balance between
the different groups varies, which often leads to changes in important elements in the
organisation. This may be part of a large plan for the company, but in many cases these
changes will occur without a plan and without being a solution to a defined problem (Ibid.).

A third source to an incoherent development we can find in undefined structures and a
planned change can be seen as a decision process, where one evaluates possibilities and
threats, find solutions and implement them. However a more anarchistic view on a decision
process challenges this approach whereas we look at the decision process over time with
different decision arenas and a set of participants, one could get a larger feature of coherency.
This will again depend on who participates, which depends on the formal structure of the
organisation who has the right and energy to participate? If a person is occupied with
something else, someone else might replace him or her, and this person possibly has other
ideas, values and solutions to problems. In this way a change can appear spontaneously
without this being an answer to a well-defined problem. The result can be that organisations
changes in several levels at the same time, without a united plan. Kjell Arne Rvik says that
this looks like multi standard organisations which means that different parts of the
organisation has adopted various solutions at different times, so change has happened, just not
at the same time and in different ways and parts of the organisation (Ibid.).

22
The fourth and last source to incoherent change one may find in the environments. The
organisations surroundings are seldom clear and uniform, which leads to interpretation of the
environments. When changes are made, this is often based on an assumption on how the
surroundings look like and not how they actually are. The change gets engraved by
coincidences, more based on what one thinks is necessary not on what really is necessary.
This perspective does not stand in direct inconsistency to human choices. Many things of the
above mentioned are rational choices, made by individuals, but this does not always mean that
it is rational choices in an organisational perspective organisations change, but not
according to an implemented plan (Ibid.).
3.1.6. Different models competitive or complementary?
Practitioners implies that change has parts of all of the above mentioned aspects and
perspectives, but that the reason and explanation behind the different perspectives always will
vary from organisation to organisation, from phase to phase and on different levels of analysis
some models are better suited for explaining change on a single organisation level, while
others are more used at an aggregated point of view (French & Bell J r., 1999). Second, the
models differs in the way they give room for humanly, free action and thinking on the one
hand they emphasize for individuals making their own choices and creating something new,
while on the other hand this is toned down. All of this can be summarized in the following
figure, which entails the different perspective discussed above:

Figure 3.1.6: Classification of different changes after change level and logic of change
(J acobsen, 2004, pp. 35)

Evolutionary
Lifecycles
Dialectic
Technological
and Coincedence
Non-deterministic Deterministic
Several
Organisations
The single
Organisation
Level of change
Logic of change
23
This discussion is important because it makes us aware that not all change has to be a result of
conscious and planned human choices and actions. Change is a complex phenomenon and can
appear in many ways. Further in this text we will focus on the term planned change, which
you may find at the bottom-right in the figure above. This means that we will look more
closely at single organisations, and less at changes at an aggregated level. It is worth noticing
that change as contingency is placed in the same square as planned change this implies
that there does not have to be a contradiction between the two perspectives. People are always
trying to change organisations, but this does not mean that they always succeed, and
sometimes changes can happen as a coincidence, all though the initiative were a planned
change contingency and methodical are terms that naturally belongs together (Ibid.).

The literature on the aspect of change only describes techniques and processes on how to
achieve change in an organisation, as well as a lot of the models are normative, which means
that they tell us something on how things should be or how one should proceed in these
situations. One could also say that they are universal, which implies that the models are valid
in every organisation and situations. However this is in large contrast to the more normal
demands from a scientific point of view, where the foundation of literature is based upon
empirical description as to understand why change happens, and also where the importance of
context, plays a central role when defining which opportunities one have to generalize the
empirical research compared to other situations. Through empirical research on the processes
of change and those features that is close to them, one can make some constructive
conclusions, and this means that one can achieve a certain knowledge on how to execute a
process of change, how one should proceed in the different contexts and situations and also
how likely one is to succeed using different models for change in different situations. A
theory on planned change has to be complex, because the units one are trying to change,
organisations, are complex (J acobsen, 2004).

In the section above I have tried to explore further the underlying reasons for change and its
outcome, were this can be seen as a lifecycle, as an evolution, as a dialectic process and
power battle between different parties, and also as a coincidence. These different models and
theories contain and say something about what is it that makes people do the change in the
organisation or unit they are involved in? Thus, what are the powers behind the change, and
how do these powers affect the different organisations. These models needs to explain the
change, what it entails and also the magnitude of the change, and one should also expect that
24
these models uses the same terms and understanding frames as the theories on organisational
stability. It is important to include the context and the situation surrounding the planned
change, and its field and culture needs to be defined. One must explain the change process,
both in time and which parties that are involved in the change, and also it could be crucial to
be open for the fact that there is not necessary compliance between intentions and the actual
result of a change (Ibid.).

CHANGE MODELS AND MANAGEMENT

3.2. The two main models
3.2.1. Kotters eight step model
The first model come from functionalism and the classic rational approach to strategic
management, where J ohn P. Kotter have developed a eight step model, which needs to be
executed in the specific order mentioned below, for the implementation to be successful.
The eight steps are as follows:

Establish an experience of necessity: Investigate the marked and the situation of
competition. Identify possible and potential crisises, and significant opportunities. Provoke
any emergency or set unreachable goals, if this is necessary. Change does not happen until at
least 75 % of the management in the organisation are convinced that business-as-usual are not
acceptable.

Create a governing coalition: Establish a group of people with sufficient competence,
knowledge and power, to execute the change. The group conduct several meetings and
workshops, where the problems are analyzed and the opportunities are explored. The top
manager is always a part of the team.

Develop a vision and a plan: Create a vision which can manage the work of change. The
vision should be easy to communicate and attractive to the stakeholders. Formulate plans that
can make the vision a reality.

Convey and communicate the change vision: Use every term and conditions to
communicate the new vision and the strategies. Use the controlling coalition as role models.
25

Create a fundamental for action on broad basis: remove obstacles in systems, structure
and humans, which may block the change. Encourage risk taking and action.

Generate short term benefits: Plan and realizations of fast and visible victories. Reward
them who made the victories possible.

Consolidate the results and produce more change: Use the change increased credibility to
change all systems, structure and policies that does not harmonize with the vision. Hire and
promote employees that live the vision.

Anchor the new approaches in the culture: Achieve new results through successful
behaviour and more effective management. Clarify the connection between new behaviour
and results. Recruit and develop management after the vision.

Kotters eight step model clearly has relations to Lewins model for planned change and
rationalism, as well as to the functionalism rational approach to strategic management. In this
way Kotters first four steps can relate to Lewins first phase, and Lewins next phase can be
found in Kotters step five to seven, whereas the last eight steps in Kotters model covers the
last phase in Lewins model. At the same time many of the fundamentals of the rationalism
are found in Kotters model: Change as a planned process, Top-down approach, change
agent ( the controlling coalition), data and rationality as basis for decisions. Kotters book
were seen as the first qualified text on how to handle resistance to change, which were
considered one of the most challenging aspects for leadership in the 90`s. He also introduced
new terms like: The burning platform creating a feeling of necessity, the power of the
vision, walk the talk management`s visible and symbolic actions, and pick the ripe fruit
generation of short term results. Thus, he did not only develop a continuous model, but also
development of a new language in relation to change management. At the same time Kotter
used culture as an important function to see if the change was in fact a sustainable and
persistent change and his view on culture takes basis in the modernistic instrumental
approach, where culture is seen as a component which relatively easily can be influenced.
Even thought this part of Kotters eight step model were in some degree criticized, especially
of the Scandinavian management circuits, his model were still considered as the model of
change management (Ibid.).
26

The second model and the visionary / ideological approach to strategic management seeks to
be inspired by best practice from other organisations and with this create an attractive
vision for the future, which can be the driving force in the organisations strategic
development (Guldbrandsen, 2010). The thought of using an ideal or a vision when one
creates the future, also influenced the theories on change management, so a new school raised
the school of vision. This school seeks to create and develop a vision that attracts
stakeholders and the subsequent sale of the vision. The changed focus from the rational to
the ideological approach to change is to find in Kotters book Heart of change, where he
still holds on to the eight step model and the linear approach it builds on, but he emphasise for
that the biggest challenge when change happens, is to get the people to change behaviour. The
solution to this is to transfer the focus from rational analyze approach to a more emotional
see-feel approach, where the primary source to change the employees behaviour is to create
positive feelings. The most important tool to do this is to create a vision with great appeal and
a burning platform, which is to feel and touch and that clearly illustrates the seriousness of the
situation The important thing in relation to this school of vision, is to be able to sell the
change and create assumptions such that the new behaviour can unfold. The model can be
used to explain the different phases in a change course and also as inspiration in relation to
facilitations to practical measures that can be implemented to support the process of change
(Ibid.). The first prediction for support from the employees is that the change makes sense,
and for the change to make sense one need to create something that is better than what already
existed. How does it look like when the change has become a reality? What do the
stakeholders get out of it? And what`s in it for me? In the rational approach to strategic
change one emphasized hard analytic thinking and a small dream, whereas in the school of
vision it is 80 % the dream that gives the change meaning and that dream creates positive
feelings and that positive feeling again is the way to create new paths and changed
behavioural patterns. After the vision and the burning platform are conveyed, the next step
is to create a safety net so that the employees dare to take the first step into the new an
unknown. This contributes to give the employees a good gut feeling and a good safety net
could be an education plan, a parent project plan, a study trip or maybe a pilot project. The
fourth and last element in this theory is a good audience which are aware of the change
process, someone that cheers the first initiatives in the process and that can give feedback
when things are not going as planned according to the change plan and schedule. In practice a
visible and committed management is an important step in securing an enthusiastic audience,
27
while other important elements are internal change agents with a license to act, celebration of
targets and successes which have been reached along the way and ongoing dialogue meetings
where one share different concerns. This model is called the trapeze model and is often used
as inspiration in change situations (Ibid.).
3.2.2. The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model
The second model, or third if one also includes the visionary model to strategic management,
is the model based on social constructivism and the AI model. The last years Appreciative
Inquiry (AI) has been more and more widespread as a method within social constructivism,
which can be used in several classic management tasks including change management.
Appreciative stands for the attitudinal foundation or basic principle within the method and
symbolizes that what we are focusing on are what we really appreciate and care about, and
thereby one can create enthusiasm about the change our successes, strengths and potentials.
The principle has its background from the generally recognized and in some degree empirical
well-founded psychological principle the Pygmalion effect. Behind this principle there is an
assumption which says that the expectations we seek to meet others with, contributes to do
them to what they are. For example will positive expectations towards our employees bring
out the best in them, and yet the positive expectations are confirmed. In the same way, our
negative expectations will influence our actions towards the employees and it will become
difficult for them to their positive sides. The conclusion is that; our expectations contributes
to create our reality .

The word Inquiry is based on a wish to create a better world for example increase the
efficiency, improve the cooperation and/ or increase the quality of the work. The road from
the challenge to the action is widely different from the classic approach to problem solving. In
the classic problem solving method one uses the basis of past sins to find an optimal solution,
by using proven and well documented solutions. In AI one seeks to find a model that uses
situations that has worked best and our dreams about the future. The five steps in the 5D
circle and AI model, could entail the following elements:

Definition: What is it that we want to promote? The change is being given a motivating
headline.

Discovery: In this phase the best moments are explored. When are we closest to achieve what
we want to achieve? What do we do when it works best? Which circumstances promote the
28
best moments?

Dream: What is it that we dream about? How does it look like when we have reached the
goal? How can we be able to determine that this is it? What do we say, feel and do? Can it be
measured in some way and what is the first thing we will see when we have reached it?

Design: What can we do to make the dream a reality? How can we create several of the
circumstances that form the framework of the best moments? Every possible solution shall be
included

Delivery: What do we like to do together and by ourselves? How will we be able to see if
we succeeded? When and how should we make up a status, learn and find initiatives?

(Guldbrandsen, 2010).

3.2.3. Change Management
Organisations and working places are in continuous change, and these changes occur because
of external powers, which are making the organisations adapt to the environment, or internal
organisational challenges may appear. Organisational Change can be the result of decreasing
productivity, changes in the core production or organisational structure. It is natural to
separate between planned change and change as a reaction to the surroundings or internally
within the organisation. A common model for change management is to see the process
dynamically, like a conceptual business model (Busch & Vanebo, 2003). The models point of
view is that the company consists of different subsystems;

1. The Behavioural System,
2. The Transformation System
3. The Leader System, and
4. The Coalition System

In addition to this it lays institutionalized and technical surroundings, such as regulations and
practice, related to the Coalition system. Change within a subsystem, will effect and create
change in the other systems. Change Management as a term conception and ideology lays in
the breaking point between these systems. J acobsen (2004) uses a coarse bisection in type of
29
change strategy, which is likely to be used in change situations, where strategy E and strategy
O are the two in focus. The authors imply that the different situations of change have different
elements and features and that the situation may appear differently in each case (J acobsen,
2004).

Beer and Nohrias, the authors of Breaking the Code of Change, represents two fundamental
different strategies for change - strategy E represents economy and has a economic rational
ideology, where a formal structures and systems are in focus, and also the rate of return to the
owners. At the opposite end one find strategy O, which goals are to develop the organisations
human resources in a way that they are capable to execute strategies and learn from the
experiences one has from earlier change initiatives. Strategy E is a top-down-oriented
model for change management, where the management give clear and formal instructions,
guidelines and directives during the whole change process. The process is seen as linear and
as a fundamental rational process, where one begins the process of change with an analysis of
the situation and evaluates the possibilities and limitations. It is important to set clear and
defined goals on what the organisation wishes to accomplish / achieve with the change(s),
followed by solutions and efforts one wants to use, to gain these specific goals, through the
implementation phase (Cummings & Huse, 1989).

Strategy O is, in contrast to strategy E, a bottom-up strategy, which is seen as a
development process and the change in this perspective is not necessarily a onetime
occurrence including the linear elements one finds in strategy E. However this is a
continuously process of development and adaption in a wanted direction to achieve the
defined goals. Organisation Development (OD) as a traditional aspect within organisational
theory, can be placed in this category. The strategy emphasize for learning and participation
from all levels in an organisation and the management does not have to be absent in these
situations, but rather delegate responsibility and create commitment amongst the employees
on lower levels in the organisation. Legitimacy and influence are in this strategy one of many
criteria of success, for achieving the most wanted result (J acobsen, 2004).

One can further take a look at a third strategy, which can be seen as a more Scandinavian
oriented direction, where one finds the tradition of cooperation. This trend has its origin from
the 1960`s in Tavistock and the foundation behind the strategy is sosio- technological theory,
which builds on a principle on how to see social and technical systems in relations to each
30
other. If one of the systems changes without considering the other, this may imply lower
efficiency, degenerate quality and increased absence due to sickness etc. To find an optimal
solution to a change, both systems needs to be taken into consideration participation and
involvement in a process of change are one of the most elderly principles to counteract
resistance (Cummings & Huse, 1989).

It could be interesting to compare these strategies with the different sciences we just
mentioned in chapter 2.0. Strategy E could be compared to the rational approach, where an
economic and rational ideology and approach is in focus, and where one emphasize on
structures and systems distributed from a top-down access. Also, since Kotters eight step
models clearly has relations to Lewins model, one could also assume that strategy E has in
some degree aspects from the classic rational functionalism, where J ohn P. Kotter is seen as
one of the most well known authors within change management. The ideological visionary
approach within functionalism is harder to place within these strategies, but one could maybe
recognize some aspects within strategy O. The vision model seeks to change the employees
behaviour with creating positive feelings, whereas this could in some degree be assigned with
strategy O`s bottom-up approach, were the management may create commitment amongst
the employees and include all parts of the organisation. However it is important to mention
that strategy O is seen as a continuous process of development and adaption in a wanted
direction, while the functional vision model still holds on to the linear approach it builds on,
but it emphasize more for that the biggest challenge is to get people to change behaviour.
Maybe this could be achieved or obtained by involving and committing people to the change?
Finally the social constructivism approach is considered, and one can try to identify aspects
which can be recognized in the third strategy mentioned above. This strategy is maybe more a
combination of strategy E and O, rather than similar to the social constructivism model.
However, the strategy is originated from the sosio-technological theory, which seeks to find
and recognize social and technical systems in relations to each other. Could this be seen as in
organisations there is not only one reality, which are described in the theory of social
constructivism? Can it be seen as we create our own reality, by combining the two aspects
of social fundamentals and technical systems. Could this be seen as one way of thinking about
the social constructivism model, in practice? If it is the right way or not is difficult to know,
however, it could be seen as a suggestion on one way of looking at it, and further it is up to
other researchers to validate the interpretation of the term social constructivism.
31
3.3. Comparative models
3.3.1. Organisation Development and Change
There are several definition of Organisation Development (OD), but one could be:
Organisation development is a planned process of change in an organisation`s culture
through the utilization of behaviour science technologies, research and theory (French and
Bell J r., 1999, p. 25).

Several authors agree upon the fact that OD applies behavioural science to achieve planned
change, that the target of change is the total organisation or system and that the goals are
increased organisational effectiveness and individual development (French and Bell J r.,
1999). Organisation culture and processes are high-priority targets in most OD programs and
several authors emphasize achieving congruence among the components of the organisation
such as strategy, structure, culture and processes. Porras and Robertson suggest that OD is a
package of theories, values, strategies and techniques, and this package gives OD its
distinct character compared to other improvement strategies. Bennis calls OD both a response
to change and an educational strategy intended to change beliefs, attitudes, values and
organisation structure all of these directed toward making the organisation better able to
respond to changing environmental demands (Ibid.).

Beer`s definition mentions developing the organisation`s self-renewing capacity a central
goal in al OD programs but all the authors agree with the desirability of creating self-
renewing learning organisations. All together the different definitions of OD convey a sense
of what organisation development is and do, and they describe in broad outline the nature and
methods of OD. It is interesting to mention that there is no set definition of OD and no
agreement on the boundaries of the field, that is, what practices should be included and
excluded, but these are not serious constrains given that the field is still evolving, and that
practitioners share a central core of understanding (Ibid.).

Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell J r. have made their own definition of OD, which
includes characteristics that they think are important for the present and future of the field;

Organisation an development is a long-term effort, led by top management, to improve an
organisation`s visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing,
collaborative management of organisation culture with special emphasis on the culture of intact
32
work teams and other team configuration using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and
technology of applied behavioural science, including action research
(French and Bell J r., 1999, p.26).

By long-term the authors mean that organisational change and development takes time
several years in most cases. There are no quick-fix when it comes to lasting organisational
improvement, rather the opposite where one describes improvement as a never-ending
journey of continuous change (French and Bell J r., 1999).
The phrase led and supported by top management indicates an imperative: Most OD
programs that fail do so because top management were ambivalent, lost its commitment, or
became distracted with other duties. To avoid this, top management must lead and actively
encourage the change effort. Organisational change is hard, serious business; it includes pain
and setbacks as well as successes, and the top management must initiate the improvement
journey and be committed to seeing it through (Ibid.).

Visioning processes are these processes through which organisation members develop a
viable, coherent and shared picture of the nature of the products and services the organisation
offers, the ways those goods will be produced and delivered to the customers, and what the
organisation and its members can expect from each other. Visioning can be defined as
creating a picture of the desired future that includes salient features of the human side of the
organisation and then working together to make that picture a reality (Ibid.).
Empowerment processes in this definition is meant as those leadership behaviours and human
resource practices that enable the organisation members to develop and use their talents as
fully as possible toward individual growth and organisational success. By empowerment, they
mean involving large numbers of people in building the vision of tomorrow, developing the
strategy for getting there, and making it happen it is crucial that the empowerment must be
built into the very fabric of the organisation, this means its strategy, structure, processes and
culture (Ibid.).

The newt aspect of the definition is learning processes, which are those interacting, listening
and self-examining processes that facilitate individual, team and organisational learning. Peter
Senge describes learning organisations as:

..organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the result they truly desire,
33
where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and
where people are continually learning how to learn together

As Argyris advises, people and organisations must avoid the trap of defensive routines,
those habitual reactions that prevent embarrassment and threat, but also prevent learning.

By problem-solving processes they mean the ways organisations members diagnose
situations, solve problems, make decisions, and take actions on problems, opportunities, and
challenges in the organisation`s environment and its internal functioning. Further they believe
that solutions to problems are enhanced by tapping deeply into the creativity, commitment,
vitality and common purposes of all members of the organisation, in contrast to having only a
select few involved. To create the best climate for effective problem solving by all the
organisation`s members they suggests a compelling, widely shared vision of a desired future
and empowerment means involving people in problems and decisions letting them be
responsible for results (French and Bell J r., 1999).

By ongoing collaborative management of the organisation`s culture they mean, first, that one
of the most important things to manage in organisations is the culture: the prevailing pattern
of values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, activities, interactions, norms,
sentiments and artefacts. Secondly, managing the culture should be a collaborative business
with widespread participation in creating and managing a culture that satisfies the want and
the needs of the individuals at the same time that it fosters the organisation`s purposes.
Collaborative management of the culture means that everyone, just not a small group, has a
stake in making the organisation work. In the same way that visioning, empowerment,
learning and problem-solving processes are opportunities for collaboration, so is managing
the culture. Including culture prominently in the definition, affirms our belief that culture is
the bedrock of behaviour in organisation and the reciprocal influence among culture, strategy,
structure and processes makes each important, and each influences the other. However,
culture is of primary importance and Edgar Schein defines culture as follows:

Culture now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed
by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaption and internal
integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore (e) is to be taught to
34
new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems

In short, culture consist of basic assumptions, values and norms of behaviour that are viewed
as the correct way to perceive, think and feel that is why culture change is necessary for true
organisational improvement (Ibid.).
The definition place further consideration to organisational processes, how things get done,
where they highlight the importance of visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-
solving processes. Processes are relatively easy to change, so they are the place OD often
begin getting people to change the way they do things, but change becomes permanent
when the culture changes and people accept the new ways as the right ways. So when the
culture promotes collaboration, empowerment and continuous learning the organisation is
bound to succeed (Ibid.).

Intact work teams and other configurations recognize that teams are central to accomplish
work in organisations teams are the basic building blocks of an organisation, and when
teams function well, individuals and the total organisation function well. To ensure
effectiveness team culture can be collaboratively managed and the most prevalent form of
teams in organisations is intact work teams consisting of superior and subordinates with a
specific job to perform. Team building and role and goal clarification interventions are
standard activities in OD programs directed toward intact work team. However, in many
organisations today the intact work teams operate without a boss in the traditional sense the
teams manage themselves. These self-managed teams assume complete responsibility for
planning and execution of work assignments and the different members are trained in
competencies such as planning, maintaining quality control, and using management
information. One can see that over time, self-directed teams control performance appraisals,
hiring, firing and training, and the results are highly gratifying both for the team members and
for the organisation (Ibid.).

One can see an increase in use of ad hoc teams that perform a specific task and disband when
the task is completed, and the method for getting this complex task done is to assemble a
cross-functional team comprised of members from all the functional specialities required to
get the job done, such as design, engineering, manufacturing and procurement. The old
method for solving these particular tasks has been to have functional specialists work on the
35
problem sequentially when one function is finished with its part of the project they pass it
on to the next functional unit. This method resulted in loss of energy, wasted time, much
rework and considerable antagonism among the separate functional specialists. Tom Peters
uses the terms multifunctional projectization and horizontal systems to describe these teams
and their work and further he predicts that temporary, multifunctional, constantly shifting
teams will be the dominant configuration for getting work done. His thesis Liberation
Management describes that contemporary bureaucratic structures with their functional
specialities and rigid hierarchies are all wrong for the demands of today`s fast-paced
marketplace. The phrase using the consultant facilitator role implies that leaders can benefit
from seeking professional assistance in planning and implementing OD initiatives. The
services of a third-party consultant-facilitator are desirable in early stages of the OD and its
role is powerful; that person is typically seen as bringing objectivity, neutrality and expertise
to the situation. Also the third party is not captive to the culture of the unit undertaking the
program and this need for objectivity does not mean that the third party cannot be a member
of the organisation, rather it means that he or she should not be a member of the particular
unit initiating the OD effort (Ibid.).

By the theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences they mean insights from the
sciences dedicated to understanding people in organisation, how they function and how they
can function better. OD applies knowledge and theory and therefore in addition to behavioural
sciences, such as psychology, social psychology, sociology, applied disciplines such as adult
education, psychotherapy, social work, economics and political science make contributions to
the practice of OD.

The last comment is about action research, whereas the participative model of collaborative
and iterative diagnosis and taking action in which the leader, organisation members and OD
practitioner work together to define and resolve problems and opportunities.
This extensive applicability of this model in OD could contribute to another definition, such
as: organisation improvement through participant action research (French & Bell J r., 1999,
p.29).

All of the above mentioned characteristics of organisation development depart substantially
from traditional consultation models; this can be illustrated below where Schein identifies
three basic models of consultations:
36
1. Purchase of expertise model in this model a leader or a unit identifies a need for
information or expertise the organisation cannot supply, and hires a consultant to (a)
survey customers or employees about some matter, (b) find out how other
organisations organize certain units, or (c) search out information such as the
marketing strategy of a competitor, and then the consultant makes recommendations.
2. Doctor-patient model in this model a leader or a group detects symptoms of ill in a
unit, or in the organisation, and employs a consultant to diagnose what is causing the
problem or problems. The consultant, like a physician, then prescribes a course of
action to remedy the ailment.
3. Process consultant model in this model the consultant work with the leader and
group to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, and to develop action plans. The
consultant assists the client organisation to become more effective in diagnosing and
solving problems.
The first two of these models depict traditional management consulting and the third model is
more typical of OD consulting, whereas the clients receive help in the way they think and
how they are solving problems. The consultant suggests general processes and procedures and
helps the clients generate valid data and learn from them in short, the OD consultant is an
expert on process how to structure effective problem solving and decision making (French
& Bell J r., 1999).

In this section i have tried to define the term organisation development and change. There
exists several definitions, but the one explained here is from the authors W.L. French and C.
H. Bell J r., where they have sought to find a well suited definition that could be used for
today`s and future organisations, seeking to understand the process of change and
organisation development. They involve terms like visioning, empowerment, learning and
problem-solving processes, which are all processes that needs to be seen in a long-term aspect
and also led by the top management. They emphasize for the importance of managing the
culture, and that this should be a collaborative business with widespread participation, that
satisfies both the needs of the individuals as well as the purpose and goals of the entire
organisation. They recognize that the work teams are the building blocks of an organisation,
and when these function well, so does the entire organisation. To achieve this one may use
team building, but also role and goal clarification for each individual or team, even though in
some organisations today there exists self-managed teams, which also could function well.
Theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences, together with action research helps us
37
to understand the people in the organisation, how they function and also how they can
function better, and how they can work together to define and resolve, both problems and
opportunities. At the end of the section, some models for managing change are displayed,
where Schein seeks to give us an understanding on the differences between the traditional
approach to organisation development and change, and the OD approach to this, whereas we
can see that in the traditional approach the consultant or the outsider only makes
recommendations, while in the OD approach he or she works together with the a group to
solve problems and be more effective (Ibid.). Further this can be compared to the AI model
and Kotters eight step model, whereas one may say that some of the terms in the OD
definition could be linked to Kotters model, while other aspects are more similar to the AI
model. The long-term aspect, even the time aspect in general, is absent in both Kotters model
and the AI model, while the aspect where the change should be led by the top management is
more similar to Kotters model. This could also be the case with aspect like visioning and, to
some degree, the learning an problem-solving processes, whereas Kotters model focus on
finding problems and obstacles in the past, so that one may avoid these in the future, and also
that the top management or a group of the top management together with the a change agent
should lead the change process. Also the vision aspect is to be recognized in Kotters model,
but maybe even more in the second model of functionalism, the ideology - visionary approach
/ model. However, there is some features that are more similar to the AI model, such as where
they emphasize for that the work teams and the employees are the building blocks for the
organisation, they want to let everybody participate in the change, and they focus on
understanding how the people behave this could be a key component to implement the
change, both in the AI model and within OD, because one understand peoples emotions and
may use them in a way that could make them understand the change better, with no or less
resistance. Compared to the traditional models described above, one may think that the OD
approach is more similar to Kotters eight step model, however, when one look at an overall
view of the definition of OD, done by French and Bell J r., one might get the impression of
that this is more similar to the AI model, whereas human aspect, team involvement and
cultural aspect are taken more into consideration.

3.3.2. Total Quality Management (TQM)
Quality management has a resultant impact on organisational behaviour, where one needs to
redefine quality programmes as a major determinant of organisational change. The
implementation of quality programmes often leads to major change within an organisation,
38
and this change may be studied at a variety of levels (Almaraz, 1994). At an organisational
level this implementation could represent a strategic move to be more competitive. And at a
unit level, one can see that different units or teams are made to maintain the different goals on
quality and that these units or teams are empowered through the quality paradigm. The key
determinants for success, from top managers and down to the various employees, are the issue
of resistance to change and the institutionalization of quality concepts, and at all levels, the
successful implementation of a quality programme requires top management commitment
(Ibid.). The authors hope that sampling of quality management research, both conceptual and
empirical, will focus our attention on the magnitude as well as the profound relevance of
organisational research possibilities within the quality management paradigm. They
emphasize that such research is needed to show the relationship between quality management
programmes and organisational behaviour and change this information has great value for
both those practitioners trying to implement quality programmes and also for those
researchers trying to focus their effort on the most relevant issues in their organisational
research (Ibid.).

The evolution and development of the quality management programmes is not typical of a
traditional organisational research issue and the result is that many organisational researchers
have ignored the behavioural side of the quality phenomenon. Operations researchers have
provided some valuable insights into the degree of implementation of quality programmes, as
well as some instrument and theory development. However, the issues of organisational
behaviour (top management commitment and the impact of organisational change) receive
only cursory attention in this research (Ibid.).

One can often find resistance to change when new ways of thinking and doing things occur,
and this is a phenomenon often studied in organisational research. It is also ironic that this
phenomenon is to be found among the organisational researchers themselves and the support
for research on quality comes from a surprising source the business community.
A second factor inhibiting research on quality is the fact that the implementation of quality
programmes on an organisational level represents a paradigmatic shift, from the traditional
form of management to a new a more team based leadership version. The need to work
together in teams, at all levels of the organisation, including cross functional, is vital to
organisational survival. Change of such kind and magnitude is not incremental, but rather a
frame braking change in organisational functioning and organizing, making it both difficult to
39
implement and study (Ibid.).

One aspect that could make this implementation process easier could be to define the quality
construct. It inhibits the research on quality, because the term quality has a multi-faced nature,
where there are two cognitive definitions, based on perceptions of individuals assessing
quality of a product or service, and three definitions are concrete in terms of operationalising
the meaning of the quality and the ease of comparison with other organisations. The value
based definition of quality is viewed in terms of cost and prices the provision of a product or
service at acceptable cost or price. The determination of value is a subjective judgement on
the part of the consumer and this is the anchor of the majority of research in the service sector
exploring the gaps between perceived expected value and actual value. The last three
definitions, mentioned above, are most heavily utilized in the writings of the operations
management literature and quality gurus such as Deming (1986), J uran (1998) and Crosby
(1984). The three definitions are more specified below:

(1) User-based definition Quality is measured by the degree to which the wants and needs of
customers are satisfied.
(2) Product-based definition Quality refers to the amount of desired attributes obtained in
the product.
(3) Manufacturing-based definition quality is measured by the percentage of scrap or
rework required during the production process.
(Alamaraz, 1994, pp.8-9)
Given these different definitions on quality the generalisation of research on quality is very
low and whenever researchers talk about improving quality it is most likely that they refer to
different aspects of quality (Ibid.).

Another aspect of the quality term is that, while quality programmes have existed in
organisations for quite some time, research on quality issues has lagged far behind. The
authors suggest that the implementation of quality programmes invariably leads to changes in
the organisation, affecting people, tasks, technology and structure. The question is whether we
can infer a causal relationship between quality management and organisational culture? What
is the relationship of management to organisational change? This discussion of quality
management in the context of organisational change theory is to be discussed further below in
the text (Ibid.).
40

Total Quality Management (TQM) refers to a management process directed at establishing
organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone in an organisation
in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level (Alamaraz, 1994).
There are a lot of organisations which have experienced that their survival is dependent on
making major changes now, but to achieve the level of cultural change required by TQM is
not an overnight process, such a change must be planned and carefully implemented. It is
said that change of this magnitude and complexity is not adequately defined by traditional
stage models of change, so there is a great need for more research on this matter. Earlier,
change theory focused on only one organisational subsystem, such as the human and
technological subsystems. However when we now have reached the twentieth century,
organisations and their environment have become increasingly complex, as well as the types
of changes that occur. The text implies that:The study of TQM in organisations provides a
valuable opportunity for research on the complexity of change and the chance for theory
development on frame braking change and, further it defines major organisational change
as:non-routine, non-incremental, discontinuous change which alters the overall orientation
of the organisation and / or its components (Alamaraz, 1994, pp. 10). These components
depict the interconnection of people, task, technology and structure, where a major change
can happen in any of these four components. The magnitude of the change will be such that
all components will make some adjustments to the change, and may in fact incur major
changes as a result. Again these changes will affect the culture of the organisation the
values, the beliefs, and the expectations of organisation members, and will transform the
organisation. There is a great need for focusing on change theory research on the radical,
transformational changes occurring in organisations and both scholars and practitioners have
a need to know what the implications of such changes are, how to design and implement such
changes and what leadership qualities are required for success (Ibid.).

As we have mentioned earlier, it is well known that people are, for the most part, resistant to
change of any kind and this is especially true when it comes to transformational change.
There are a lot of new factors that must be included, such as fear for the unknown, habit, the
possibility of economic insecurity, threats to social relationships, and failure to recognize the
need for change. In these situations organisation leaders must step in to facilitate acceptance
for the change (ibid.).

41
One can also question how the organisation looks at present situation and how it is expected
to look after the change and the importance of identifying organisational parameters prior to
the change is a vital aspect of the process in total. Depending on the existing culture and the
degree to which a change, such as TQM, differs from that culture, an organisation may be
more or less ready for such a change. It is important to create a need for change; in effect,
opening up the organisational culture to be receptive to the change. This is particularly
difficult when there are no apparent crises or reason for the change, but rather the long-range
vision of a leader who anticipates the time it takes to implement organisational change. If the
vision of a leader differs from the values and beliefs of the existing organisational culture,
resistance to change is especially relevant, and this part of the process is easy to overlook in
major change efforts. If the organisational culture fails to assimilate the vision and its
implications, desired change will never become accepted by the organisation members, and
will ultimately fail (Ibid.).

It is further important to look at the aspect of leadership when discussing transformational
change, which often occur in the implementation of quality programmes. Traditional change
theory focuses on the manager of the day-to day operations, while newer theories emphasize
for focus on the leaders of transformational change. However, researchers have not
implemented or incorporated leadership theories into their discussion (Ibid.).
Another important aspect on this matter is the commitment from the top management it is
them who allow quality improvements to occur in an organisation. Sometimes it is important
to address the managers beliefs and values, in order to support and nourish a new cultural
reality represented by quality. The authors say that as quality moves from a process of
inspections of finished products to a continuous process, which permeates all facets of the
organisation, the importance of these to aspects, top management commitment and issues of
organisational culture, cannot be underestimated. If one present quality management as a
determinant of organisational change, many questions arise which address change theory,
organisational behaviour and organisational research. One can say that the quality
management paradigm easily fits within the bounds of organisational research and lends itself
neatly to questions suited for theoretical exploration and empirical testing. The outcome of
this could greatly advance our knowledge and could provide practitioners with something of
true value (Ibid.). Further one would define quality programmes as determinants of major
organisational change, and in this way we can address some of the challenges the organisation
can face when dealing with quality programmes, whereas three issues are mentioned below:
42

1. Quality as a strategic choice.
The goal of these programmes is to have a positive impact in the areas so designated for
improvement and they are implemented in many different forms in terms of process,
product and customer satisfaction. The decision of quality implementation has moved from
the quality assurance level of inspections into the boardroom of top management and
executives, who seek to integrate quality into the strategic game plan of the organisation and
in this matter it is important to consider the organisational context in which quality
management decisions are being made (Alamaraz, 1994). Further definition on strategy will
be described in section 3.4.2.

2. The team concept.
The Total Quality Programme (TQM) in U.S. organisations, can be described as frame
breaking change, because quality facilitates a move from the more traditional, individualistic
structure of American organisations to one in which emphasis is placed on teamwork.
However, to achieve this level of culture change needed by TQM is not an easy and overnight
process, and needs to be planned and carefully implemented. Several authors points out the
systemic orientation of quality programmes, arguing for the need to align performance
management systems with the team-based philosophy of quality programmes and also a
special technique, namely self-managed work teams, where they discuss the benefits ( and
problems) which may result from these choices (Alamaraz, 1994).

3. Implementation of Quality programmes.
One can say that implementation refers to the front-end effort to operationalise some aspects
of quality, where this could be in terms of the product or service itself, the process of creating
such a product or service, or even the perception customers have regarding the product and or
services. The implementation of such quality programme focused on any of these dimensions
may be short term and immediate and such efforts can easily be measured and recorded. A
former study, made by Steven Sommer and Deryl Merritt, presents an empirical study of
TQM in health care and this study is indicative of the professionals empirical research that
quality programmes may produce, and shows the value of TQM possible even in the short
term (Almaraz, 1994).

From these lines, mentioned above, we know that the issue of quality exists in most
43
organisations in some degree and the decision to implement a quality programme has become
a necessity for many organisations and firms. In relation to this drive or necessity, the way in
which the top management chooses to support such a new programme will determine its
ultimate success. The issue of quality management and change place quality management in
the realm of organisation development, and even within organisational behaviour (Ibid.).

Development and adaption of a new reality implies implementation skills and management of
new actuality politics and structure. This is part of the core in the change management
discipline and formulations of new goals, acknowledgement of actual state / condition and
plans for how one can achieve the new and wanted reality are important aspects in this
process. One can use the change as a tool for redefining and implementation of the new
reality and the main task for the management is to realize new intensions for the future and
implementation of new ideas in the organisations (Hennestad, Revang, & Strnen, 2006).
One of the main points emphasized by Hennestad, Revang og Strnens is the inadequate
reliance on implementation in practical good executed change management. The authors
implies that many good change projects begins with good intensions and lustily courage, but
often fail when this is not followedup in a correct way after the start-up. There are a lot ways
on how to approach change, some changes can give large organisational changes, while others
can be of a less size and character. Information regarding why and how one intend to change
to reach the goal are things that needs to be clear early in the process and should be valid in
every change situation. Information and communication to all affected / involved members of
the organisation, is a postulation if the process should go smoothly and efficiently. In most
change processes it is usual to put up a time line for planning, execution / implementation and
a finalization or closure, where this time limit is a hypothetically wanted scenario for the
process. However, a few of all change processes begins and ends at a certain point in time and
it can be difficult to visualize the entire process before it starts, which again emphasize for a
competent management. The ability to predict, react and take action during the process plays
a central role and can be defined as change competence (Hennestad, Revang, & Strnen,
2006).
3.3.2.1. Strategy
There is not a simple, easy and accepted definition of strategy and the practitioners uses the
term in different manners and situations. Some include goals into the definition of strategy,
while others separate strategy and goals, and further one will try to explain what strategy is,
more than making a correct definition of it (G.Roos, G. Von Krogh, J . Roos & L. Fernstrm,
44
2007). In normal terms, one can say that a strategy is a continuous line of planned actions,
planned and executed to reach a certain goal. The strategy is always made on advance and is
often documented in a plan. Different tools and framework have been used during the last
years to help understand the development of strategy and how it affects the daily operations of
the organisations. Henry Mintzberg is one of the most known researchers within this area, and
he emphasizes strategy not just as a plan, but also as a continuous process. He means that just
to focus on the plan can mislead the organisation and give a wrong picture of the total
situation (Ibid.). Mintzberg has developed a framework which is called the five P`s within
strategic theory and includes:

Plan
Ploy
Pattern
Position
Perspective

One can also look at strategy as generic approaches, whereas we have four very different ones
to consider further on. These four approaches have different perceptions on what strategy is,
what it contains and predicts, together with implications for practical management
(Whittigton, 2002). The classic and traditional approach represents a rational, objective and
sequential approach, predicted as a universal norm. It seek to maximize profit and focus on
internal planning, the process is analytic, the main influence is economic and / or military
systems and it has its origin from the 1960`s. Both the evolutionary and processual approach
are more sceptic and doubt the strategists abilities to control and manage the strategy
effectively in an rational and hierarchical way. According to the evolutionists changes in the
environment are too fast and unpredictable, so that the strategy is to survive and try to have
every possibilities open. The approach appeared in the 1980`s and focus on the external
marked with a Darwinistic process and where it has its influence from economy and biology.
The processual approach one can find in the opposite end, whereas they seek a patient
strategy with incremental adaption and maintenance of core competencies. They focus on
internal politics and knowledge, the process consists of negotiation and learning and their
main source of influence is psychology. The last approach is the system theoretical
perspective which has more relativistic perceptions where they mean that the strategies goals
45
and terms depends on the social systems characteristics. They focus on the external society,
whereas the process is social, the main source of influence is sociology and it has its origin
from the 1990`s (ibid.). From these approaches one can better understand the different choices
countries and cultures have made, when considering business strategy. The different
contradictions, such as the capitalistic America and the communistic Middle East can
contribute to a wider understanding of the different structures in marked economies and their
several connections to the rest of the society. Both success and failure, for example for the
Asian countries have made us aware of the different social structures that are the foundation
of their business systems and strategies. Even in the Western countries, with the privatization,
different approaches has made organisations compete more with each other, while they are
being driven by social and economic motives and also dependent upon resources outside the
marked. The profit maximizing entrepreneurs and high-competition markets are not the only
thing the strategists need to handle and struggle with, whereas a strong and competitive
strategy in complex environments demands a system theoretical sensitivity for the magnitude
and diversity in todays economic practice (Ibid.).

In this section I have looked at Total Quality management (TQM) as a way of making and
implementing change, where this implementation seek to help the organisation be more
competitive, and that the quality is maintained and increased through different units or teams
on different levels of the organisation. Resistance to change and the institutionalization of
quality concepts, and top management commitment are the key determinants for success, and
different authors emphasize for more research related to the relationship between quality
management programmes, and organisational behaviour and change. The reason for this
enthusiasm for the quality management programme is the lack of research and interest within
the behavioural side of the quality aspect. There are several definitions of quality that are
being used, but the question is whether we can make a causal relationship between quality
management and organisational culture? This discussion of quality management in the
context of organisational change theory leads us to TQM, which is a management process
directed to establish organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone
in an organisation in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level.
This is a large change, and with the complexity of both the today`s organisations and its
environments, this is not something that comes easily. We therefore seek to find quality as a
strategic choice, as a part of a team concept and where implementation of quality programmes
may foster both short and long term results (Ibid.). If one should further link the TQM to the
46
main models, one could start with mentioning that there is a similarity to Kotters model
concerning the change as a strategic choice, where a strategy could be seen as a clear goal and
that there is a meaning with the change, which is the third step of Kotters model. However,
considering change as a part of a team concept is more similar to the AI model, whereas
Kotters model seems to emphasize more for individuals who support the change and live
the change. The last concept of TQM concerning change focus on the implementation of
quality programmes on a long and short basis. This is an aspect that separates a bit from the
two main models, whereas quality is something that have not been brought up, and also the
time aspect is just mentioned i Kotters model, where the focus in on a short term basis, while
the AI model does not mention the time aspect at all.

THE CULTURAL ASPECT

3.4. National cultures and demand of management
It is the rapid pace of change that makes us aware of different cultures and fundamental
management theory, where new technological changes result in unforeseen consequences and
where the different cultures and organisation dont change values and beliefs united (Strand,
2004). The inter connections with strangers can create confusion and unexpected
contradictions, which may not be surprising considering the different and underlying values,
beliefs and behaviour that the different cultures and nationalities represents. The culture gives
an implication on how we understand and approach things, both regarding communication
and how organisations are being structured. In addition, we find different types of
management and leadership, and how these are implemented and executed. It is this question
together with cultures one wants to examine further on this text, where one can take a look at
different frames of interpretation, that is, different national cultures (Ibid.).

The phenomenon of culture is difficult to handle and the practitioners do not agree upon the
contents of the term. One can say that culture is a common expression for a fundamental set
of perceptions, which in great terms is common for, for example a nation, and affects the
behaviour of the people included in this case, an organisation and its management. As a
careful definition on can say that features of culture is presumptions and understandings,
which is common for the majority of the nation, where they are being learned and transferred
and in this term are relatively continuous and permanent. There can also be an emotional side
47
to culture and especially when its being challenged , and it is very often not spoken of, but a
useful understanding is that it says something about the communication between the members
of the nation. One understand the spoken words and the meaning behind it, one act in ways
that is understandable for other members, it gives implications on whats good and whats
bad and, it gives the possibility to draw a line between members, where one have us and
them. Cultures are also connected to professions, regions and gender and one will further
try to explain cultures and the differences between them. In this attempt one want to try to
find dimensions where one can measure abilities, which can be called characteristics for each
culture. Some anthropologists suggest that there are fundamental problems in every society
which needs to be handled and made a common attitude towards, whereas the sum of this can
be called culture (Ibid.). These are as follows:

The individual: Does one presume that the individual is good or evil, or both? Do they have
the possibility to choose freely and are they to be trusted?
The relationship to nature: Do the human beings have a dominating relationship to nature, or
do they live in harmony and partly submission? Are there powers which shouldnt be
challenged and are there destiny determined lifelines?
The relationship to others: Does one relate to people like they are individuals or members of a
group? Can decisions be made by individuals or does one need an agreement from a group?
Can people be hired because of documented experience and competencies or due to family
relations or friendship? Are the members of the society worth the same or is it an apparent
hierarchical structure?
Activity: What is the fundamental set of activities working to achieve goals or working as a
limited and natural part of life? Is the meaning with life to do something or to be someone? Is
it possible to achieve results with extra effort and is it possible to control the universe?
Space: Is the physical space around us limited, or is it for everybody, public? Is this united, or
are there several mixed and shifting forms? In Western cultures it is normal to have meetings
in large rooms behind closed doors, while in other cultures decisions are made in less formal
surroundings with a larger set of openness regarding space.
Time: Are one oriented with the past, present or future? In some cultures one can experience
resistance to long-term goals and commitments, where as profits gain on a short basis seems
more reasonable. Others could have long-term goals and plans, or be strongly occupied with
the past. The attitude towards time as a regulating dimension of behaviour, also varies
between cultures. Timely precision and punctuality are seen as polite in the North of Europe,
48
while in the Latin countries and Africa one will experience a whole different attitude towards
time (Ibid.).

Research on culture does not show us a systemised picture, but instead show some contrasts
and one can illustrate culture as a sort of pattern of society deposits in three phases The
traditional the modern or industrial and the post modern. These forms of culture will vary
with the different dimension mentioned above, and one can with this, characterize states of
cultures in societies, both in geographical space and time. Geert Hofstede has made an effort
in characterize and classify national cultures based on four chosen, statistical determined
dimensions: Individualism, distance of power, uncertainty avoidance and feminism.

Stabile and common frames of performances, which we call cultures, exist in several levels:

1. A national level considering which country one comes from. Not every country has a
united culture
2. A regional and ethnical / religious / language level, whereas most countries exist of
regions and other different groups of people.
3. A level of gender if one are born female or male
4. A social class level related to the level of education possibilities and the persons
profession.
5. An organisational level for those in labour, and that has responsibility for the way
employees are being socialized where they work.

One can also identify features of culture in different levels and depths, where at the bottom
one can find continuous presumptions that are not spoken of just know to members of the
certain culture. This could be trust, relations to others, time and the meaning of other
surrounding elements, like values. The next level, closer to the surface, one can find the ways
in which we communicate, this could be buildings, rituals, heroes and other symbols
representing the culture. These features can be difficult to interpret depending on if one
knows the deep lying features of the culture, or not (Ibid.).

3.4.1. The four dimensions
Geert Hofstede has made an effort to classify and measure different cultures against each
other, where he has done two surveys with at total of 116000 schemes in 53 countries, spread
49
all over the world (Strand, 2004). It is the personnel at the sales and service department at
every level, that have answered the questions and due to the control over the technology,
procedures and the set of genders on the respondents, one could find the national differences.
With help from factor analysis Hofstede could identify four fundamental dimensions which
can contribute to separate between the different national cultures. These dimensions are:

1. Distance of power
2. Uncertainty avoidance
3. Individualism versus collectivism
4. Masculinity versus femininity

Further, one will try to give a closer description to the four dimensions, whereas the first one
is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much the culture allows a
superior to execute power. In cultures with high distance to power it is fundamental and
normal to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be looked at
with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position. Domination
and dependency are the fundamentals for co-operations. High distance to power is typical for
countries like Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. However, in a culture with low distance of
power, like Norway and Israel, one will have a more collegial relationship and a common
perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for cooperation, and
leaders cannot show others the power they posses. This culture is typical for the Northern
European countries (Ibid.).

The uncertainty avoidance dimension describes to which degree a culture encourage taking
risks. All organisations have to deal with changes and uncertainties in the environment and try
to learn and adapt to these. This happens in every country, but Hofstede has found that there
are some variation to which the different countries cope with this. Countries where one
strongly avoids uncertainties, like Greece and Portugal, people feel threatened and nervous
towards uncertain situations. This state of mind can be defined by hard work, job safety and
intolerance for aberrancy. One seeks to honour absolute values and show great respect for, for
example, age and one has a strong need for formal rules. In countries that has a lower need to
avoid uncertainty, like Norway and Denmark, one does not need the same amount of formal
rules to avoid experiences of anxiety (Ibid.).

50
Individualism versus collectivism is a dimension which measures how cultures emphasize for
individualists compared to collectives or group needs. In individualistic cultures, like USA
and Great Brittan, identity is often strongly connected to what the individual are and what
they do. It is expected that they take care of themselves and the family, and that effort and
performance are being rewarded. Everybody has the right to their opinion and private life, and
can only have one determined, calculated relationship to work. In collective cultures, like
Pakistan and Peru, the social relations are closer and the people are members of big families,
which protect them i exchange for loyalty. They emphasize for affiliation and the goal is to be
a good member, while in the individualistic perspective the ideal is to be an outstanding
individualist (Ibid.).

The last dimension is regards to masculinity and femininity. In the masculine cultures, like
Australia, J apan and Italy, performance is the only thing that counts. Money and material
standards and ambitions are the driving force. It is beautiful to be big and fast, manliness is
sexy and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitudes. In
feminine cultures, like the Netherlands and the Northern countries, life quality is the most
important aspect, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is a
motivational factor. Small-scale and unisex are attractive. In masculine cultures gender roles
are separated, the men are dominating and ongoing, while the women are set to be caregivers.
A dominating woman is not seen as feminine. In the feminine cultures gender roles are more
flexible and one beliefs in similarity between the genders, in principal. The men can also be
caregivers and the state should be more oriented towards inner and outer help tasks, and less
towards power assertion (Ibid.).

Hofstede groups the 53 cultures in clusters, which means groups of countries which are most
alike regarding some factors, and different compared to other factors. He makes a world map
over the different cultures, where he claims to find eight groups. In Europe there are three;
one Germanian, one Anglo-saxian and one Nordic group. In the Asian countries he also finds
three groups, whereas J apan might be a special case. Within the Latin countries, but also
Europe, he establishes two groups. Later studies give an additional two groups, East- and
Vest-Africa. Hofstede`s dimensions are expressed, in the different culture, through school
systems, relations at the work place and how the governmental organisation reduces or
increases, for example, the distance of power. The Scandinavian countries, together with the
Netherlands, have very low distance to power, average collectivism / individualism, a high
51
degree of feminism and average low degree of uncertainty avoidance (ibid.).

As it is described above, it is difficult to explain what culture could be and is in relation with
organisation forms and management styles, and it is difficult to give an exact connection
between the different aspects. However, as some organisation forms are more typical or
normal in certain national and regional cultures, one can say that there is coherence
between culture and which organisational structure that is preferred. Cultures probably gives
some fundamental ground stones on how one should organize and structures a company, and
also how management and authority are executed within the organisation / country. One can
see this due to the different organisation forms emerging and operating in the different
geographical areas and by minorities that bring their traditions and way of living into
foreign cultures. As an example, this could be the Chinese bringing their family oriented
structure into businesses in San Francisco and Montreal, where they live. French small
bakeries, J apanese car manufacturers, Norwegian cooperatives within agriculture and
American large enterprises must be understood as a phenomenon within the culture they are a
part of (Ibid.).
Further, if one wants to find out how culture effects organisations and management, one has
to select some dimensions which are considered important and vital to the situation. A good
beginning towards this is to imagine where the society and organisations are situated on a
scale or dimension from traditional to post modern culture. However, this is not an
unambiguous way to characterize an organisation or culture, but with the help of Hofstede`s
four dimensions, one gets a map of different organisational and management cultures.
Possible examples on how these dimensions are combined can be as described below:

Where there is large distance of power and little tolerance for uncertainty an
organisation will have many layers and rules, and one example of this could be the
French bureaucracy, both in public and private sector. It could be that with this there
exists an obesity of such organisation forms, and the management is likely to perform
and operate through formal structures, but may at the same time keep distance and
retain the privileges.

Slightly less distance of power one may find in Germany, but the need for order and
rules are still apparent. This gives some conditions for what one may call the German
emphasize for expert organisations or professional bureaucracy. Order and quality
52
characterize such organisations, and the professional is primarily the one that has the
authority to lead and manage.

In Nordic countries the less formal leader, who also accepts the womens role, is more
typical than in France and Germany. There exist a less need for rules, and
organisations will have a more informal character. The last aspect also goes for
England, and something that can be compared to group organisations or cooperatives
in England, the village market, will be an ingrediance in the organisation life. The
management styles are less obvious and clear.

In USA the strong individualism is prominent, where the strong leader gets mandate to
lead and the masculine qualities are emphasized. The attitude is to handle and deal
with much uncertainty. For other reason than mentioned here, American organisations
may also be large, but there is room for leadership and management at the same time
as there is bureaucratic arrangements and systems.

Cultures seem to contingent not only valid authority forms, but also how economic rational
business can or may be executed. Some cultures are closer than others, with many and stabile
formal and informal norms. This also gives the basis for exercising authority and the
membership in the culture or group can be virtually mandatory. This will, for example, apply
to many of the Asian countries, including J apanese business organisations. However, one can
imagine cultures and situations where there are fewer and less binding general features of
culture that provides a basis for organisation and leadership. A variation that probably occurs
occasionally, but usually not referred to in texts about organisation and management, the
situation where there are many standards, but it has not formed groups that influence and are
included in the standard system. The individuals are fatalistic. Cultures may be, more or less,
close and have obvious consequences for the organisation and management style one get, but
in general, one perceive it in a way that the culture is not something that surrounds the
organisations and management, rather it is within the organisations and management (Ibid.).

We have now seen how the phenomenon culture can be understood as a, more or less, visible
connection for organisation and management:
Cultures can be understood as basic fundamental common assumptions, values and
orientations which are typical within a national area, but does not always apply for all
53
and may sometimes have competitors through professions and regions etc.
Cultures gives the basis for that particular organisations and leadership forms are the
most likely or are preferred by the culture.
Cultures can in different scale be controlling for these organisations and leadership
forms, and they may also have varied conditions within a culture.
The organisations and leadership forms are characterized by the culture the culture
lies within them.

Examples on how the culture and the environment, in different scale, affect the organisations
are illustrated by combinations of the dimensions institutionalized environment and technical
environment. The table below illustrates possible outcomes.

Table 3.4.1 Norms in the environment and organisation forms (Strand, 2004, pp. 212).

This is a way of perceiving cultures or the environment surrounding the organisations in a
way that separates between the norms that are incorporated in the environment and the
technical solutions that are available and applicable (Ibid.). A hospital will, for instance, be
characterized by strong, institutional norms, such as health, care and the patients best
interest. At the same time the hospital will practice techniques for diagnosis and treatment.
Biochemical and radiographic tests, together with complex technology for treatment
constitute a close technological environment. In the other corner of the table, one can find for
example day care for children, who are loosely organized with regards to the norms that
apply, and not much of technical equipment characterizes the organisation.
Institutionalized environment
Close Looser
Technical
environment
Close Banks
Hospitals
Courts
Industrial
Looser Schools
Social offices
Churches

Wellness clinics
Cafes
Day care

54
A particularly interesting subject for further studies are the question regarding how different
organisations creates links between their own organisation and the network surrounding them,
such as suppliers, clients, resources and information, and stakeholders and supporters.
Normally, one will find that these connections are rather close and that the organisations
cannot exist as something that differs from the norms and the normal possibilities that exists
in the environment. An important task for the management will be to find these codes for
transaction between the environment and organisation, and negotiate and administrate
relations.
3.4.2. Practical differences of culture - a Norwegian perspective.
Culture will be the basis for communication - the possibility to keep stable and sensible
towards each other. One chooses to see the things that are important to us and one excludes
information, which we not perceive as right and important. In this way, culture becomes a
way of distinguish ourselves from others and the differences one may see when travelling to
other countries, as a part of a student exchanges, trying to co-operate with other states and / or
trading across borders. Further, one will try to give some examples on experienced culture
features and differences, based on a Norwegian way of thinking ( Strand, 2004).

In Norway, it is a virtue to be as similar to everyone else as possible, and the picture below, is
a perfect example of this. This picture show King Olav of Norway taking a trip with the tram
during the oil rationing in 1972, whereas he pays a ticket and sits down together with
everybody else on the tram (Ibid.).

55
Picture 3.4.2: King Olav takes a ride on the tram in 1972 (NRK, 2005).

Compared to other countries and cultures, like France, Germany, Spain and England, this is
quite abnormal, and they use in their language a polite speech form, which has a clear
language of expression, such as Sir or Madame. This could create some problems in
cultures where one emphasize for such polite name calling, especially when it is virtually
absent in modern Norwegian. In France it is normal to use the polite speech form vous for
people who one wishes to show a minimum of respect. The personally form tu is only used
by very young people and within the family. It is important to keep the formal distance
sufficiently big, and especially in France, face-to-face contact is seen as not very desirable.
Problems may occur when Norwegians in the face of foreigners do not select the authority
they should have had by virtue of their position or power. If for instance a Norwegian with a
leader position tells a Pakistanian employee to do a certain thing whenever he has got the time
for it, one may experience that the task will not be executed, due to a misunderstanding
between the different cultures. The Pakistanian may perceive the weak endorsement as a kind
of conversation, and implicit as an expression of weakness, and not as a binding order. The
author also confirms that this could be the case for interaction with certain African students,
whereas friendly guidance and minimising the rank difference between the professor and the
student may be seen as an opportunity to bargain the students see this as a possibility to
56
achieve benefits, while the professor thinks he have paved the way for improvement and
logical solution of the task. A Norwegian leader may face problems if his communication
about duties and tasks are unclear towards Norwegians as well as foreigners. Norwegian will
think that a clear voice, rank signs and expression of privileges are inappropriate selection of
differences in rights, duties and rank, while this is something that the foreigners are used to
and expect. In this way the power of distance dimension would create problems, both at home
and away from home (Ibid.).

If one take a look at individualism and collectivism, one can see that there is a major
difference between Norway and for example USA, whereas being outgoing and the person of
the situation is considered as positive in USA, while in Norway it is more important to be
considered, not taking a chance to insult someone or make a fool out of one self. Earlier in the
oil industry when Norwegian oil workers worked under American leaders, their methods were
seen as direct and though, which in a way could insult the Norwegians. This can be
understood and explained by the American values of culture, individualism and a higher
degree of masculinity in the way they work. However, in Eastern cultures one can see
examples of the opposite, whereas Norwegians are more individualistic oriented and have
difficulties with understanding the collective orientations. In collectivistic cultures age is
honoured and is being used as characteristic as the most honourable form for membership and
must not be defended this applies for most of the non-Western cultures. To change
profession or leave a company, we see as a normal thing to do, but in Eastern cultures, with
family oriented work structures, this is seen as abnormal and in many cases reprehensible. In
J apan, lifelong loyalty to the company is also seen as honourable and obvious, although
young J apanese seem to move away from this tendency and more towards individualistic
orientation. Likewise, the basis for social inclusion a collective attitude, in some cultures
may be expressed by rarely given off on either request. In the East it is normal to smile and
express consent, even in cases where the answer would be no in the West. In Arabian
societies and in the East Scandinavia one may experience very long preambles before doing
business. They talk about family, literature and seemingly irrelevant topics, forever. While the
Scandinavians wants to get down to business, the counterpart wants to provide security to
create trust between the two parties, and to make sure that the two parties make the business
relationship as fruitful as possible. This is done by committing like friends commit to each
other, and in this way if one can create close and personal relationship, it is possible to do
business. One has then developed its own group and included new members, and a majority
57
of people all over the world lives under these circumstances, where this is a natural approach
to doing business (Ibid.).

Further, one will talk about uncertainty avoidance in a Norwegian perspective, but indeed
compared to other cultures and countries. This is a dimension where Norway separates from
other countries, also the other Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, which are
generally more influenced by the continental forms of rank expressions. J apan is a country
which has a high degree of uncertainty avoidance, and when they buy Norwegian fish, they
send their own inspectors for quality assurance. They have a big need for documentation and
confirmation. In Austria one needs to be prepared to document ones status and competency,
and also show that one acknowledges others` status. This is also the case in Germany and
France. In United Kingdom one may experience that there are other ways to reduce the
uncertainty, whereas they look at how people dress, their language and signs on social
affiliation. This is the basis for trust and advancement in many circles. Sometimes it is more
important which University one has gone to, than your grades and which courses and subject
you have taken (Ibid.).

At last we want to discuss masculinity versus femininity orientation and take a closer look at
some examples of features in the different cultures. In some Arabian countries it is very
difficult to have female representatives in business and / or scientific delegations. Women
needs to be protected or controlled and cannot think as individuals, in the same way as men.
As an example of this one can mention when a conference in Saudi Arabia were moved to
Dubai, because the authorities found out that there were women participating without their
father, brother and husband present. Another example is when highly educated women from
Pakistan came to Norway on an introduction of a Norwegian University, and the Norwegian
professor wanted to shake their hands, but they backed off and did not want to touch the
strange man despite their high education and status. They had not adapted to the Western
culture, where men and women mingle freely and even touch each other. The Norwegian
gender equality policy where fathers may have granted leave in connection with childbirth, is
unique in the world context. The normal is that house, children and cooking are the womens
domain and this is extreme in the advanced industrial nation J apan, where the proportion of
married women employed is low for the industrial nations and where the man lives out his
role as family provider and protector of hard work while requiring that he show his manly
strength by participating in the company's competitive behaviour and parties. J apan is, not
58
surprisingly, on top of Hofstedes masculinity index (Ibid.).

Our next question is how to meet other cultures and does this have any affects on organisation
development and implementation of change?

The short and few examples mentioned above shows some of the difficulties and challenges
one has to face when people from different cultures meet. The basis for communication is not
necessarily present. What seems correct and fruitful behaviour in one situation, seems strange
and repulsive in another. To try to make meetings between individuals and organisations from
different cultures fruitful, and make it possible to communicate, it is nearby to recommend
language skills and tolerance. Language skills do not only give the technical ability to
communicate, but also an opportunity to a deeper understanding of terms and ways of
thinking, and thus knowledge of the other parties world. The experience with learning and
understand another language, normally makes you humble, and this is a good basis for a
tolerant and experimental approach. Surveys and interpretations about what is mentioned
above, may give you the assumption that one could learn a strange culture by reading books
and studying statistics. General insights might be to some help, but may also lead to hasty
conclusions, which could result in barren behaviour. A survey of managers, who were
characterized as little / much international oriented, by themselves and other observers, shows
some interesting differences between the two groups (Ibid.). An important difference was that
the international oriented group had described, impression-based and almost private
perceptions of other people. They did not base their answers on general theories or widely
recognized stereotypes. They were careful with generalizations and draw experiences from
one situation to another. They put emphasis on observing and listening, experiment and make
trials, and above all, active involvement with their contact parties. The other group had more
of a tendency to explain their procedures and their experiences, based on analytic categories,
both theoretical and even distant. The international oriented group used stereotypes, but only
as tentative and fluid categories, and they were highly aware of their own use of them. The
non-national oriented group perceived the other group as extremely adaptable, even as
chameleons. Another feature with the international oriented group is that they acknowledged
their own stress and possible culture shock when confronted with other people. They used
their experience and were taking in to account the differences among the employees and
realized that it may process the experiences. They may also withdraw to more stabile areas,
such as think brakes, diaries and other forums for reflection of experiences. The main
59
differences seems to be what we may call learning style: the ones that succeed the most in the
international environment may have general assumptions about other cultures and groups, but
fails to let it have a direct impact on the behaviour (Ibid.).

In this section I have tried to explain some of the different aspects of the term culture, and
what it contains. We want to take a closer look at the fundamental set of perceptions, which in
great terms are common for a nation or a group of people. Culture is the common
understandings and presumptions that exist within a unit, and further one tries to give some
characteristics of some of the different cultures and behaviours that may occur in an
organisational setting. Aspects like individuals, the relationship to others and the nature,
activities, space and time are only some dimensions, which can contribute to explain or
characterize certain cultures or cultural features. Culture can exist at different levels, from a
national level to an organisational level. Geert Hofstede is a well-known author within this
field, and he has managed to find some national differences, and with the help from factor
analysis he could identify four fundamental dimensions, which can contribute to separate the
different national cultures. These four are: Uncertainty avoidance, distance of power,
individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. He groups the 53
different cultures in to clusters groups that are alike in relation to some factors, and different
compared to other factors. It is likely that cultures give some fundamentals on how one should
organize and structure a company, and also how management and authority are being
executed in the different organisations or even countries. France is a country that has a large
distance of power, while Germany has a more need for order and structure. The Nordic
countries are more feminine, and have a bigger tolerance for women as leaders and partners,
while in the US one can see a strong tendency to an individualistic culture. It is important to
understand that in a situation where people do business with each other, either within an
organisation or between different organisations, culture can be the basis for communication.
This could be the breaking point to which one cooperates well with one another, and also to
get a potential client to trust and have faith in the negotiations and business deals that you are
planning to do. We have tried to look at the different features and aspects of culture in a
Norwegian perspective, because this is a natural base to execute comparisons with. I also
assume that the Nordic countries like Denmark and Sweden are countries with almost the
same similarities. These cultures are typical feminine, has a low degree of distance to power
and uncertainty avoidance, while Norway also seem to be a collective culture compared to
USA, but a more individualistic culture compared to Eastern countries. Further one will try to
60
look at the challenges and differences that one have to face when working with people from
other countries, and also one wants to try to relate this to the process of change, which is
something that happens in many organisations and countries all over the world, today.
61
4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
In this section one wants to look at the different change management theories compared to
different cultural contexts, and one may ask the question if there could be some theories that
are better suited for some cultures, or does this vary in accordance to the different situations
and organisations?

One could start with comparing Kotters eight step model with the Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
model 5D, where Kotter starts with creating an experience og necessity and discovering
potential crises and opportunities in the market. Further he suggests creating a governing
coalition, which means a group of people with sufficient competency, knowledge and power,
to execute the change (Guldbrandsen, 2010). The AI model starts with definition what is it
that we want to promote? In this phase the change is given a motivating headline, and further
in the discovery phase, one seeks to find the best moments. When is this? What do we do
when it works the best, and which circumstances promote the best moments? Already here
one can see a difference between the two models, were the functionalism and Kotter seek to
find both the negative the crisis, and the positive the opportunities, the social
constructivism and AI seek only to find the positive, the best moments and the best
opportunities for the organisation.

The third step in Kotters model is to convey and communicate the change vision, where he
suggests to use every term and condition in the organisation to communicate the new vision
and the following strategies, where the controlling coalition are used as role models. He wants
to create a fundamental for action on a broad basis by removing all obstacles in the system,
structure and humans, which may block the change, and further encourage risk taking and
action amongst the employees. In the AI model one looks at the dream, what is it that we
dream about? How does it look like when we have reached the goal, how and when can we
determine this? The model emphasize for what we do, say and feel, and wonders if this state
can be measured in some way, and what is the first thing we will see when we have reached
the dream? (Ibid.). When comparing the above mentioned steps of the different model one
may get a picture of Kotters model as somewhat cynical, whereas the obstacles that could
block the change should be removed. Does this mean that if a person doesnt like or resist to
the change, that it will be moved, or worse, dismissed from the organisation? In contrast one
could get a feeling when considering the AI model that they are including everybody in the
62
process of change, whereas they are asking the question; What is it that we dream about? .
The phrase gives an impression of and including and collective point of view, where all
parties of the organisation are involved. Another aspect is that in the AI model it is not
mentioned who execute the change is it everybody, like suggested above, or is there a
certain group, like in Kotters model, that has the responsibility of doing this? It could also be
interesting to see that one express the word goal in the dream phase, and immediately one
could think of rationalism and its beliefs, which is characterized as a goal-seeking machine.
Could this mean that social constructivism and AI have some similarities with rational theory
of management? Maybe it could be important to say that both the models and sciences have a
goal, but what exactly the goal is, could be different in the two aspects.

The sixth step of Kotters model is to generate short term benefits, where one plan and realize
fast visible victories, and also reward the ones that made these victories possible. Further the
model next step is to consolidate the result and produce even more change, by using the
change increased credibility to change all systems, structures and policies that do not
harmonize with the vision. One should hire and promote employees that live the vision
(Ibid.). The first thing I wish to question about this is the increased change credibility to
achieve even more change one have to rely on that the change credibility has in fact
increased. If, for example, the credibility has not increased and the scepticism and resistance
to change holds the change back, the entire model could fail, and this step cannot be
conducted and completed as scheduled. It could and may be risky to the process, if one just
assumes that the credibility will increase it is not always the things we plan to happen,
happens, and it could be crucial to take this into consideration. The second thing is based on
comparison with the design phase in the AI model, where they ask what to do to make the
dream a reality? How to create the circumstances that forms the framework that captures the
best moments? It is emphasized that every possible solution should be included, and
compared to Kotters credibility step this could give the impression of a more human
approach to the way one implement change, whereas Kotters models seem to want to get rid
of everything and everyone that is not in harmony with the new vision. One could question if
this is the best possible way to implement change and get people to breathe and live the
vision? Maybe this way of implementation only creates the opposite of what they want to
achieve more resistance to change and less actually living the vision.

63
The last step of Kotters models is about anchor the new approach in the culture, whereas one
shall achieve new results through successful behaviour and more effective management and
leadership. One seeks to find and clarify the connection between new behaviour and results,
and one should recruit and develop management after the vision. The last step or phase in the
AI model is the delivery phase, where they focus on what they like to do together, and also
what they like to do by themselves. They question how they will manage or be able to see if
and how they succeeded, and they wonder when and how they are going to make up a status,
learn even more and find further initiatives (Ibid.). It could seem like the focus in Kotters
model is more result oriented than process oriented, the important thing is that the change
process bring both short term and long term results and that this should be brought upon with
successful behaviour. What is successful behaviour? Who and what determines what
successful behaviour is? Is it something everybody has to feel, and does in fact everybody
behave like this? Is it the top management which decides what successful behaviour is, and if
so what and how have they made for this to happen? Is successful behaviour one determined
behaviour or could it be different from person to person? Do we want to manage robots or
machines that think, speak and do exactly the same, or do we want do manage individuals that
in their own special and unique way contribute to the success of the organisation? These are
questions that come to mind when examining and comparing these two models. It seems like
the AI model in a larger degree thinks of everybody in a team spirit how can we cooperate
and contribute to this change process to make sure that both the organisation succeeds, but
also in a way that the employees are content with the consequences of the change and the new
state it brings. However, it is important to see that the model also ask what the individual likes
to do by themselves, so the individual is also in focus, as well as the organisation as a whole. I
think that this could be a major factor that people actually believe and want to change, it think
it creates less resistance to change and people are more motivated to make an effort towards
the change because they that they are a part of it and may benefit from it. This is maybe were
the most significant difference between the two models evolves, because I think where the AI
model motivates people to participate in the change, Kotters model could struggle with
reaching the same level of motivation at every part of the organisation.

However, it is worth mentioning that were Kotters model could seem a bit cynical, the AI
model can be perceived as in some degree vague and a bit too tangible, there is nothing in this
model that one can physically see or get your head around, and it could also be that some of
the employees are more result oriented than process oriented and need to see that this gives a
64
higher profit or reduced costs, or even better working conditions for the employees. Although
the word Inquiry stands for a wish to create a better world, such as increasing the efficiency,
improve the cooperation, and also uses situations which have worked well or even best before
and also dreams for the future, it may be somewhat diffuse and it could be difficult to reach
all of the employees to believe and participate in the change process.

In general it could also be worth to mention that neither of the models mentions the time
aspect within the different steps or phases. It could make a difference to the process if one
knew exactly what to do at what time, and who were involved in this. Then again, it is
important that the theory are open for the possibility where the intentions not come out as the
wanted and actual result there could always happen things one cannot predict, and thats
when it could be important to a plan or at least be ready in case this happens.

Another aspect to this is that I have not compared it to the second approach which also
underlies functionalism the visionary / ideological approach. However, Kotter emphasize
for that he maintains the eight step model and the linear approach it builds on also in this
approach so I will therefore only describe some small and general comparisons. Even though
the visionary model builds on the eight step model of Kotter it is at the same time inspired of
the best practice from other organisations, where one seeks to create an attractive vision to
follow in the future (Ibid.). This could be a similarity to the AI model, where they both focus
on the future and also on something positive, something that has worked in other situations.
However, while the AI model seeks to look at something which was a good situation for the
organisation, the visionary looks at other organisation and wishes to follow their example.
The visionary model could also be seen as more human than the classic rational approach to
strategic management, where one look at the biggest challenge as changing the behaviour of
the employees, where one further seek to do this by focusing more on a see-feel approach,
where the primary source to change the behaviour is to create positive feelings. This could
also relate to the AI model, however, as we have discussed earlier, the AI model could seem
to lack some steps of definition and clarity, whereas the visionary model builds on Kotters
eight step model and in addition takes more into account the humans feeling, behaviour and
sense-making towards the vision and change. In this model it is 80 % the dream that gives the
change meaning, the dream creates positive feelings and the positive feeling creates new paths
and new behavioural patterns. The model also creates a safety net for the employees, so that
they could dare to take the first step into the unknown. This is something that separates from
65
both the AI model and the classic rational approach, and it could be seen as a positive adding,
for securing the employees. The model also emphasize for someone or somebody to give
feedback, either if it positive or if is not going as planned. This clearly has a parallel to the
classic rational approach, where there is described that a group, together with the top
manager, leads the change. This is not described in the AI model and supports the argument
of lack of clear steps and definitions in the process of change.

Further I want to look at these models mentioned above compared to the different culture and
dimensions of cultural features, which we have described in section 3.5. The basis for the
analysis and discussion will be the four dimensions, described by the author Geert Hofstede;
Masculinity versus femininity, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and
distance of power, but one will also include some of the aspect like individual, the
relationship to nature, the relationship to others, activity, space and time if and when this is
suitable for the discussion. It could also be sensible to include the level to which culture can
exist in some sections of the analysis.

The first aspect of the theories of change management that one discussed were the difference
in focus, either on the positive and future, or the past and both the possibilities, but also the
negative and threats. If one compare this to the cultural dimensions, such as for example the
dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Could one draw a parallel where one assume that
cultures that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance would both analyze the threats and
the negative incidents from the future, just to make sure that this would not happen again.
However it could also be likely that they focus on the opportunities for the future, but just to
be sure also find potential crisiss just to avoid this and avoid the uncertainty of not knowing
what might happen. Could this mean that a country like France would use Kotters eight step
model to implement change, where there exists many hierarchical layers, rules and structures?
Opposite, would a country like Norway, which have a low degree of uncertainty avoidance,
use the AI model to implement change, whereas the only thing is in mind are the future
dreams and how one together can create our own reality. Because we tolerate uncertainty and
dont avoid it, are our perceptions more positive and future minded? If one should say that
Germany is a country that lies more or less in between France and Norway, could this mean
that they could benefit from using the visionary model when implementing change in an
organisation? It entails both structure and clear steps and definitions on the process of change,
but at the same time it focus on a dream and other best practice examples as role models for
66
implementation. In addition it could be worth mentioning that such cultures as Germany
emphasize for order and quality and that maybe a total quality management, where the quality
aspect in focus, could be a well suitable program and management style for them to follow.

One could also mention the time aspect in relation to this, where one question if one are
oriented with the past, or the future? Considerations about long term goals and commitments
are in some cultures meet with resistance, where profit gains on a short basis seems more
reasonable, while other organisations in other countries or influenced by other cultures, may
have long term goals and be satisfied with this. The attitude towards a regulating dimension of
behaviour, may also vary between cultures. For example is timely precision and punctuality
seen as polite in the North of Europe, while in the Latin countries and Africa on may
experience a different attitude towards time, whereas sometimes people comes and goes as
they wants, even though meetings are planned and scheduled with others (Strand, 2004).

The next aspect is where Kotters model could seem a bit cynical in relation to the people
within the organisation, whereas the AI model seems more considerate towards the people
working in the organisation. Kotter wants to promote and reward those who contributes to
victories through the change process and those who lives the vision, while the AI model seeks
to include everybody and seek to find what they together do best, but also what they like to do
separately. Could this be seen in relation to the dimension individualism versus collectivism,
where more individualistic cultures would chose Kotters model, where they strongly
connects to what the individuals are or what they do. Effort and performance are being highly
rewarded in such cultures, and everybody has the right to their own opinion and private life,
and can only have one determined and calculated relationship to work. At the opposite end
where more collective cultures occurs, the social relationship are closer and the employees are
seen as members of a big family within the organisation or the unit they are a part of, where
protect each other in exchange for loyalty. Could this mean that organisations in the US
would chose Kotters model, where individuals are rewarded after effort and performance,
and if one dont manage to deliver at the standards that the organisations or top management
demand, one could risk getting dismissed. In Pakistan and Peru, which are collective cultures,
could one expect that they would use the AI model, where the collective is in focus and where
everybody should contribute and be considered.

67
It could further be interesting to include the characteristics like individual, the relationship to
others, and activity, in this section, where the dimension of behaviour of the individual asks if
the human beings are good or evil, or even both. Do they have the possibility to choose freely
and are they to be trusted? These are aspects one might have to consider when working with
different cultures in an organisation, also when implementing change? When combining
different cultures in an organisation the individuals may have different perceptions of this and
act in accordance, so the management task could be to give clear guidelines towards this so
that there wouldnt be any misunderstandings. The relationship to others is another dimension
of behaviour one has to consider. Does one relate to others like they are individuals or
members of a group? Are the decision making based on and made by individuals or based on
an agreement from a group? These are aspects that every organisation or business unit need to
consider when planning a change process with different cultures people from individualistic
cultures could be used to that it one person, maybe the leader, who makes the decisions, while
an employee from a collective culture is more used to that decisions are made together within
a group. Also, when looking at employment one could experience some challenges where in
some cultures it is normal to hire a person based on that he or she either is family or a good
friend, while in other cultures this is considered highly unprofessional and demands that
employment should be based on documented education and experience. This probably
depends on the organisational structure within the organisation as well, where strongly
hierarchical organisations may not tolerate family or friendship hiring, while more flat,
unstructured and collective cultures would maybe not have a problem with this.
The next dimension of behaviour is activity, where one needs to consider if the employees are
working to achieve goals or just as a natural part of life. Id the meaning with life to be
someone that could easily be compared to the individualistic cultures, or is it to do
something meaningful which could compared to all types of cultures, either one do
something together in an collective view, or separately within an individualistic approach.

The third aspect is related to the treatments of the human being in the different models, as we
have said before Kotters eight step model could seem both cynical and cold whereas to how
one treat the employees, while both the visionary and the AI model seem to take the
employees into more and careful consideration when implementing the change. One could be
able to draw two parallels to this, whereas the first one could be to a masculine culture, where
performance and effort is the only thing that is important, and where money and material
welfare and ambitions are the driving force. These could be seen as a cynical world, where
68
good human relations sometimes might be though to achieve. It is attractive to be strong, big
and masculine and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitude.
Could this mean that masculine cultures like Australia, J apan and Italy would be most
compatible with Kotters eight step model, and that the more feminine cultures, like the
Netherlands and the Northern countries, would be more compatible with the AI model, where
one takes the whole human into consideration. Life quality is predicted as the most important
thing, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is seen as a
motivational factor. One believe in similarity between the genders, where both men and
women can be care givers, whereas in a masculine culture gender roles are separated, where
the men are dominating and ongoing, while women should only be care givers. The models
does not say anything about genders in their phases or steps concerning the change process, so
one could only speculate that a masculine culture would fit better to the classic rational
approach, while a feminine culture should be better suitable for the AI model as care givers in
an professionally way.

The second parallel in this matter and also concerning the last dimension of Hofstede`s
cultural characteristics, is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much
the culture allows a superior to execute power. It could be reasonable to think that the classic
rational approach containing Kotters eight step model could be the model for implementing
change that would fit the cultures with a high level of distance to power. In these cultures it is
fundamental to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be
looked at with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position.
Domination and dependency are the fundamentals for cooperation, and with some similarities
to other cultures, like the masculine and the individualistic, Kotters eight step model could
seem like a compatible match, where it could seem like there exist somewhat hierarchy, order,
structure and where results and performance are rewarded and in focus. Organisation or
situation containing these circumstances, could experience a battle between the different
positions within the organisations, both internally and externally. Typical countries where this
could appear are Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. Opposite, one has countries that have a
low level of distance to power, where one operate with a more collegial relationship and a
common perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for
cooperation, and leaders and management cannot show the power they posses. Countries
where this culture is typical are Norway, Israel and also the Northern European countries, and
it could be likely that organisations in these countries would chose or be most compatible
69
with the AI model when implementing change. This is due to the nature of the model, where
one could get an impression that it takes all employees into consideration in the process of
change, where every solution shall be brought to the table and also where trust could be one
of the main fundamentals of the model, whereas everybody has something to contribute with.

When looking at these models and the comparison with the different cultures, and the
dimensions we have characterized them with, it could seem like there are a lot of possibilities
on how to implement change. One could also get an impression of that there are several
similarities between masculine, individual, and cultures with a high level of distance to power
and a high degree of uncertainty avoidance. Opposite, collective, feminine and cultures with a
low level of distance to power and a low degree of uncertainty avoidance, could seem more
alike, then the other cultures describes above. This is not something that is empirical tested
and adopted, just a possible observation when executing the analysis above. Which of these
cultures and models that are considered most suitable to use in an change process is not clear,
and it could be that the best and optimal way to implement change and organisation
development, are not only dependent on the culture and model, but also the entire
organisational situation, and the scope and depth of the change.

It is important that one also include the comparative models, OD and TQM, into this analysis.
When considering OD, the definition done by French and Bell J r., have many aspects to
consider, but an overall picture seem to emphasize towards a more collective and AI model
approach, but at the same time it have some features related to Kotters model. In relation to
the different cultural aspects, one may assume that a collective culture would use an OD
approach to change. However, since we also have mentioned that this approach have some
similarities with Kotters model, a culture which is combined with both collective and also
feminine, masculine and individualistic features may use this approach. It is also a model that
emphasize for top management commitment and leadership, whereas a culture with a high
level of distance to power could prefer this approach, even thought it entails collective
features. According to the uncertainty avoidance aspect of Hofstede`s cultural dimensions it
could seem like the OD approach lies on a middle range as to this concern, where one both
wants to consider the problems or challenges which have happened i the past, but also with a
focus on the possibilities ahead. One aspect, barely mentioned in the theoretical framework of
OD, is that there is slightly different focus concerning the definition of OD and the actual
Process consultant model, which represents an OD approach to implementing change,
70
whereas the model takes a more comprehensive access to what OD is about, while the model
is more narrow in it descriptions. It could be that the model is just in some degree described in
the text, and that it could be further divided in to further sub-steps which allow one to take
more consideration to the whole aspect of OD.

TQM is another aspect, which also could be used as an example for implementing change
with focus on quality, rather than a model. Either way, it is important that we take it into
discussion related to the four cultural dimensions addressed by Hofstede. The first thought is
that TQM could be a compatible model or approach to implementing change in collective and
feminine cultures, whereas the quality programmes are team oriented, however, as mentioned
in the theoretical framework of TQM, it have also some parallels to Kotters model, which are
more masculine oriented. Considering the quality aspect one may connect that to a somewhat
high degree of uncertainty avoidance, where as one in this model seek to implement, maintain
and sustain quality throughout the whole process, which could be something that is linked to
uncertainty avoidance. If the quality is maintained at all levels and at every point in time, one
may also think that the organisation could avoid any uncertainty along the way. Does this
mean that TQM would be suitable for countries like Portugal and Greece, and not a preferable
choice for a country like Norway? This could be a fact, but it is also important to consider that
maybe quality is an aspect that is important to maintain in every culture and organisation, so
this model could be an options for everybody to consider, not just the cultures that find it
compatible with the culture and organisation. The last dimension; distance to power related to
TQM could be difficult to define, but one may think that cultures with a middle to a high level
of distance to power would appreciate the TQM model, because the top management is such a
central role in the change process. However, this is not a guaranteed assumption because it the
management could also be involved in a culture or organisation with a low distance to power,
but in this paper one choose the first assumption based on the following argument. This could
for example be countries in Asia and Africa, as well as the Latin countries, while opposite one
find Norway and Israel.

I have further tried to summarize the different change models with Hofstede`s four culture
dimension in a figure to create a comprehensive and general overview of the similarities and
differences of the different theories aligned.

71
Change Theories
Hofstede`s four
cultural
dimensions
Kotter OD TQM AI
Masculine vs.
feminine
Masculine More feminine,
but with
masculine
features
More feminine,
but with
masculine
features
Feminine
Individual vs.
Collective
Individual Collective
inspired
More collective
than
individualistic
Collective
Uncertainty
avoidance
High degree of
uncertainty
avoidance
Middle range of
uncertainty
avoidance
Somewhat high
degree of
uncertainty
avoidance
Low degree of
uncertainty
avoidance
Level of
distance to
power
High level of
distance to
power
Middle range
level of distance
to power
Somewhat high
level of distance
to power
Low level of
distance to
power

One can further look at two models when analyzing different features on how to implement
change, which gives a basis for the depth of the change and suggests that this is an important
matter to consider when facing change. It is important to know that the models are just a
support to the important intuitive perceptions one may have, and the models do not take the
history of the organisation into account. The first thing one may look at is how change should
be managed, and with inspiration from the contingency schools, one may illustrate three
management styles which are often used in change processes;

1. The narrator
2. The seller, and
3. The facilitator
72
Their management styles can, in short, be described as the following. The narrator informs of
the new terms of change, the seller sells, listens and adjusts after needs, and the facilitator
change and learn together with the other employees.

To support the parent management style one need to look at the depth of the change, where
the degree of concreteness is something that separates the changes from one another. These
changes could be illustrated in an iceberg, where the different changes are situated on three
different levels of the iceberg, one on top, one in the middle, and one at the bottom (Ibid.).

Figure 5.0: The depth of the change (Guldbrandsen, 2010, pp. 35).

First you have tangible changes in the physical systems, which lays above the less tangible
changes in the organisational design, such as structure, processes and systems, and at the
bottom, one have the more intangible changes, where the focus is directed towards the mental
model, such as the culture (Ibid.).

The point is that changes in sub systems, design changes and changes in the mental models
have very different consequences for the employees. For example if one have to deal with
tangible changes in sub systems, there are seldom demand for new ways of thinking and take
action. When there are changes in the organisational design, the consequence and the goal for
Tangible changes in sub
systems
Less tangible changes in
organizational design
Intangible changes in
mental models
73
the future is that the tasks and actions are being handled and resolved in a different way.
Changes in the mental models includes both changes in the action pattern and also has a goal
to change the way people look at the world, which means changed attitudes, perceptions and
emotions (Ibid.).

From the terminology of the two models, The AI model and the linear model of problem
solving (define the problem, find reasons, find solutions, implement), intangible changes goes
in the direction, when putting the organisations norms and values at stake, of the management
style number 3, the facilitator. If one also use the three isms, social constructivism have more
to offer when dealing with the challenges one have to face in the social universe. One cannot
order or market themselves to a new culture. An attempt to this could for example lead to
headaches for the employees and loss of management credibility. However, if it concerns
changes in the organisational design, management style number 2 the seller could be a
good base to start. If the possibilities for actions are limited, and there is no room for
listening, it is important that this model is not overdone. This could for example mean that if a
bigger company made changes on a management level and if the decision is made and there is
no room for involvement, one should not try to give another impression. Finally, emergency
situations will draw in the direction of management style 1, also when the changes are
intangible (Ibid.).

However, if the changes in the organisational design also want to make a solid imprint in the
culture, an advice could be to use management style 2 the seller but move over to
management style 3 the facilitator when the changes have been conducted. This means
that there will be room for negotiation and a common opinion formation in the communities
of practice, during the process. If for instance, the changes happen in the physical universe,
management style 1 with a touch of management style 2, would be comprehensive for the
start of the process (Ibid.).

Based on the three isms, social constructivism has the most to offer when dealing with
intangible change and mental models, where cultural attitudes, moral, behaviour and emotions
need to change. At the opposite end, modernism, has its strength when dealing with changes
situated on top of the iceberg, tangible changes in sub systems. This is where the linear
mindset can be best established, and where the modernism and the metaphor of the machine
are at home (Ibid.).
74
A potential explanation for the many change processes that do not live up to their potential
and expectations, can be found in the linear mindset and the following rational problem
solving method, which are being used outside their context, the physical universe, and instead
are applied in the social universe, where this model has nothing to offer. Most changes comes
from changes on an organisational design level, but have derivative effects in the mental
models, which result in that the classic approach to change management fall short. However,
when this have been said, it is important to underline that the choice of management style
should take the base in the situation, where circumstances like the organisational history and
culture, should play a significant role.

If for example it is a tradition for a linear mindset and management style 1 and 2, it is not
certain that the organisation is mature enough for the AI model and management style 3, also
when one are dealing with intangible changes. Correspondingly, management style 1 could be
a bad choice for an organisation that are used to management style 3, also even though one
have to deal with tangible changes (Ibid.).

75
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion and analysis above, it is difficult to find or conclude that one model is
better for implementing change, or even that one culture due to their cultural features may
adapt the change better or easier, with less resistance. One could suggest that it seems likely
that the AI model and social constructivism are concepts and sciences which are more
appealing to feminine, collective and cultures with a low level of distance to power, whereas
soft values like team spirit and performance, belonging, unity, prosperity and work
environment are seen as aspect that are important to perform well, also in change situations.
However, this is also dependent on the organisational culture within the organisation, even
though a company is situated in Norway, it could be an American owned company, which
means that there could be a mix of different cultures working there, maybe in large
Norwegians, but also Americans and other nationalities. The model of change one wants to
use in this matter, is then dependent on the choice of the management, how do they think the
new change will be implemented and adapted in the best possible way for the entire
organisation? The choice of change model is then based on the specific situation of the
organisation, both concerning the different cultures involved, and also the method of
implementation that should be taken in to use in this matter.
Opposite it could be valid to suggest that Kotters eight step model would be preferable to use
in masculine and individualistic cultures, and also cultures with a high level of distance to
power, and the last dimension of Hofstede, which in this case could be cultures with a high
degree of uncertainty avoidance. The validation to this suggestions lies in the cultural features
where one seek to emphasize for rules and regulations, honour the ones or the one that
contributes the most to a certain task, and where one seek to find both former risk and future
possibilities before implementing the change. However, the same as for the above mentioned
cultures, one could have a mix of different cultures, even though the company are situated in a
country with a strong cultural dimension. One could further suggest that organisation that are
situated in their own country, with most of their employees from the home country, would
choose a model that are comparable and compatible with both the organisational and the
international culture, whereas this could be seen as based on a generic evaluation and choice,
which assumes that this choice relies on a common perception of all the involved parties in
the organisation and culture that this is the right choice to make. In the other case mentioned
above, it could be slightly different, where one could have a situation where an organisation is
76
situated in one country, but the employees working there are from all over the world and from
all different cultures what is then the right choice to make, and will everybody agree upon
this choice? This is difficult to answer and I dont think there is one way that is the best and
optimal to do it, rather that the optimal and best way of implementing change would depend
entirely on the entire situation and the organisation, and even case to case. It is up to the
management to decide which tactics and models to use when trying to reach and commit all
involved parties of the organisation in the process of change. In this situation it is not given
that all of the employees and even the management group are unified in which model to use
and even have the same perception of what would be the best model to use, because of their
different cultural values and beliefs. In it not a matter of a generic choice, but rather a
situational evaluation of the specific situation the organisation is in, whereas one seek to find
the best an optimal way to implement change in this situation, and for this organisation.
Another thing to consider in the process of change, is that one meet the organisation and
culture where it is, and change should take into account the unique history of the organisation,
the challenges the organisation experience and the possibilities that occurs, also including
resources (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

One may further take OD and TQM into consideration, whereas both of them can be seen as
more feminine than masculine, and also more collective than individualistic, which could give
an assumption that both of these models could be more compatible for implementing change
in countries like Peru, Pakistan and also the Netherlands and Northern countries. However,
one may also suggest that TQM could be a suitable model for cultures and organisation with a
high level of uncertainty avoidance and distance to power, such as Asia, Africa and the Latina
countries, as well as Greece and Portugal. When looking at these dimension and the OD
model, one may find a culture that have a middle range of both of these aspect, because one
may suggest that these dimension does not stand out as particular strong or weak related to the
OD approach.

Based on the analysis, the three isms, rationalism, functionalism and social constructivism,
and a fourth ism applied by Klaus Guldbrandsen - pragmatism, one may conclude with the
fact that the choice of which approach and access to use to change management, should be
situational. The things that should determine which management style to chose, is partly the
subject field of the change, tangible to intangible, and partly the organisations history and
management culture. The most important points when considering change management, is
77
that the choice of management style and school, should be a conscious choice. Too often, one
experience that leaders and change agents uncritical reproduces the approach that themselves
have experienced. If one just reproduces the existing approach to change management, one
may instead risk that the culture lead you, whereby you will be the biggest obstacle to your
own success. A prerequisite for the choice one makes in relation to the change management
approach is to have solid knowledge of the different schools and the tools, which you may
support and relay upon, in the process of change.

A quote from the cultural theory`s father, Schein, states an important message for the future;

As a leader you have one, and just one, important choice: - will you lead the culture or will
you let the culture lead you (Guldbrandsen, 2010, pp. 39).
5.1. Further research
Further research should be enrolled around making awareness of these theories, so that the
right decisions are made in each individual case of change, and also at the beginning of the
process. One may question what kind of change are one dealing with, what is the history of
the organisation, how should this change be managed and which change theory approach
should one use, to achieve the best result, both considering efficiency and quality, but also the
organisations as a whole, with its contributing and committed employees. The cultural feature
and the organisational culture or the mix of cultures, could also be comprehensive to have
knowledge of, before the implementation of the change starts. Making awareness and
information of these matters could contribute to make change processes in the future and all
over the world, more effective and successful.
78
6. REFERENCES
6.1. Books and articles:
Almaraz, J . (1994). Quality management and the Process of Change. J ournal of
Organisational Change Management, Vol. 7 No 2, pp.6-14. MCB University Press,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Brannen, J . (1992). Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot:
Avebury.
Busch, T., & Vanebo, J . O. (2003). Organisasjon og ledelse: et integ[r]ert perspektiv.
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Creswell, J . W. (1994). Research design, Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications , Inc
Cumming, T.G., & Huse, E.F. (1989). Organisation development and change. St. Paul: West
Publishing Company.
Ellefsen, B (1998). Triangulering eller hvorfor og hvordan kombinere metoder? I Lorensen.
M. (red) (1998). Sprsmlet bestemmer metoden. Forskningsmetoder i sykepleie og
andre helsefag. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organisation development: behavioural science
interventions for organisation improvement. Upper Saddle River, N.J .: Prentice-Hall.
Guldbrandsen, K. (2010). Den fjerde isme Fire Veje til forandringsledelse, Strategi &
Ledelse, Brsen Forum A/S
Hennestad, B. W., Revang, ., & Strnen, F. H. (2006). Endringsledelse og
ledelsesendring: endringslring for praktisk orienterte teoretikere og
reflekterte praktikere. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
J acobsen, D. I. (2004). Organisasjonsendringer og endringsledelse. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget
J acobsen, D. I. (2005). Hvordan gjennomfre underskelser?: innfring i
samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. Kristiansand: Hyskoleforl.
Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Methods: Application in Health Research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(no 3), 362-
376.
Nrreklit, H., Nrreklit, L., Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for
79
accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability J ournal. Vol 23, No. 6,
pp. 733-758. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Roos, G., Krogh, G.V., Roos, J ., Fernstrm, L. (2007). Strategi en innfring. Bergen:
Fagbokforlaget.
Skog, O.-J . (2005). forklare sosiale fenomener: en regresjonsbasert tilnrming. Oslo:
Gyldendal akademisk.
Strand, T. (2004). Ledelse, organisasjon og kultur. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Weichel, J ., Buch, M., Urban, D., & Frieling, E. (2009). Sustainability and the ageing
workforce: Considerations with regard to the German car manufacturing
industry. I P. Docherty, M. Kira & A. B. Shani (red.), Creating sustainable
work systems. London: Routledge.
Westenholz A. (2002). Cross-Hierarchical Management, Inaugural Lecture.
Westenholz, A. (2009). Institutional Entrepreneurs Performing in Meaning Arenas:
Transgressing Institutional Logics in two Organisational Fields, Research in the
Sociology of Organisations, Vol. 27.
Whittington, R. (2002). Hva er strategi? Og spiller den noen rolle? Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag AS.
6.2. Internet sources:
NRK (2005) : Picture of the Norwegian King Olav the Fifth:
http://www.nrk.no/programmer/radio/norgesglasset/1.896748 (Reading date:
20.11.10).

Master Thesis Cand - Merc HRM Synnøve Holgersen Mentor: Stine Staffeldt (External)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Cand - Merc HRM Synnøve Holgersen Mentor: Stine Staffeldt (External)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Cand.

You might also like