Lidership Style

Can Cultural Change with Different Leadership Styles
Enhance the Organizational Performance?

Kamran Majeed
University of east London, United Kingdom
Afkar Majeed Bhatti
Riphah International University, Islamabad Pakistan
E-mail: afkar_tg@yahoo.com
Tel: +92-333-5359743
Ali Raza Nemati
E-mail: alirazanemati@gmail.com
Tel: +92-345-590-5581
Ijaz Ur Rehman
E-mail: ijazurrehman@yahool.com
Tel: +92-333-5359741
Arshad Rizwan
E-mail: arizwan2007@hotmail.com
1. Introduction
In todays fast moving business environment there has been a realization that static leadership,
management and organizational paradigms can stifle economic growth. Most organizations seek to
change and adapt new culture and leadership style according to their business environment with the
objective of gaining an increased competitive advantage. The study of leadership, culture and
employee motivation determining organization performance has become more complex in recent years
as the understanding of the nature of organizations has advanced towards globalization. Many
organizational corporate cultures are now viewed by researchers as being central component in the
organizations. This gives rise to the question as how does one try to define and apply such a subjective
term as culture and leadership and what implications does it have for management practitioners?
The issue of organizational culture and different leadership is currently the subject of much
empirical research as the increasing complexity of the subject area has become apparent in recent
years. Senior (1997) argues that change is a progressive experience that is best understood by
considering the metaphor of strong and weak winds. Throughout the history there have been times
when the wind of change has given birth to strong forces which have caused enormous changes to how
organization works. Examples of these times would be the shift from agriculture age to the industrial
age, and more recent one is the influx of the information technology age. These periods have brought
along significant change, which has forced organizations to adapt to severe consequences that are
coupled with stagnation. Similarly there have been times when relative calm and the winds of change
have been light in nature. However when the need for change accelerates, it brings with it new
challenges and opportunities. The advent of the information technology age has these elements as we
Research Journal of Internatonal Studes - Issue 17 (November, 2010)
102
have stepped into the 21st Century. The pace of change is constantly accelerating and organizations are
adapting to the challenges that an integrated global communication and information system are
bringing to the international business environment. Burnes (1992) argues that to properly initiated
change, one has to have a full understanding of the nature of an organization. Gaining this
understanding has sparked much debate as how an organization actually operates.
If we do not have this knowledge then decisions are made using false assumptions rather than
informed judgment.
The topic of leadership and organizational culture is one that has sparked fierce debate among
business and management circles due to its very subjective nature. As will be discussed in depth later
in the thesis, there is no single agreed definition of what Leadership and organizational culture
actually is or what connotation it has in the wider business context. Senior (1997) states the culture can
fundamentally be interpreted from two different perspectives; the objectivist or interpretive
perspective. The former perceives culture as a variable that can be changed or manipulated to aid
organizational performance. The interpretive perspective used culture as something that an
organization actually is, as opposed to something that it has. Culture from this perspective is highly
complex and un-quantifiable and thus impossible to change or manipulate. According to Lakomski
(2001) an organizations resistance to change in the face of environmental pressures and uncertainty as
Schein (1985, 1992) argue that at root it is the organizations culture that causes resistance and needs
changing. In order to change an organizational learning process needs to take place which pushes the
organization beyond its currently held understandings of itself and its ways of dealing both with its
internal and external reality (Lakomski, 2001). The prime mover of change is the leader who
transforms the current stagnating culture into a productive one (Schein, 1985). The perception and
understanding of leadership and culture is central to how one would view the issue of organizational
change. It is this central debate that forms the basis of this study.
2. Literature Review
Impact of Leadership on Organization Culture
2.1. Leadership and Culture
Leadership is interpreted in various ways by different authors. Leadership is defined as an influence,
that is, the art or process of influencing people so that they will strive willingly and enthusiastically
toward the achievement of group goals. (Cole 1996). Ideally, people should be encouraged to develop
not only willingness to work but also willingness to work with zeal and confidence. Zeal is ardour,
earnestness and intensity in the execution of work; confidence reflects experience and technical ability.
Armstrong (1990) suggests that leadership happens: when there is an objective to be achieved or task
to be carried out and when more than one person is needed to do it. Sandra Dawson (1996, pg: 216)
offers the following definition of what is involved in leadership
Leadership exists when someone (the leader) exercises influence over others (the followers) in
their group or organization. Their influence may be wide ranging or narrowly focused but within
formal organizations particular emphasis is given to influence over:
Values which are espoused
Directions in which future developments are guided and the manner in which everyday
tasks are accomplished.
Hence leadership is mandatory for achieving goals because someone has to point the way
ensure that everyone concerned gets there a leaders aim is to get people to do what he wants by
obtaining willing co-operation, not unwilling submission. According to Martin (2001) A standard
definition of culture would include the system of values, symbols and shared meanings of a group
including the embodiment of these values, symbols and meanings into material objects and ritualized
practices. The stuff of culture includes customs and traditions, historical accounts be they mythical or
103
actual, tacit understanding , habits, norms and expectations, common meanings associated with fixed
objects and established rites, shared assumptions and inter-subjective meaning (Sergiovanni &
Corbally, 1984)
Adler (1997) presents most comprehensive and accepted general definition i.e. culture consists
of patterns, explicit and implicit and behavior transmitted by symbols constituting an individual
achievement of humans including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consist of
traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas especially their attached values. On the one
hand, be considered as product of action and on the other conditioning elements of future action.
(Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1952, pg: 181). Kotter and Heskett (1992) argue that At the deeper and less
visible level, culture refers to values that are shared by the people in the group and that tend to persist
over time even in group members changes. At the more visible level, culture represents the behavior
patterns or styles of an organization that new employees are automatically encouraged to follow by
their fellow employees. Each level of culture has a tendency to influence the other (Kotter and
Heskett, 1992, pg: 4). Schein (1985) argues that in organization culture operates at three levels, ranging
from basic assumptions, which are closed as invisible artifacts that are visible within the organisation.
Figure 4. Demonstrates Scheins three level of culture (See Appendix: 4).
2.2. Leadership and Organizational Culture
The culture in an organization is very complex and there are many factors involved in both internal and
external environment that influence it .Figure: 3, Appendix: 3) graphically illustrates this point and
similarly, Appendix: 4 analyses Johnson and Scholes (1999) cultural web insight into the assumptions
that are prevalent in the organizations as well as the physical manifestations that constitute a corporate
culture.
Schein (1991) identified four main areas that have an influence on organizational culture. They
are business environment, leadership, management practices and formal and informal socialization
process.
The business environment that an organization operates within will influence its culture. It will
also be affected by the geographical region, which relates to Hofstedes (1991) work on the effects of
national culture. This is also an evidence to suggest that different cultural attitudes depend on the social
strata that exists within a region. The type of industry that a company is in will similarly have an
impact on how a culture develops i.e. Wilson (2001) states that bank and bankers will have a riskaverse culture whereas stockbrokers will have a deal-orientated culture. The level of competitiveness,
different type of technology and customers demands all influence the values, attitudes and behavior of
that work within particular organizations.
It is evident that the leadership of an organization may have an influence on the culture. The
extent of that influence is one of the most debated issues within the study of organizational culture.
Pettigrew (1997) argued that most prominent link between leadership and culture development can be
found in new companies that have an entrepreneur at the helm. In this situation the leader influences
the values and beliefs of the individual members by setting certain standards of behavior. A culture
then emerges that may be in keeping with the unique vision of founder. Kotter and Heskett (1992),
further this argument by setting categorically that the primary function of any leader is to begin cultural
change and better the performance within the organization. Whether this planned culture, leadership,
and organizational change can occur in an established organization which is the main focus of this
study.
Management practices and the formal socialization process also have a strong influence over an
organizations culture. It is the way in which a company is actually managed will have influence over
the behavior and attitudes of its employees. Harrison and Carrol (1991) argue that the management has
control over various factors that will have an influence on culture. The most important of these factors
are recruitment, formal socialization procedures and turnover of employees. Evidently the type of
person that an organization employs will have an impact on the culture. Thus the interview procedure
104
is geared to find individuals that would fit in within the current culture of organization. Once a new
member of staff is selected, they go through formal socialization processes such as training courses,
which has the effect of viewing individuals how the organization operates and what is expected of
them. Similarly, management can use reward and control system to highlight the enforce behavior that
is deemed appropriate to the organization. It is also evident that aspects such as decentralization,
empowerment of employees and the recognition of unions will have an influence on corporate culture
(Wilson, 2001).
The informal socialization process has its origins within group dynamic theory (Schein, 1969,
McGrath, 1984), which argues that an individual in a group has three primary needs. Firstly, one wants
to feel a part of the group with a specific role, but with an individual identity. Secondly, a group
member wants to have power to influence other individuals and the group as a whole, whilst
recognizing others need to do likewise. The third factor is acceptance among the group so that one has
a developed feeling of security. Shared meanings and norms will then develop which set the
parameters for behavior and group membership. The formal socialization process is reinforced by the
telling of anecdotes and myths, which again highlights acceptable and un-acceptable.
2.3. Leadership and Change
The role of leadership is critical to the success of a management of a cultural change. Dyer (2001)
states that with out a new leader or leadership team, coupled with a crisis culture change is not
possible. Further more Dyer (2001) states that new leadership has to come into place to bring a new set
of assumptions and beliefs to the organisation thus rectifying the crisis. Leadership also has to manage
the conflict that inevitability comes with widespread organisational change. Schein (1985) argues that
leadership has the responsibility to guide the company through the three stages of organisational
development that he identified. With out visionary leadership, significant culture changes will not
occur. Change management can conjure up many different ideas of what it involves apart from those
mentioned previously, in addition to the assumption that when companies need to change the
organisation in some form, it is anticipated that such changes will be 'enforced' from the top-down. It
Causes unnecessary problems during and probably before the whole change process has begun. For it
could be felt on the employees behalf that any changes to be made are going to be purely made without
the consideration of, or for these employees at the lower levels of the company. These people being the
one's who usually feel the changes the most, result in time-consuming and costly disputes. Some of this
resilience maybe due to the process of being changed rather than the actual changes that are to take
place if organisational success is to be achieved (Senge, 1999). Therefore it is often the way people are
managed and their perceptions of management that will shape their thoughts on change and how it
should be conducted, but this is not only done on the part of the employee, managers can also feel
dissatisfaction from the outcomes of change (Bjerke, 2001). According to Bass (1989) theory of
leadership states that there are three basic ways to explain how people become leaders. The first two
explain the leadership development for a small number of people. These theories are:
Some personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. This is the Trait Theory.
A crisis or important event may cause a person to rise to the occasion, which brings out
extraordinary leadership qualities in an ordinary person. This is the Great Events Theory.
People can choose to become leaders. People can learn leadership skills. This is the
Transformational Leadership Theory. It is the most widely accepted theory today and the
premise on which this guide is based.
This could be linked to the idea that if employees feel that the changes to be made did not
consider their input, then perhaps they will not fully welcome the change and therefore not implement
change procedures to the best of their abilities resulting in negative outcomes such as poor
performance and lower productivity levels which in-turn will disappoint managers who may also be
confused on what path they should follow that will make everyone happy and achieve organisational
change - which is probably impossible to do (Burnes, 2000). Considering this, it is important to look at
105
the aspects of leadership involved, if companies want to achieve successful organisational change and a
problem they may be facing is the lack of employee commitment then building morale and
commitment could be achieved through the adoption of a new leadership style or through reinforcing
the current leadership approach for leadership can be simply defined as "influencing people to get
things done to a standard and quality above their norm and doing it willingly" (Kotelnikov, 2004).
Then the role of a leader could be a valuable tool for the company, using the manager as a leader, some
may argue that these roles are distinctly different but used together they can be described as the ideal
attributes of someone in a position of authority. Change requires a sense of direction which a leader
can generate, but it may also need someone who can manage the change process effectively proving to
be a valuable asset to the company at the times when changes are required rapidly. Whether these are at
present or in the future. If change is to be a constant feature of business life, a leader needs to be aware
of this to encourage their team not to fear change (Carnell, 1991).
In relation to being a leader it could be argued that there is no 'one best-way' of leading the
workforce, Callan (1997) argues that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style is always
"situationally contingent", no universally appropriate style of leadership exits, there are varying styles autocratic, participative or even supportive roles for example (Lussier & Achua, 2001). However it
could be argued that when transformational changes it requires aa need for transformational manager
who has charisma and inspiration to successfully implement new changes with the relative full support
of their workforce (Saunders et al, 2000). Yet like with culture, leadership skills or approaches cannot
be changed, adopted or eliminated over night, they too are often deeply rooted due to the culture of the
company and are not subject to "push-button control" (Bjerke, 1999).
Therefore when companies need to change they can not just adopt a particular leadership style
that is thought to bring instant results, for many factors affect the style of leadership adopted.
Leadership styles can be shaped just like culture, but when doing this as consideration and appreciation
of both leadership and culture is important. To develop a style shaped by the culture yet also devise a
way of leading that can slowly change the company culture and attitude for the future. For culture
provides the workforce with a sense of how to behave and react (Lussier & Achua, 2001),
understanding this can unlock the key to the successful harmonisation of leadership and culture to
manipulate the change process, benefiting the company with as minimal effort and cost as possible.
2.4. Leadership Style and Culture Change
In relation to being a leader it could be argued that there is no 'one best-way' of leading the workforce,
Callan (2003) argues that the effectiveness of a particular leadership style is always "situationally
contingent", no universally appropriate style of leadership exits, there are varying styles - autocratic,
participative or even supportive roles for example (Lussier & Achua, 2001). However it could be
argued than when transformational changes are required a transformational manager is required who
has charisma and inspiration to successfully implement new changes with the relative full support of
their workforce (Saunders et al, 2000). Yet like with culture, leadership skills or approaches cannot
be changed, adopted or eliminated over night, they too are often deeply rooted due to the culture of the
company and are not subject to "push-button control" (Bjerke, 1999, pg: 49).
Therefore when companies need to change they can not just adopt a particular leadership style
that is thought to bring instant results for many factors affect the style of leadership adopted.
Leadership styles can be shaped just like culture, but when doing so a consideration and appreciation
of both leadership and culture is important. To develop a style shaped by the culture yet also devise a
way of leading that can slowly change the company culture and attitude for the future. For culture
provides the workforce with a sense of how to behave and react (Lussier & Achua, 2001),
understanding this can unlock the key to the successful harmonisation of leadership and culture to
manipulate the change process, benefiting the company with as minimal effort and cost as possible.
106
Carell et al, (1997) states that when major factors external to the organisation change, a new
strategy may be required to meet the change. Here, the organisational leaders have to respond by
attempting to change the culture of an organisation to meet the demands. ( Carrell et al, 1997).
Following are the keys to cultural change a leader has to have an idea of before implementing
cultural change.
1. Understanding of the old culture: A leader has to have a good insight of the old culture
prevailing within the organisation in order to imply the new process, understanding of the
old culture will ease the leaders task of educating the employees about the new system or
culture.
2. Encourage innovative employees: a leader should identify the innovating employees
amongst the group and encourage him to impart his ideas to the other members of the
group in order to bring out new ideas that would bring changes for the betterment of the
organisation.
3. Not to rely on a new vision: it is important for the leader not to rely immediately on the
new vision of change; the leader should gain a common consensus of the group before
making any changes to the culture of the organisation.
4. Expect some time for change: the leader should not expect the change to take effect
immediately, the old culture is a set of strong beliefs and norms which cannot be altered
quickly, the leader has to be patient in order for the change to take effect.
2.5. Effect of Organizational Culture on Organizational Change
2.5.a. Organisational Culture and Organisation Change
According to Serigovanni & Corbally (1984) definition of culture would include the system of
values, symbols and shared meanings of a group including embodiment of these values, symbols and
meanings into material objects and ritualised practices. The stuff of culture includes customs and
traditions, historical accounts be they mythical or actual, tacit understandings, habits, norms and
expectations, common meanings associated with fixed objects and established rites, shared
assumptions and inter-subjective meanings.
Culture is a concept that is here to stay unlike many other business concepts, for the importance
of an individuals culture, the organizational culture, in addition to that of the nation state, all play an
influence on how the company thinks and operates, and the choice of corporate strategy to be adopted
(Blair, 2000). Senior (1997) states that culture can fundamentally be interpreted from two different
perspectives; the objectivist or the interpretive perspective. Along with leadership, culture is an
important feature of any company especially when change is taking place, for culture can help change
to occur smoothly if accepted by the workforce but culture can also be one of the main obstacles to
change (Bjerke, 2001). For if managers expect to implement a new style of leadership for example, in
theory this may seem like a feasible idea but in practice it may be more difficult than anticipated. For
the present culture of the company may be one that has always been left to get on with their work soto-speak, without many boundaries placed upon employees by mangers, allowing creativity to flow
(Times, 2003). Then if senior mangers decide to restructure the company and expect employees to
report more regularly to their superiors, employees may feel restricted, especially if deadlines and
targets are more rigidly set, restricting their level of freedom to be innovative and creative for the
competitive advantage of the company (Senior, 2002). This will not have been the manager's intentions
but if all parties involved do not communicate and share ideas, then the actual level of successful
change will not be as high as anticipated.
Where organisational change is not a new concept but one that is becoming more apparent in
management literature and terminology. For due to the ever-changing business and social
environments caused strongly by globalisation, this has meant that companies must keep themselves
up-to-date, whether it is through using the latest form of technology or through the latest management
fad. In order for their company to survive and successfully adapt to the constant challenges that
107
"change management" presents them with. Therefore through looking at the relationship between
leadership and culture it is important to understand how each of these factors alone, and together can
have a significant impact upon the success of the organisational change a company can achieve.With
globalisation occurring, it affects many people including organisations and those employed within it,
therefore businesses need to be able to adapt and compete as successfully as possible whilst faced with
often new and uncertain environments (Luthans, 2002). However when the need for change
accelerates, this brings with it new challenges and opportunities. Senior (1997) argues that change is a
progressive phenomenon that is best understood by considering the metaphor of strong and weak
winds. Therefore companies need to be susceptible and ready to acknowledge the challenges that
change presents them with and try to overcome these for the benefit of the company as a whole. This
element of change management that companies may be faced with may consist of many contradictory
elements such as external changes in technology, customers and the social environment. Plus it can
also refer to the internal changes a company faces due to these external factors or in relation to how the
organisation adapts to such changes, internally, such as their practices, strategies and views for
example (Senge et al, 1999). There are many factors involved with change and the successful
management of it which can often be a difficult time for companies, especially as some may state that
to manage change is to manage people, which can be the most difficult part of the process (Dewitt,
2004). According to Burnes (1992).To properly initiate change, one has to have a full understanding of
the nature of an organisation.
2.5. b. National Culture and Leadership
At times, leadership has to counter the culture of the organisation, which is affected by the culture of
that country, which is known as the national culture.
National culture is the ideas, set of beliefs and norms followed by the people of a certain
country; the countrys history, religion and traditions make up for the national culture. However,
sometimes, the national culture clashes with the organisational culture and can create challenges for the
leadership.
According to Lok and Crawford (2004) state that the national culture and leadership has
influence on organisational leadership styles, organisational culture and their subsequent effects on
employee's job satisfaction and commitment.
As Loc and Crawford (2004) find out values, attitudes and beliefs which are reflected in
different national cultures where they have compared the organisational culture of Hong Kong with the
organisational culture of Australia and its effect on the leadership of the organisation. Loc and
Crawford (2004) further argue that the culture in Hong Kong as their relative high power distance
preference and where Confucian values can make significant influence on the organisational culture.
Confucian values are often associated with obedience, respect of authority and loyalty and Leadership.
For example, the leaders and senior management of the Hong Kong firms make important decisions.
Owners and leaders are on top of any senior management bureaucratic structure in these firms.
Direction and orders tend to be top-down and there is little delegation and empowerment. On the
contrary, this is generally the reverse in western firms. Both US and Australia are relatively low power
distance countries and values of democracy, equalitarianism and participation are more prevalent. In
the US and Australia, authority is legitimised more on performance and merit. There is greater
delegation and decentralisation of decision-making and control. (Loc and Crawford, 2004).
Thus on the basis of this study on differences between Chinese and Australian cultures in
power distance, control, decision making and governance, it can be predicted that national cultures can
influence the firm's organisational culture and leadership style along with their level of job satisfaction
and motivation in an organisation.
108
2.6. Motivation, Leadership Style & Organisation Performance

Motivation is also grounded in a sound understanding of culture. The way in which manager motivates
employees in one culture is often different from that which will be used in other culture. According to
Appelbaum (1998) the biggest challenge for management is to have their change initiatives supported
by the employees of the organisation. These change initiatives are likely to encounter serious resistance
from various levels in the organisation, and especially middle management. Appelbaum (1998) further
state that at the individual level, it has been argued that the organisation members willingness to buy
into a culture of change can be facilitated by applying the principles of behaviour modification. These
principles, derived from operant conditioning concepts, are not applicable to all behaviour modification
attempts. In designing jobs, organisations have to assess individuals capabilities to adapt to change
(Appelbaum, 1998). For example, it has been advanced that the degree to which individuals will
translate organisational change initiatives into higher performance achievement is related to their
locus of control. Since internally oriented individuals (internal locus) believe that their own actions
determine outcomes, internals are more likely to take an active position with respect to their
environment. Externals (external locus), in contrast, may adopt a passive role (Kren, 1992).
The ability of any organisation to motivate individuals, whether they have an external or
internal locus of control, to superior levels of performance is closely related to their reward systems.
Therefore, strategic organisational change efforts must establish that different types of rewards which
are offered to employees who might have quite a different attitude set towards organisational change.
To implement a new organizational vision and strategic organizational change, it has been
suggested that organizations should undergo transformational change. By transformational (change) we
mean areas in which alteration is likely caused by interaction with environmental forces and will
require entirely new behavior sets from organizational members (Burke and Litwin, 1992). For senior
teams of organizations, it will require the different leadership style and strategies that will lead to
superior organizational performance.
2.6. a) Motivation and Leadership Style
According to Kell and Carrot (2005) states that corporate cultures influence employees' leadership
styles more than any other aspect of their jobs.
Conditions are ever changing in the business organisations today, people change, and processes
change. Even the cultures need to change. For the ever-changing environment, the leadership needs to
be flexible in order to implement these changes into the organisation to motivate employee and
increase performance.
Participative leadership. A participative leadership style can have an positive affect on
employees expectancies, instrumentalities, and valences. This leadership style occurs
through eliciting members ideas and opinions and encouraging participation in
management and decision-making. Allowing subordinate to participate actively in
decision-making is likely to increase their knowledge of what is expected of them in terms
of their performance and what rewards and support might be attained from exerting extra
effort. It also provides employee a clearer understanding of the ways to receive various
rewards and for identifying the rewards they value most. Further, by allowing subordinate
to provide input into problem solving, they may be more motivated to resolve problems
affecting the organisation. A participative leadership style, which is a key management
practice in strategic alliances and relational exchange arrangements, should be associated
with higher levels of motivation because of employees beliefs that a high level of effort
will lead to desirable outcomes.
Involvement in decision-making also increases the perception of control a subordinate in
performing distribution tasks. Bucklin (1973) indicates that when a leader does not allow other
member to have input into marketing programs, the ability of member to adjust to the individual needs
of their customers is impaired. Hence, a participative channel environment that encourages employees
109
to influence decisions that affect their status in the channel may produce a highly motivated
management system (Schul et al., 1985). According to Mehta (2003) research shows that participative
leadership style and motivation in organisational behaviour and management allowing subordinates to
participate in decision-making leads to increased motivation (e.g. Kohli, 1985; Mitchell, 1973; Teas,
1981, 1982; Tyagi, 1982, 1985).
Supportive leadership. A supportive leadership style can be motivational to the extent that
it causes the initiation, intensity, and persistence of work related behaviours in
subordinates. Thus, a supportive leader is perceived as displaying feelings of trust,
encouraging the development of close, mutually satisfying relationships, and creating a
favourable atmosphere for interaction. Further, he or she not only recognizes, but also is
responsive to subordinate needs by offering support (thus enhancing their expectancy,
instrumentality, and valence estimates). This is likely to result in an increase in the level of
effort employee exert on various distribution tasks associated with the products or services
of the leader. According to House and Dessler (1974) suggests that supportive leadership
behaviour is associated with higher levels of motivation (Evans, 1974; Tyagi, 1982, 1985).
Directive leadership. A directive leadership style can be an effective means to plan,
organize, coordinate, and maintain control over the work-related activities of subordinates.
Established through formalization, the institutionalization of explicit rules and operating
procedures to govern organisation activities in which leaders can use to structure the
performance of distribution tasks (Dwyer and Oh, 1987; John, 1984). When employee
engage in ambiguous or unstructured tasks, they might feel that by following explicitly
stated guidelines of the leader who usually has more expertise and knowledge about
products they may be more successful in attaining overall performance objectives. That
is, by adhering to codified rules and regulations, employee should have adequate
knowledge regarding what they are to do and how to perform these distribution tasks. To
the extent that the rewards are consistent with their needs and expectations, and employee
exert a higher level of effort.
3.2. Summary of Selected Research Methods
It was decided that a case study method was the most appropriate for use in this study. In order to offer
a valid, triangulated argument, the use of documentation evidence was used extensively with support
from two semi-structured interviews. There were four organisations that were analysed extensively and
their culture change programmes were evaluated with reference to established culture change models.
4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Changing Corporate Culture in the Hospitality Industry
Research conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2002) analyzed culture change within the hospitality
industry. The data was collected in the UK between December 1999 and July 2000. It utilized three
forms of data collection methods; in-depth interviewers, document analysis and observation. The four
organizations that were studied were International five-start hotel chain, a national four-star hotel
operator and two national restaurants and wine bar groups.
4.2. Level of Invention
Their data analysis highlighted three areas that are of particular interest in the context of this study. The
first issue analyses the level to which culture change can occur. Schein (1992) identified three levels of
culture; basic assumptions, values and artefacts. The study found that there were specific industry
factors that prevented the changing of a culture at the deepest, basic assumption level. This is
consistent with the findings of Wilson (2001) highlighted in the literature review. The level to which a
110
company targets its culture change inventions id related to the conduciveness of critical industry
characteristics. The interviews from all four organizations indicated that a certain aspects of working in
the hospitality industry, e.g. working conditions and terms of employment, put up a barrier that stopped
deeper level cultural transformation. High staff turnover and pay were highlighted as the two most
important and influential factors in preventing deeper cultural change. A director of one of the
organizations commented that;
In terms of culture change, the big problem weve got is staff. Weve had all sorts of
changes pushed through There are basically new issues every three months. Well
these changed are good but they do not get through to the right people. If we have 150
staff in a unit, 100 of them would only have been with us for three months. Its just the
industry.
There as also significant evidence to show that a lack of pay has a negative impact on the
commitment of the workforce. Is they perceive that they are not getting paid enough then they are
unlikely to willingly embrace culture change. This opinion is expressed by a front-line worker in the
four-star hotel group;
In this business they pay you peanuts but they expect you to give the best service to
people. They have to be realistic. Nobody is going to work their socks off if the
companies dont give a damn about giving people decent wages.
A senior manager from the four-star hotel group who had just completed a culture change
course run by outside consultants was unimpressed with the interpretive argument that suggests that
culture change can only be said to have occurred, if there is deep-rooted change to the basic
assumptions of the workforce. He argued that all he wanted was for his staff to create the impression
that this new culture was prevailing;
Happiness, friendliness, smiling; all false cultures thats what our customers like to
see. Away from the real world, they come here to experience relation, leisure and
entertainment. We try to create the ambience so we encourage our staff to perform and
generate those feelings in front of the customers.
It is therefore evident from this research, that the level at which planned culture changes are
aimed will have an effect on their perceived success. This argues therefore, that you can change the
artefacts of an organization, which will in turn impact employee behavior. Whether this constitutes a
culture change will be discussed in depth later in the study.
4.3. Should the Management of Culture be Formalized?
The second element of the research that is relevant to this study is the issue of whether the management
of culture should be a formulized process. It was evident that all of the four companies involved in the
study utilized management techniques that were consistent with the established culture change models.
An emphasis was placed on training, rewards, communication, recruitment and selection and internal
promotion policies. However, many of the subjects that were interviewed from the four-star hotel chain
were unimpressed at the amount of senior management involvement in the culture change process. A
typical response was;
Sometimes they roll out a program and you think, why are they doing this? Why didnt
they talk to me first? What is the thought process behind this? What do they hope to get
out of it? I think its a case of we need to do something and somebody gets on to it.
In contrast, the research found that the other three companies adopted less conventional
approaches to the management of the culture. Two of the organizations adopted an approach that was
more ad hoc and the other company utilized an approach that Ogbonna and Harris (2002) refer to as
being organic. The as hoc method centered on the culture change management techniques being
introduced when and if it was deemed necessary by the unit level managers who were closer to the
ground, so to speak, that top-level management. The interview comments support this approach;
111
We are treated as an autonomous unit. They (head office) formulate the overall
strategy of the group and we are given some freedom to make these work at a local
level
As far as managing our culture is concerned, we think we understand our employees
and our customers better than people from head office. We know how to get our people
to give the best to the customers. When you think about it, this is really the only thing
that the central office should be concerned with.
The organic approach entailed employees outlining a number of beliefs and values, which they
believed were central to the success of the organisation. The local managers then interpreted this and
developed them in congruence with the local community. Managers were empowered to adapt the
company to the needs of the local environment. This proved successful and the interviews showed that
it was a popular method;
It is quite dynamic because people are free. We encourage our manager to run the
business as though they owned them. If something is your own you do your damn best to
make it successful
The research showed that this process had the best support from the front-line employees and
the local management. There was hostility to organization-wide culture change initiatives that came
directly from senior management. Empowerment received notable support.
4.4. How Changes are Made
The research indicates that changes to culture can be made either as part of a discontinuous or a
continuous strategy. The former, which was found to be operating in two of the organizations, sees
culture interventions as being periodic and at predetermined points in time. The following comment by
a manager in the five-star group underlines the rationale of this approach;
We usually have a great idea every twelve months or so. When we do, we implement it
and wait for the next good idea.
The continuous approach considers culture adaptation as an ongoing process that is
incorporated into every management action. The alignment of culture and strategy is viewed as an
ongoing and incremental process. Numerous interview comments highlighted this;
We see culture as an ongoing thing We have a group of people at head office whose
primary responsibility is to develop new programmers. We always strive to build on
what we have done before.
We are given a new change programme every three months or soEach programme
builds on the one before; this gives us an opportunity to improve things and it helps to
make the system more efficient.
Ogbonna and Harris (2002) make a series of conclusions that stem their research into culture
change in the hospitality industry. Firstly, they again argue strongly that industry specific
characteristics will be an important factor in how successful a culture change program will be. They
continue to argue that their research has uncovered numerous examples of structural/strategy changes,
which have helped to improve organizational performance. They also highlight and dispute the
pessimistic argument, which questions whether these changes actually constitute a genuine culture
change. They state that the evidence from the four organizations appears to support the realist
argument. They continue to argue that change should be viewed, conceptualized and modeled as a
continuum rather than as a dichotomous event. they call for culture frameworks to incorporate many
potential outcomes regarding not only the degree and depth of change, but also how it is diffused.
4.5. Case Study Analysis
The thesis will now analyze case studies of four International organizations that have claimed to have
purposefully and successfully initiated program of cultural change. A brief overview of the companies
112
and their culture change programm will be given, followed by an in-depth analysis centering on the
super-ordinate research question of this study.
4.5.1. NISSAN Case Study
Nissan as an organisation has its origins in Japan at the start of the twentieth Century. By the beginning
of the Second World War it had become the second biggest automobile manufacturer in Japan. After
initial problems at the end of the war, the company grew rapidly and in 1955 they embarked on a joint
venture in the United Kingdom and by the early 1960s they had achieved break through success in the
USA. By the end of the decade, Nissan exported 26% of its total production. As the growth of the
company increased, the future President, Tukata Kume identified that there was a problem due to the
extra layers in the chain command. Communication in the organization was deteriorating and this was
causing the decisions by top management to become seemingly inaccurate. In response, the
organization introduced new rules and regulations, which upset the workforce because it added extra
bureaucracy to the system. Similarly at the same time, there were significant labor difficulties, with the
organization taking a tough stance on the trade unions. Strikes occurred which served to highlight the
difficulties that they were facing. In 1972, Nissan began to experience declining, market share, which
many people close to the company attributed to the internal problems that they were prevalent in the
organization. The corporate culture then came under intense scrutiny, as many believed that it had
become too bureaucratic and autocratic. Therefore the question was then posed as to whether the
culture could be changed to boost the performance of the organization.
Yukata Kume then assumed the role of President in June 1985 ad set about trying to change the
ailing culture of the organization. He immediately sanctioned a task force called the Product Market
Strategy Group (PMSG) whose objective was to change the atmosphere at the Technical centre of the
company. They tried to achieve this by encouraging delegation of authority and responsibility.
Similarly, they encouraged lower management to communicate more directly with them and to
question rules and procedures. By January 1986, the companies research and development department
officially embarked on a program of organizational change. Managers were put in charge of a single
car model as opposed to the three or four that was current standard practice. This gave the employees a
more focused approach by narrowing down their sphere of operations. Further ideas were implemented
that were similarly designed to change the culture. Rewards were offered to employees that out
forward interesting and innovative ideas and all indications of rank were removed from the company
uniforms. Then subsequently, uniforms themselves were made optional in the hope that this would aid
creativity. Flex-time was then introduced, which again was another management technique that was
designed to change the culture and foster creativity and innovation. A Challenge Creation Club was
similarly established which provided employees with a social forum through which they could generate
and share ideas. Kume then developed what he referred to as a new corporate philosophy where he
identified four main principles;
We must keep in touch with the global market, creating attractive products through our
innovative and reliable technology. We must be sensitive to customers needs and offer
them maximum satisfaction based on steadfast sincerity and ceaseless efforts to meet
their requirements. We must focus on global trends, making the world the stage for our
activities and to nurture a strong company that will grow with the times. We must foster
the development of an active and vital group of people who are ready and willing at all
times to take on the challenge of achieving new goals.
A new division called the Product Market Strategy Division (PMSD) was formed to help the
planned changes come into fruition. They oversaw a reorganization of the organization, which centered
on the integration of certain departments and the management of the power struggles that existed
between the different factions. Kume himself then personally made visits and speeches to different
plants to communicate his new vision of the company. Departments were then given ten-fold increase
in the amount of money that they were directly in control of without interference from the
113
headquarters. In return, the individual departments had to develop a management control system,
which allowed for them to monitor issues such as quality, delivery and costing. At the Zama Plant,
between 1985, (when the system was introduced) and 1988, costs decreased by twenty percent, quality
increased by seventy percent and delivery time decreased by seventy percent.
There were two further specific changes that were made by the organization, which may have
had a bearing on the implementation of Kumes vision. Firstly, the interdepartmental rotation of
employees was started and the promotion and reward packages were focused on performance as
opposed to seniority, as had been the case is the past. This was done to encourage action-orientation
and to drive employees to a high level of performance.
A further example of Nissans drive for change occurred when they attempted to design a car
that was aimed at younger customers. A young management team and a young design team were
tasked with designing a car that they would want to buy. This process was carried out with complete
autonomy with no interference from senior management. There was a de-centralization of the decision
making process, which again underlined the changes that Nissan had initiated. Kume himself left the
final decision of which design would go into production to those who had directly worked on the
project. This highlighted the break from a top-down bureaucratic structure. Kume himself commented
that;
Six years have passes and I believe we are now about halfway through this process of
changing the corporate culture, I think it may take another six years to finish the job
Takashi Hisatomi, the manager of the Product Market Strategy Office, interestingly pointed out
that they had initially used crisis as a way of motivating change. Now the crisis was over he predicted
that further changing the culture would prove much harder.
After experiencing a steady decline in their domestic market share for some years, Nissan
experienced a small rise between 1988 and 1989 from 23.6% to 23.7%. In the same period, their US
market share rose from 4.8% to 5.2%. More impressively, between 1987 and 1990, their net income
rose from $165 million to $940 million.
4.5.2. Case Study Two: British Airways
British Airways was for a long period a nationalized institution. After it became privatized, it found
that its political influence dropped significantly as it became exposed to increased competition. In
September 1981, Roy Watts the Chief Executive warned the organization that it faced a severe crisis. It
was projected that the company was going to total losses over hundred and fifty million pounds over
the next two-year periods. The culture in the organization was very militaristic in nature and due to the
sheer amount of pilots, especially those that had come from an Armed forces background. This is best
demonstrated by the name of the managements control centre at the headquarters; the Senior
Managers Mess. In January 1983, Colin Marshall took over as chief executive and he immediately
started to make changes within the organization, initially this was not well received as internal conflict
became fierce as people tried to resist the changes. Marshall argued however that the organization was
too inward looking and there needed to be more of a focus on the customer. One of the first changes he
made was to take all symbols of rank off uniforms and office doors because he argued that these were
acting as symbols of achievement, when they showed nothing of the sort. There was distinct attempt to
move beyond this militaristic culture. He recognized that how the customer perceived their service was
critical to their success. Between 1983 and 1987 a training program called Putting People First was
put into effect. This was designed and co-ordinate by Time Manager International, who were an
outside consultancy firm. Cabin crew were empowered and encouraged to use their initiative more
when unforeseen situations occurred. Marshall himself was present at a vast majority of the training
program to add impetus to the process. He argued forcefully that it was better to make a decision and
get it wrong than not to make a decision at all. He personally spent time speaking to as many
employees as possible so that he could listen to their grievances and any suggestions that they had. The
114
program was soon extended beyond just the customer facing employees to the rest of the members of
the organization.
The traditional top-down, hierarchical structure that BA had always had was now seen as
counter-productive in the quest for success. A program called Managing People First was introduced
which was a five-day course for all of the 1400 BA managers. When Marshall had taken over control
of the company he had fired 66 senior managers because of their incompatibility to his new strategic
and culture vision. The course was designed to advise managers how to train and be supportive of their
subordinates. They were instructed to empower them by delegating responsibility down the chain of
command. Everybody needed to understand the vision of the organization and know what their place
was within that framework. This was coupled with the implementation of a reward system that was
based on performance indicators. A new corporate logo was designed and the airplanes were refurbished. This was all due to the need to boost their service in the eyes of consumer. If the employees
were contented and felt as if they were both trusted and needed, then this theoretically should be
transferred to the customer. The economic indicators proved beyond doubt that British Airways
achieved enhanced performance for a sustained period after the implementation of their change
program. However it was interestingly noted by Mike Bruce, that the British people were naturally
very individualistic in nature and it would take a crisis to bring them together and share values. After
the crisis had passes, the organizations improvements leveled off and they found I difficult to put more
emphasis back into the program of culture change.
4.5.3. Case Study Three: BAHCO
BAHCO are a Swedish based tools and equipment manufacturer that were experiencing severe losses
towards the middle of 1983. As a result, a new managing director, Anders Lindstrom, was appointed
and his arrival had a remarkable impact on the fortunes of the organization. By the end of the year,
losses had fallen from twenty million to seven million pounds and by the end of 1985, the company
registered profits of twenty million pounds. Lindstrom had had a history of turning around ailing
companies and he stated that his method was to analyse the history of an organization and work out
why and how it had got into predicament. By using this knowledge he then implemented turnaround
strategies. He argues that the organization was over-stretched due to the vast out-sourcing of
manufacturing that had occurred. It was also highlighted that many of the separate entities did not work
efficiently together. He started that their styles, perspectives and behaviors were all different. He then
set about trying to resolve this streamlining the organization and separating those national cultures that
did not work productively together.
He started by cutting the number of employees who worked in the headquarters from 75 to 15
within his first month and then proceeded to improve the communication channels with the
organization. He held a defining meeting, which was later called the coffee table talk. It was videoed
so that all members of the organization could view it and 5000 pamphlets were made and distributed
throughout the organization. The full transcript of the text can be found appendix 7. He explained that
everybody within the organization must work hard to turn this situation around. He similarly
encouraged team-work and idea generation from all levels of the organization. It was also essential that
the issue of redundancy was handled in an affective way. They town where the organization was based
was very reliant on the company for employment. Lindstrom commented that it would be folly to
promote the concept of trust and teamwork and then lay off 26% of the workforce with no regard. As a
result all were found new employment by a variety of means and the only eight individuals that could
not, were kept on at the company. The new managing director now had the trust, respect and loyalty of
the workforce. Many employees who appeared enthusiastic about the company and offered good and
innovative ideas were subsequently promoted which sent out a clear signal to the rest of the
organization. Lindstrom then ordered that every department in the organization to produce a new
product by the end of 1983. This was designed to galvanize the innovation that he believed was there
but was being stifled. This proved very successful and morale within all departments was reported to
115
have risen dramatically. Some of the new designs even won awards, which again gave the organization
desire and belief.
1984 was declared the year of sales and Lindstrom instructed all heads of departments and
the outsourcing companies to spend an extra ten per cent of their time actually going into the field and
speaking to the customers. Again competitions were started to see which section could generate the
most sales. Rewards were again linked to these internal competitions. Lindstrom then encouraged more
travel between plants and departments so that they could learn from each other and further generate
ideas. By the end of 1984, BAHCO were ten million pounds in profit.
The next phase of Lindstroms plan was to make 1985 the year of ideas. This was done so that
the creativity and innovation could be further enhanced. No ideas were deemed stupid and all of them
were considered. Lindstrom drew on stories such as the telephone being rejected by the US patent
office and the announcement in 1915 that no further automobile innovation was possible. It became
policy to respond to all suggestions within a week and if they were used rewards were tailored
suitability. An extra months wages were not uncommon and in some cases a years extra salary was
given for excellent ideas. By the middle of 1985, three hundred and twenty implement-able ideas had
been utilized, which had significant impact on improving the performance of the organization. The
year of ideas was a great success and by the end of it, the company registered twenty million pounds in
profit. Therefore within two years the organization had gone from being twenty million pounds in debt,
to twenty million pounds in profit.
4.5.4. Case Study Four: ICI
Britains Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) was formed in 1926 through the merger of the four largest
chemical companies in the United Kingdom. The company played an important role in Britains war
effort by supplying, munitions, light metals and guns. It similarly helped in the development of
polythene, which became a component in radar, which helped the Britain repel the threat from
mainland Europe. As a result of this, and due to its sheer size, it had fundamental links to the British
government. However during the 1950s the company started to go into decline. Large American and
German producers performed significantly better eroding the market share of ICI. The situation
deteriorated throughout the 1960s as a condition in their home market worsened. The 1970s saw the
British economy suffer from low growth rates, high inflation and increased labor demands. It has also
been noted that the strength of the Pound between 1979 and 1982 was particularly harmful to the
companys exports. The organization was criticized for being too bureaucratic and failing to recognize
and exploit new opportunities. It was governed by traditional values and mechanisms that were not
adaptive to changing business environments.
Sir John Harvey-Jones, as he now is, assumed his role as Chairman in 1982. Having been a
member of the board for a number of years he knew the organization very well and recognized its
failing. He then set about trying to implement what he perceived as the necessary change. He realized
that the ICI culture was very dated and did not facilitate the strategic direction that the company needed
to take. He firstly made it easier for people to challenge the opinions of the boards by erecting a board
where members could make their point without having to directly challenge the board. Similarly at this
time there were environmental conditions that made the need for change more urgent and desirable.
The Thatcher government had made it more socially acceptable to make changes at an industrial level.
This was coupled with the weakness of the trade union movement due to the policies of the
Conservative government. Similarly, the recession in the country made the crisis the company was in
more visible, prompting the board to take a more favorable attitude towards change. Harvey-Jones
proposed that the organization should become more market driven as opposed to being product driven,
as was the case at the time. He firstly restructured the role of the board making members more
collectively responsible for the organization as a whole, as opposed to them all championing the causes
of their own particular sections. He then directed that divisional heads should be given more power and
freedom to run their operations. He formed nine world-wide business unite of which four were
116
headquartered outside the UK. This decentralization made the organization more adaptable to the
changes and differences in the world-wide markets. Harvey-Johns then streamlined both the board and
made meetings far less informal by abolishing arranged seating and making the dress code far less
official. The number of people operating out of head office was also reduced from twelve hundred to
four hundred. This was done to improve communication by reducing the layers in the chain of
command. Responsibility was further devolved out to the division at this time.
The Chairman continued to restructure the organization by merging different parts of the
company to significantly reduce costs. This was done so that they could acquire new operations around
the world, thus increasing their international presence. This greater diversification left then less
exposed to economic downturns. As a consequence, Harvey-Jones had to reduce the organization UK
workforce by twenty-five percent. This was done sensitively by using early retirement schemes,
outplacement and re-training program supported by generous severance payments. The morale of the
workforce remained strong as those that left were trained fairly and those that stayed were in a very
strong and stable organization. The feelings towards Harvey-Jones were summed up by an employee;
He as able to have a very clear focus for people to identify with. Its very important
that people identify with the objectives and purpose that are being enunciated by the
chairman. The identification with Harvey-Jones was almost at a personal level.
Employees did not think of him as a chairman so much as they thought as him as the
leader-and a guy they could respect- because he was able to relate to all the people.
It is therefore evident that the changes at ICI did have a positive impact on the performance of
the company. In 1989, profit before tax was a record for the organization, standing at one thousand
four hundred and seventy million pounds.
4.6. Congruence with Culture Change Models
It is evident from analyzing the case study that there were significant congruence between what
occurred in these organizations and the theories of culture change put forward by Lewin (1951),
Lundberg (1985), Dyer (1985), Schein (1985) and Gagliardi (1986). One will now methodically
demonstrate the evidence that brings one to this conclusion.
4.6.1. Perception of a Crisis
The culture change models were united in their belief that culture change is born out of the perception
of a crisis. Lundberg (1985) describes this as precipitating pressures and triggering events. like
wide, Dyer (1985) also refers to triggering events in his framework. Lewin (1951) argued that
management would initiate culture change program after a negative appraisal of organizational
performance. Similarly, Schein (1985) refers directly to the fact that, desire for change is fuelled by a
perception that the organization is experiencing a crisis. Gagliardi (1986) also stated that change is
fostered by the feelings of failure that can exist within companies.
It is evident that the four organizations that were analyzed were experiencing a crisis when they
proposed their cultural change program. Nissan were experiencing significant difficulties with their
labor force and trade union movement. This was very uncharacteristic for a Japanese organization at
that time, as they traditionally had always had very good relations between all layers of the hierarchy
within their companies. This was coupled with deterioration in the communication channels within the
organization. British Airways also faced severe problems after it was privatized in the early 1980s. It
was predicted that the company would lose two hundred and fifty million pounds between 1981 and
1983, which would amount to the worst crisis in the companys history. BAHCO, were also suffering
from vast financial difficulties in the middle of 1983. Their recorded losses for the year preceding that
date registered twenty million pounds. This was similarly a very critical time for the organization as
they faced going out of business unless the situation was rectified. The situation at ICI was more
gradual in nature but it still brought the organization into crisis. The strength of the Pound impacted the
competitiveness of their exports, low growth rates in the British economy, coupled with high inflation
117
and increased labor demands made the home market less stable. These factors occurring
simultaneously forced the organization to take action. We can therefore deduce that the first condition,
outlined by the researcher4s, necessary for culture change has been met y the four studied
organizations.
4.6.2. The Role of Leadership
It was once again evident from analyzing the objectivist literature, that the role of the leadership is
critical to the successful management of a culture program. Kotter and Heskett (1992) argued that the
Primary role of any leader is to implement change. Dyer (1985) in his analysis proposes that without
new leader or leadership team, coupled with a crisis, culture change is not possible. Lundberg (1985)
describes how leaders have the responsibility to engage in cultural visioning and to implement action
plans that will attain the vision. Dyer (1985) argues that new leadership has to come into place to bring
a new set of assumptions and beliefs to the organization, thus rectifying the crisis. The leadership also
has to manage the conflict that inevitably comes with widespread organizational change. Schein (1985)
places significant responsibility on the leadership to guide the company through the tree stages of
organizational development that he identified. Without visionary leadership, significant culture
changes will not occur.
The four case studies indicated that new leadership was sought in each instance to get the
organizations out of their perceived crisis. When Kume took control of Nissan he devised a new
corporate philosophy that outlined four principles for taking the company forward. This is an example
of cultural visioning (Lundberg, 1985) or the bringing of a new set of assumptions and beliefs (Dyer,
1985) to the organization. Colin Marshall at British Airways, communicated his vision to the rest of the
organization, but it was not well received. He then had the task of managing the conflict that was
created by his strategy. This is consistent with what Dyer (1985) advised was the likely outcome of any
new proposed cultural change. This view is supported by Senge, (1990) who commented that people
are likely to resist changes to their reality. When Anders Lindstrom became managing director at
BAHCO he relayed his cultural vision to the entire organization by using videos and pamphlets. He
recognized the need to open up the communication channels within the organization. He also
recognized that this should start from the top; with himself. Similarly, Harvey Jones on taking control
at ICI,recognized that many of the old pattern maintenance symbols (Dyer, 1985) needed replacing
because they were stifling success. He realized that the bureaucratic structure and hierarchy were selfdefeating and set about changing and streamlining tem. Predictably there was conflict, in an
organization that had been referred to in the past as a British Institution, this was inevitable.
However, he utilized appropriate leadership sills to enforce the necessary changes.
The evidence then supports the premise that having a new leader or leadership team is the best
or perhaps the only way of truly achieving culture change within an organization.
4.6.3. Changing the Artefacts of Culture
The evidence clearly indicates that all of the four organizations analyzed for the purpose of this study,
changed what Schein (1985) described as the Artefacts of the organization. These are the visible
elements of an organizations culture, which help to shape the behavior patterns of the individual
members. A number of management techniques that are consistent with the established culture change
theory, identified in the literature review, were utilized (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002). The organizations
encouraged greater communication between the lower and upper levels of management. Nissan, British
Airways and Bahco all introduced a reward system that recognized creativity and innovation from all
levels of the company. There was a real focus on idea generation. The research also showed the
companies shifting away from formality and rigid hierarchies. Uniforms were changed and the
important of rank was taken out of everyday organizational life. The organizational structures of the
companies were also manipulated to create more open, de-centralized and less bureaucratic hierarchies.
Restructuring was advocated by Beer et al, (1993) who argued that it was the most successful way to
118
change a corporate culture, because of its ability to change working practices and relationships within
the company. ICI appear to have utilized restructuring to the highest degree. Some theorists would
argue that this therefore does not constitute a genuine culture change. One would argue however that
the structure is an artefact of the organization and therefore changing it is does impact the culture to
some degree. Promotion and redundancy were also used as a way of enforcing the new cultural order.
All these changes to the Artefacts level of the organization, helped the organizations to enhance their
performance.
It was also evident that the analyzed organizations passed through the various stages of the
culture change models. For example, Nissan quite clearly had a perceived crisis, which was followed
by a breakdown in pattern-maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures. The new leader then came into
place, bringing with him a new set of assumptions and a new philosophy. Kume managed the conflict
that ensued and the result was the establishment of the new cultural order. This was then sustained by
the formation of new pattern-maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures. Therefore it is evident from
the research that what Nissan experienced at the time of change was consistent with Dyers (1985)
cycle of cultural evolution.
Similarly, British Airways cultural change was consistent with the Lewinian model (1951).
There was an unfreezing process when the organization was faced with the prospect of the worst crisis
in its history. It downsized and introduced structural changes and training to support the unfreezing
process. Then the organization evolved through the change phase, again by a high level of training
and the introduction of a reward system to facilitate the needed changes. The refreezing process
occurred with the development of a new performance appraisal system and a new performance based
compensation system. The British Airways uniforms and planes were updated and refurbished
respectively to further cement the new cultures in place.
It is evident from the research that there are a lot of similarities between the culture change
models. The breaking down of pattern maintenance symbols, beliefs and structures in Dyers model
(1985) is very similar to the unfreezing stage of the Lewinian model (1951). This can also be likened
to the triggering events; that Lundberg (1985) describes. The situation at BAHCO and at ICI can also
be directly linked to the culture change models. There are striking similarities between the patterns of
events that occurred within these companies. BAHCOs transformation is strongly congruent with
Lundbergs organizational cycle of culture change (1985). The organization experienced external
enabling conditions, internal permitting conditions and precipitating pressures. The new leader
Lindstrom, engaged in cultural visioning and evoked action plans to translate the vision into reality.
ICI used a lot of restructuring to change the relationships and working practices within the
organization. There are also great similarities between the situation at ICI and Lundbergs
organizational learning cycle (1985). The same enabling and permitting conditions were present and
Harvey-Jones similarly constructed a cultural vision, which he translated primarily by utilizing a
restructuring action plan. One would also argue that the incremental culture change process abdicated
by Gagliardi (1986) is also relevant in the case of ICI. Due to the size and history of the organization,
radical and swift culture change was never likely. The process took a number of years ad was enacted
in distinct stages.
The research therefore indicates hat the four organizations that were studied, did follow the
theories of culture change that have been put forward by leading academics. There was distinct and
definite congruence between the models of culture change and the process that occurred within these
companies. This then leads one back to the super-ordinate research question of this study.
4.7. The Super-Ordinate Research Question
It is clear evident that all of the organizations that were studied,utilised management techniques that
successfully contributed to them enhancing their performance. However, does this constitute a culture
change? One will now refer to the super-ordinate research question for this study; Can corporate
cultures be changes to facilitate enhanced organizational performance. If one takes an objectivist
119
(Senior,1997) and an optimistic (Ogbonna and Harris 2002) stance, then the answer would be a definite
yes. the research indicated that the organizations recognized that their cultures were no longer
supportive of their strategy, so they sought to change them. They utilised a variety of management
techniques, which were consistent with sound culture change principles. The results of those changes
were more de-centralized, autonomous organizations that appeared to have an increased commitment
from their workforces. This is consistent with the research conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2002).
Similarly, the performance of the companies improved significantly at the time when the changes were
initiated. This evidence points to the fact that it is possible to change and manipulate a corporate
culture to enhance organizational performance.
However, if one adopts an interpretive or a pessimistic approach, then it could be argued that a
deliberate culture change has not occurred within these organizations at all. What has been evident is
that the visible levels of culture have indeed been adapted or changed. However, this does not
constitute a complete cultural change as it is out of the bounds of managerial achievements to change
the basic assumptions of those members of an organization. These assumptions are preconscious and
therefore out of reach of management techniques. Culture is too complex an entity to manipulate
purposefully. There are too many independent factors that governs it and management have only the
ability to control a few. The reason that the organizations experienced economic growth in the period
after the changes has been made was due to a number of factors. The perceived crisis that bestowed
them made them realize that they needed to improve operationally in order to survive and then
subsequently prosper. The reason for the crisis was mix of internal failures and external environmental
conditions. The organizations then made structural and internal changes, which appeared to improve
how they operated. This in turn enhanced their organizational performance. However, from this
perspective, this still does not constitute a purposeful and successful cultural change. This is a strategic
success but it was not born out of purposefully changing the culture.
One would argue however that both of these polarized arguments are too static and rigid in
nature to offer a full and comprehensive explanation of the complex situation that occurred within
these organizations. There is evidence that the use of certain management techniques had a positive
effect on how the company operated, which subsequently led to them enhancing their performance.
Therefore it could be argued that a level of purposeful culture change occurred. However, there is no
evidence of any meaningful culture change at a deeper level. As a result, the crutch of the argument
hinges on ones perspective of what constitutes culture and to what level it can be changed. it is evident
that the theoretical discussion needs to progress beyond this point. We need to conceptualize
organizational culture in a different manner.
One would also argue therefore that the realistic perspective that was outlined in the literature
review (Ogbonna and Harris, 2002) provides a more balanced perspective on culture change, than
either of the polarized objectivist or interpretive viewpoints. It allows us to view culture not from one
perspective or the other, but from a fusion of the two. One would argue that the interpretive argument
is too caught up in the theoretical discussion on the nature of culture, to be of use to a management
practitioner. However, it doesnt provide those from the objectivist side of the argument with a credible
foil to their optimistic assumption that all corporate cultures can be fully controlled and manipulated to
enhance organization performance. One would argue that Ogbonna and Harris (2002) visualizing
culture on a continuum is a very credible conceptualization. The actual ability to successfully change a
culture lies at a point between those two polarized arguments.
Evidence from the case studies show that there are many factors within the organizations that
have an influence over the development of culture. The degree of influence which each of these factors
has, is still unclear, as they would have a greater or lesser impact depending on the type pf organization
and the type of industry that one is operating in. this is consistent with the findings of Ogbonna and
Harris (2002) and Wilson (2001) who commented that different industries have different cultural
characteristics. One can take this argument to the next level by further drawing on the research
presented by Hofstede (1991) and Trompenarrs (1993). As well as organizational and industry
120
differences there are also national and regional differenced. All the influences on corporate culture
from both the internal and external environment all interact to strengthen or weaken the relative
influence of each other. The strength and weakness of these factors is dependent on the nature of an
organizations internal and external operating environments. From this viewpoint it becomes evident
that an organizations ability to manage culture is dependent on numerous factors that are both
controllable and uncontrollable. Each organizations ability to effectively manage culture change will
vary significantly from each other. Some organizations will be more successful than others due to the
nature of their organizations and their operating environment. Therefore returning to the super-ordinate
research question, one would argue that it is possible to change an organizations culture to enhance
organizational performance. The level to which this can be achieved is dependent on the organizations
themselves and their operating environment. Having weight up the evidence from the literature and
from the case studies, ones theoretical standpoint, which is critical to how the issue of organizational
culture is viewed, would best be described as optimistic realism. one recognizes the complexity of
culture, but the fact remains that the research shows that the artefacts and the patterns of behavior were
changed within these companies, which enhanced organizational performance. One argues that this
constitutes a deliberate culture change. Admittedly there has been little evidence of a culture change on
a deeper level. The fundamental assumptions and beliefs of the individual members of the
organizations most probably remains the same. However, as one stated previously, the issue is the level
to which culture change can occur, and not whether the process is itself possible or not.
4.8. Implication for International Organizations
The research has shown that there are many facets to organizational culture and many influences on it.
The work by Hofstede (1991) and Trompenarrs (1993) highlighted that there are large differenced that
exist between national cultures. A national culture can then manifest itself within the corporate cultures
of organizations that operate within that country. The modes of societal conduct that exist within the
Japanese national culture and in their corporate sector are a good example of this process. It is
therefore essential that International organizations recognize and understand the importance of culture
and how it can impact organizational life. The research showed that different organizations will find
culture change more or less easy to implement, dependent on both internal and external conditions that
they face. Truepennies (1993) argued that different cultures will suit different types of organizations
better. He cites the Eiffel Tower culture and its tendency to e found in bureaucratic organizations with
a strict division of labor and specific jobs and tasks, as an example of this. One would therefore argue
that International organizations that have operations in numerous countries, will find it harder to
change the culture in certain countries due to the influence of the national culture. What the research
also interestingly showed, was that although corporate cultures all differ from one another, the method
by which they are changed do not. The culture change models appear to be universal in nature. This
study analyzed organizations from the UK, Sweden and Japan. It was evident that there were distinct
similarities in the pattern of events that occurred during the culture change processes. This brings one
to the conclusion that although it may be easier for certain organizations to change their culture, the
methods for doing so are applicable across the entire International Business environment. The study
also indicated that regardless of the type of corporate culture that existed pre change, the desired
culture was similarly universal for all of the studied organizations. This leads the analysis onto what
constitutes a desirable culture.
4.9. Adaptive Vs Un-adaptive Cultures - Research conducted by Kotter and Heskett (1992)
The components of adaptive and un-adaptive cultures were described in the literature review. In this
section one is going to analyze the research that Kotter and Heskett (1992) utilized to form their view.
The research starts from the premise that only firms whose management care about all the key
constituencies (customer, stockholders and employees) will be able to adapt successfully to the
121
changing business environment. The logic will strive for economic excellence over an extended
experience. This however is only possible in a competitive industry if the customers are treated well
and looked after. This in turn can only be achieved in a competitive labor market if those who serve the
customers are themselves looked after - the employees.
The research looked at twenty- two organizations, eleven which were deemed as being high
performers and eleven that were deemed low performers. The first question posed was How much
does the culture value excellent leadership from its managers. The responses were on a scale from one
(doesnt value leadership) to seven (highly values leadership0. The higher performing companys
averaged 3.9, with the highest being 4.8. The full results from this can be viewed in Appendix 8. When
the better performers were asked to describe which cultural traits helped them to do well in their
business environment, the answer included leadership, entrepreneurship, prudent risk taking, candid
discussions, innovation and flexibility. These factors are all associated with what would be constructed
as an adaptive culture. Similarly, when the low performing organizations were asked to explain the
reasoning behind their failing, too bureaucratic, emphasizing short-term and individuals
concentrating on their own careers as opposed to collective goals were cited.
When asked what value the organizations placed on customers, the results were again
conclusive. The higher performing organizations averaged a score of six once again, with the lowest
score being 4.8. The lower-performing companies averaged 4.6. The same pattern repeated when value
on stockholders were proposed. The higher performance firms averaged 5.7 and only two got scores
less than five. The lower performing companies averaged 3.9 with only one company scoring over five.
When the value placed on employees was obtained, the same pattern presented itself again. Higher
performing organizations averaged 5.8 and the lower performing firms averaged 4.1. The full results of
these three questions can be viewed in full in Appendix 9. Kotter and Heskett (1992. Pg50) summaries
their findings this;
Within the constraints of this methodology, the message from the data is clear. In the
firms with more adaptive cultures, the cultural ideal is that managers throughout the
hierarchy should provide leadership to initiate change in strategies and tactics
whenever necessary to satisfy the legitimate interests of not just stockholders or
customers or employees, but all three. In less adaptive cultures, the norm is that
managers behave cautiously and politically to protect or advance themselves, their
product, or their immediate workgroups.
Kotter and Heskett (1992) therefore argue that organizations that embrace creativity,
innovation, leadership, learning, entrepreneurship, flexibility and care for the three interest groups
highlighted, will have an adaptive culture that will stand them in good stead in todays fast moving
business environment. As indicated previously, Appendix 5 shows the core values and common
behavior that exist within adaptive and un-adaptive cultures.
Evidence supporting this view was obtained from two interviews conducted between GL and
ML and GL and M14. Extracts from the interviews are shown in Appendix 10. It was evident that
there was support for the central role that a leader has to play in any culture change program. Similarly,
the need for a focus on the human resources of an organization was very evident. This supports the
concepts of idea generation and empowerment. Contemporary literature states that organizations need
to create a culture that fosters creativity and innovation. There was support for this view from the
interview subjects. The issue of risk-taking was also discussed. M4 argued that successful companies
need to be prepared to take risks; he implied that being too conservative does not help an organization
prosper in todays ever changing business environment, the opinions of both M4 and M14 were
consistent with the research conducted by Kotter and Heskett (1992) concerning adaptive
organizations. The evidence shows that many organizations are trying to obtain this concept of an
adaptable culture.
122
4.10. Contemporary Culture Thinking

It was evident in the case studies that the organizations realized that their cultures were hindering and
stifling their success. The organizations then sought a culture that would better suit the changing
international business environment that they were operating within. There were certain factors that
were consistent in the research. The organizations were very bureaucratic in nature and the chain of
command was very top/down and hierarchical. This reflects the conditions prescribed for an unadaptive culture by Kotter and Heskett (1992). The research also indicated that the organizations were
trying to utilize the intellectual capital within their companies much more by creating a working
environment that fostered creativity and innovation. This is consistent with the components of an
adaptive and desirable culture. As was discussed previously in the study, a weight of contemporary
literature now indissolubly links the study of culture change with the study of managing creativity and
innovation and the concept of Learning organizations. Many of the techniques employed by the
studied companies were consistent with the research into how best to achieve these concepts. For
example de-centralization, empowerment, removal of rank, flexi-time and rewards and the focus on
achievement and contribution rather than seniority. The research showed that these techniques were
employed in some form by the companies in question, and it is argued that a move towards this cultural
model will provide the best chance of success in todays business environment. There was definite
congruence between the research conducted by Ogbonna and Harris (2002). Kotter and Heskett (1992)
and Stott (2002). As highlighted, cultures need to be adaptive, so that organizations can survive in
unpredictable business environments. Speaking metaphorically, the winds of change are now strong
once again, thus rigid un adaptive cultures will find todays International business environment
increasingly unforgiving. Therefore one would concur with the arguments of Wood (2001) who argued
that organizational change has to itself be part of the corporate culture. Having a work force that is
empowered, contented, creative and innovative and willing to try new ideas when circumstances
dictate, are most likely to succeed. Recognizing changes as a constant phenomenon (Senior, 1997) and
incorporating that within the culture of an organization is the Holy Grail of contemporary management
practice.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Concluding Comments
It is quite evident from the wealth of evidence that has been collected and analyzed during the course
of this study, that organizational culture is a very complex topic. There is much disagreement amongst
researchers as to how it should be defined, interpreted and utilized. The Interpretive perspective sees
culture as something that an organization is as opposed to something that it actually has. The
objectivist argument views culture from the other end of the spectrum, as a tangible resource that can
be manipulated and changed to enhance the performance of the organization. Therefore the way one
views culture, will directly influence whether one believes that it can be changed and manipulated or
not. The study argues that what is required is to conceptualize culture change in a different way. Rather
that perceiving it as a black and white, yes or no, a middle ground should be sought. The realist
argument proposed by Ogbonna and Harris (2002) and supported by the research findings, suggests
that there needs to be acceptance that culture exists on different levels and the ease at which it can be
changed is dependent on numerous separate factors that each in turn have an influence on each other.
Some of these factors are controllable and others are not.
Both the internal and external environments that an organization is exposed to will impact its
ability to successfully manage cultural change. This has particular connotations for International
organizations, due to research indicating that national cultures can have a significant impact on
corporate culture. The study argues that different organizational cultures are easier to change than
others, due to the vary nature of the companies themselves. It was subsequently argues that it was
123
possible to deliberately change a corporate culture to facilitate enhanced organizational performance.

The unresolved issue is the level to which these cultures can be altered. Culture change is in itself a
very complex process, which is hard to predict and quantify. As a result, the extent to which a
corporate culture can be purposefully changed will vary greatly from organization to organization,
from industry to industry and from country to country.
The study has also indicated that there are distinct types of cultures that are both desirable, and
to some extent necessary if an organization is to survive and be competitive in todays fast moving
business environment. Organizations with bureaucratic structures, top-down hierarchies and rigid
managerial paradigms are classified as having un-adaptive cultures, that are resistant to change, which
can result in under performance. The research has indicated that a desirable culture is one that
embraces change and has a focus on utilizing the intellectual capital that exists within an organization.
There is a move towards more de-centralized structures that devolves power down the hierarchy and
empowers the members of staff. This culture fosters creativity, innovation and learning, which allows
for it to adapt to the changes in the external operating environment. This study argues that the
organizations, which can achieve this type of culture, will ultimately be the ones who survive and
prosper.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
Alvesson, M 2002.Understanding Organisational Culture: Sage Publications. London

Alvesson & Berg, 1992 The Meaning and Meaningless of Postmodernism Organisation Studies
Alasdair Blair (2000) Environment and business London: Routledge
Alvesson, M 1993.Cultural Perspectives on Organisations Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge
Argyris, C & Schon, D 1978.Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective
Addison-Wesley. Reading
Barley, S, Meyer, G, Gash, 1998. Cultures of Culture: Academics Practioners And The
Pragmatics of Normative Control Administrative Science Quarterly. 33. p24-61
Bate, P 1994. Strategies of Cultural Change : Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford
Beer, M, Eisenstat, R, Spector, B, 1993. Why Change Programmes Dont Produce Change in
Mabey, C, Mayon-white, B, Managing Change London.p99-107
Beyer, J &Tryce, H 1988. The Communication of Power Relations in Organisations Through
Cultural Rites
Bjerke, B. (1999) Business Leadership and Culture (1st ed) Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Jones, M, Moore, M, Sayder , R. Inside Organisations : UNDERSTANDING The Human
Dimension Jossev-Bass. San Francisco. p!37-147
Bo Am & Peat, 1992, in Henry, 1992 Creatively Managing Creativity The Futurist. May/Jun
1992. Washington, p45-46
Bowman, C & Faulkner, D 1997. Competitive and Corporate Strategy Irwen, London
Brown, A 1998. Organisational Culture Pitman Publishing 2nd ed. Essex
Bruce, 1996. Creativity and All that Jazz Accountancy. Jan, 1996, London.p42-45
Burnes, B 1992. Managing Change Pitman Publishing. London
Burnes, Bernard (2004). Managing change a strategic approach to organisational dynamics.
4th ed. - Harlow : Prentice Hall.
Clarke ,L 1994. The Essence of change Prentice Hall. London
Dawson, S 1996.Analysing Organisations Macmillan Business Press. Kent
Deal, T & Kennedy, A 1982. Corporate Cultures : The Rites and Rituals Of Corporate Life
Addison-wesley. Reading
Dyer ,W 1985. The Cycle of Cultural Evolution in Organisations in Kilmann, R, Saxton, M,
Serf A, R. Gaining Control of Corporate Culture Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. p200-229
124
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
Edmund, 2002. Recognition During A Culture Change Canadian HR Reporter. Toronto. Apr
22, 2002. 15(8) p20-21
Foster, G 1987. The Legacy Of Harvey-Jones Management Today. p34-41 & p86-88
Fred Luthans (2001) Organisational behaviour. 9th Ed Boston, MA: McGraw Hill
Gagliardi, P 1986 The Creation And Change of Organisation Cultures : A Conceptual
Framework Organisation Studies 7:2 pi 17-134
Gill, J & Johnson, P, 1997. Research Methods For Managers Paul Chapman Publishing.
London. 2nd ed.
Hampden-Turner, C 1994. Corporate Culture: From Vicious to Virtuous Circles Judy Piatkus
Ltd. London
Handy, C 1985.Understanding Organisations Penguin Books.Harmondsworth
Harrison, J & Carroll, G 1991. Keeping The Faith : A Model of Cultural Transformation in
Formal Organisation Administrative Science Quarterly. 36 p552-82
Hofstede, G 1991. Cultures and Organisations. Software of the Mind: McGraw-Hill.
Maidenhead
Hunt, J 1986. The Final Act of a Commanding Performance Chief Executive. p30-31
Isabella, L 1990. Involving Interpretations as a Change Unfolds: How Managers Construe Key
Organisational Events: Academy of Management Journal. 33:1 p9-15
Johnson , G & Scholes, K: 1999. Exploring Corporate Strategy Prentice Hall. Essex
Kilmann, R. Saxton, M. Serf A, R. 1985. Gaining Control of The Corporate Culture: JosseyBass. San Francisco
Kennedy, C 1986. ICI: The Company That Changed our Lives: Hutchinson. London;
Kono, T 1990. Corporate Culture and Long Range Planning. 23(4) p9-19
Kotter ,J 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management: Free Press.
New York
Kell and Carrott, May 2005, Harvard Business Review, Boston, USA.
Kotter, J &Heskett, J. 1992 Corporate Cultures and Performance: New York Press
Legge, K 1995 Human Resource Management :Rhethroic and Realities: Macmillan London
Lewin, K 1951. Field Theory in Social Science: Harper and Row. New York
Lundberg, C 1985. On the Feasibility of Culture Intervention in Frost, P, Moore, L, Louis, M,
Lundberg, C. Organisational Culture Newbury Park.Sage Publications. California. p!69-185
Lok and Crawford, 2004 The Effect of Organisational Culture and Leadership Style on Job
Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment: A Cross-national Comparison, The Journal of
Management Development. Bradford.
Martin, J. (2001) Organisational Behaviour (2nd ed) London, Thomson Learning.
Martin, J 1992. Cultures in Organisations Three Perspectives: Oxford University Press. New
York
Mayerson, D & Martin, J 1987. Culture Change : An Integration of three Different views:
Journal of Management Studies. 24. p623-647
McGrath, J 1984. Groups.Interaction & Performance Sage Publications.Englewood Cliffs. NJ
Ogbonna, E 1993. Managing Organisational culture : Fantasy or Reality : Human Resource
Management Journal. 3.2 p42-54
Ogbonna, E & Harris, L 2002. Managing Organisational Culture : Insights from the Hospitality
Industry Human Resource Management Journal. 12:1 p33-53
Oucff, W 1981: Theory Z : How American Business Can meet the Japanese Challenge :
Addison-Wesley. Reading
Pacanowsky, M & O'Donnell, N 1982. Communication and Organisational Culture: The
Western Journal of Speech Communication. 46. pll5-130
Peters, T & Waterman, R 1982. In Search of Excellence: Harper and Row. New York
125
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
[84]
Pettigrew, A 1979. On Studying Organisational Culture: Administrative Science Quarterly. 24.

p570-58J
Peter Senge (1999) The dance of change the challenges of sustaining momentum in learning
Organizations London: Nicholas Brealey.
Pettigrew, A 1985. The Awakening Giant: Continuity and change in Imperial Chemical
Industries Basil Blackwell. New York
Punch, 1986. The Politics and Ethics of Field Work: Sage Publications. Beverly Hills. USA
Quinn, R & McGrath, M 1985.The Transformation of Organisational Cultures in Frost, P,
Moore, L, Louis, M, Lundberg, C, Organisational Culture NewburyPark. California p315-34
Reader, W 1975. Imperial Chemical Industries: A History Oxford University Press. New York
Reed, M, Hughes, M 1992. Rethinking Organisation Sage publications. London
RN Lussier and CF Achua (2001) Leadership theory, application, skill development:
Cincinnati, OH: South Western College Press
Roberts, H & Brown, A 1992. Cognitive and Social Dimension of IT Implementation paper
presented at the British Academy of Management Sixth Annual Conference. Bradford, 14-16
September
Robson, C 1993. Real World Research Blackwell Publishing. Oxford
Rollinson, D, Edwards, D, Broadfield, A. 1998. Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach: Addison Wesley. Harlow
Rowlinson, M & Proctor, S, 1999.Organisational Culture and Business History Organisation
Studies 20:3 p369-396
Rousseau, D 1990.Assessing Organisational Culture : The Case for Multiple Methods in
Schneider, B. Organisational Climate and Culture Jossey-bass. Oxford. chp5.
Saunders, M, Lewis, P, Thornhill, A, 1997. Research Methods for Business Students: Pitman
Publishing. London
Saunders et al (2000) Managing change a human resource strategy
Schein, E 1964. The Mechanism of Change in Bennis, Schein, Steels & Berlew Interperonsonal
Dynamics: Dorley Press. USA
Schein, E 1985.Organisation Culture, Culture and Leadership: Jossey Bass
San Francisco
Schein, E 1991 What is Culture? :Sage Publications. Newbury Park. CA. p243-253
Schein, E 1992.Organisational Culture and Leadership: Jossey Bass San Francisco
Schoenberger, E 1997. The Cultural Crisis of the Firm: Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Schramm, W 1971. Academy For Educational Development: notes on case studies of
instructional media projects. Washington DC
Schutz, M 1995.On Studying Organisational Culture Walter de Gruyter. Berlin
Senior, B 1997. Organisational Change: Prentice Hall. Essex SENGE, P 1990. The Fifth
Discipline: Doubleday. New York
Sergiovanni, T & Core Ally, J 1984. Leadership and Organisational Culture: University of
Illinois Press. Urbana
Smircich, L 1983. Concepts of Culture and Organisational Analysis: Administrative Science
Quarterly. 28. j) 339-35S
Stacey, R, 1994. Strategic Thinking and The Management of Change: Kogan London
Stake,R 1995. The Art of Case Study Research: Sage Publications. London
Trompennars, F 1993. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business: Economist Books, London.
V, Callan (1997) Communication and culture a guide for practice: Chichester.
Whitehead, 2001. Team Building and Culture Change: Well Trained and Committed Teams can
Roll out culture Change Management programmes: Journal Of Change Management. London.
Dec 2001. 2 (2) pi84-192
126
[85]
[86]
[87]
[88]
[89]
Willmott, H 1993. Strength is Ignorance: Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern

Organisations: Journal of Management Studies. 30:4 p515-551
Wilson, A 1997. The Nature of Corporate Culture With in A Service delivery Environment :
International Journal of Service Industry Management. 8:1 p87-102
Wood. 2001. Cultural Change: What & How
Yin, R 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods Sage Publications.
2nd ed London
Appendix 1
A Model of Organisational Change and Development
Source: Burke and Litwin, 1992
127
Appendix 2
A Map of the Corporate World: How Culture may be Revealed and Created in Organisation
Source: Dawson, 1996, p143
128
Appendix 3
The Cultural Web
Source: Johnson & Scholes 1999 p74
Appendix 4
Adaptive and Unadaptive Cultures
Core Values
Adaptive Corporate Cultures

Most managers care deeply about customers,
stockholders and employees. They also
strongly value people an d processes that can
create useful change (e.g. leadership up and
down the management hierarchy)
Managers pay close attention to all their

constituencies, especially customers, and
initiate change when needed to serve their
legitimate interests, even if that entails taking
some risks
Source: Kotter and Heskett (1992, p51)
Common Behaviour
Un-adaptive Corporate Cultures

Most managers care mainly about themselves,
their immediate work group, or some product
(or technology) associated with that work
group. They value the orderly and riskreducing management process much more
highly than leadership initiatives
Managers then to behave somewhat insularly,
politically, and bureaucratically. As a result,
they do not change their strategies quickly to
adjust to or take advantage of changes in their
business environment
129
Appendix 6
A Model Depicting the Relationship between Organisational Culture and Change
Source : Senior, 1997 p133
Appendix 7
The Main Points of Lindstroms Blue Pamphlet
Very hard work is needed, but this could and should be pleasurable.
Like riding a bicycle, BAHCO needs momentum, has to move forward, must be energized or it
will wobble and fall.
BAHCO needs ideas. Ideas are the stuff business is made of. They release energy, advance
knowledge, generate initiative and stimulate al of us. Never mind whether they are good, get
them on the table where we can all assess them.
Ideas are a currency. If we share money between us, each can only have a small part. But ideas
generate ideas and they belong to anyone who can use them. You still retain your own ideas
even after giving them to others.
BAHCO is short of money very short so we must generate as much as we can in the shortest
time. Choose the best alternative to ease this shortage and the morale of everyone will rise.
You must be sincere and honest with each other, even if it hurts. The situation is too serious for
evasion. You can start with me : I am largely dependent on your experience in industries I do
not know technologically. Lets create a balance between your experience and your ideas.
Lets go one small step at a time. The road to success is paved with small mistakes from which
we learn. We cant afford big mistakes in our position.
130
Only one thing makes me really angry: the failure to act and to decide. I can forgive mistakes,
but I cant forgive inaction.
Be positive about our future, about your own and other peoples ideas, about honest efforts to
turn BAHCO round.
Keep everything as simple as you can. That means depending on people rather than controls,
keeping memos short, objectives straightforward, solutions elegant
Many of you have been disappointed and frustrated in the last few years. My plea is this: try
once again. This time it will work.
Source: Hampden-Turner, 1994 p161
Appendix 8
Cultural Values Related to Leadership Research Conducted by Kotter & Heskett (1992)
Value Excellent Leadership
(7=absolutely yes, l=defmitely
not)
American Airlines
6.0
Bankers trust
5.8
Anheuser-Busch
5.0
PepsiCo
6.6
Hewlett Packard
4.8
Con Agra
6.8
Shell
6.2
Albertsons
6.6
Dayton Hudson
6.0
Wal-Mart
6.8
Golden West
5.6
Springs Industries
5.7
Mean
6.0
Source : Kotter&Heskett, 1992. p48
The higher performing
Firms
Value excellent leadership

(7=absolutely yes, l=definitely
not)
3.4
5.5
2.5
The Lower performing

Firms
Northwest Airlines
Citicorp
Coors
" ' '> - - ; .
Xerox
Archer Daniels Midland
Texaco
Winn-Dixie
J.C. Penney
3.8
4.8
3.0
3.2
4.2
H.F. Ahmanson
Fieldcrest Cannon
Mean
5.2
3.1
3.9
Appendix 9
Cultural values related to Serving Customers, Stockholders and Employees Research
Conducted by Kotter & Keskett(1992)
(Scale: 7=absolutely yes; l=defmitely not)
The higher
Value
Value
performing
Customer Stockhold
Firms
s
ers
American Airlines
6.4
4.6
Bankers Trust
4.8
6.2
Anheuser-Busch
6.4
5.0
PepsiCo
5.0
6.0
Hewlett Packard
6.6
5.0
ConAgra Shell
6.26.5
7.9 4.5
Albertsons
6.8
6.4
Dayton Hudson
5.5
5.0
Wal-Mart
7.0
6.8
Golden West
5.2
6.8
Springs Industries
6.0
5.0
Mean
6.0
5.7
Source : Kotter &Heskett, 1992. p49
Value
Employees
5.8
5.0
5.0
5.4
6.8
6.6 5.0
5.6
4.8
7.0
5.8
6.7
5.8
Northwest
Citicorp
Coors
3.6
5.0
3.6
Value
Stockhold
ers
4.9
3.3
1.5
Xerox
Archer Daniels Midland
Texaco
Winn-Dixie
J.C. Penney
H.F. Ahmanson
Fieldcrest Cannon
Mean
5.0
5.6
3.4
4.0
4.0
6.3
5.4
4.6
3.8
6.0
2.8
4.0
5.0
4.6
2.6
3.9
The Lesser
Performing Firms
Value
Customers
Value
Employees
2.8
3.0
4.2
5.3
5.2
2.8
4.0
4.8
4.2
4.2
4.1
131
Appendix 10
Selected Extracts from Interviews
GL
M4
GL
M4
GL
M4
GL
M4
GL
M4
GL
M4
M4
GL
M14
GL
M14
GL
M14
GL
M14
Is there anyone in business that you look at and say I m a lot like that, or Id like Model myself on that
person. Somebody that was a real leader, someone that really achieved something?
Yeah, The only person that I was like that was this guy who ran Tel Labs, its a pretty good-sized
telecommunications company round the world. And they were small, and I started calling on them when they
opened up. They are now, half-a-billion dollars, something like that, and er MB1 is the guys name, he has
built a really progressive company, willing to change and take chances. They were the first people to involve
themselves with TQM, and the first company to take on ISO.9000. They were the first company in Chicago
to have a JIT programme, they were under directive from Hewlett Packard, who were the leaders of that in
the States anyway, and they are just progressive, constantly progressive and its a real open organisation.
So you modelled yourself on some of their characteristics?
Well, I dont think I modelled myself after them, if I look around and I think that company is run the way I
think company should be run and that present-day company is a real good role model. People want to know
how to be good leader follow that guy, hes really good in every respect. And he happens to be a nice guy
too!
So what elements do you think you need to have a really successful company?
Well thats the biggie aint it (laughs). You cant be afraid to take risks, youve have courage in your
convictions, to stick you neck out. You gotta look after your people at the end of the day, your people are
your company so you gotta look after them.
And what do you think the reason was for the commitment you felt towards the Company that you worked
for?
You know, thats funny, these guys and I wed get together and once in a while wed talk about it We
havent figured out We really havent figured out what it was that drove us... The only thing that I can
come up with .. is that somehow we felt like we were so committed because we felt that what we were doing
was so vital to this company, like we had ownership even though we didnt have ownership, err, and pay was
pretty low at the time.. but it must have been something like that, and we felt, and we felt so important..
You had ownership of certain decisions, or certain initiatives
Yeah
But not ownership of the company
Yeah, you just felt you were so vital to where the company was going and how it was run; thats the only
reason that I can think of. And the guy. This JCI whos the President now he worked harder than anybody, he
was in there at 5.30 and hed be there until 7.00..the guy was just driven, absolutely driven, he led by
example
The people in the company could express their opinions and he didnt have a problem with that. He
encouraged a lot of it
Do you think its necessary to take a lot of risks in business?
Well I dont think Im a big risk taker I guess Im in some ways because I started a Company and Ive
done some things that I worry about, consequences as such, but I think Id be considered, if there is such
thing, as a conservative risk-taker. Id make sure that the odds are kind in my favour before I jump off.
In contrast to your experiences at All-American and Alpha, how would you say they were different?
Well at Alpha, the owners and top management at least you could talk to them, you could give suggestions,
and a lot of times they would listen. And other times they wont listen, but thats just part of it.
Do you think it is necessary to delegate responsibility down to the lower management?
Definitely, it makes a lot of sense. People will give more to the company if they feel like they have some
control over what goes on If people feel that they are not valued then you will not get the best out of
them its human nature.
How much emphasis is placed on innovation?
Definitely a lotyou need to be innovative to be any good..you need ideas and innovation or you cant move
forward, you kinda get stuck just doing the same as youve always done. You need to try new things or you
wont stay ahead of the game for too long
132

Lidership Style

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Lidership Style

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Can Cultural Change with Different Leadership Styles

Enhance the Organizational Performance?

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

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

2.6. Motivation, Leadership Style & Organisation Performance

4. Results and Analysis

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

4.10. Contemporary Culture Thinking

possible to deliberately change a corporate culture to facilitate enhanced organizational performance.

Alvesson, M 2002.Understanding Organisational Culture: Sage Publications. London

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

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

Pettigrew, A 1979. On Studying Organisational Culture: Administrative Science Quarterly. 24.

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

Willmott, H 1993. Strength is Ignorance: Slavery is Freedom: Managing Culture in Modern

Source: Burke and Litwin, 1992

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

Source: Dawson, 1996, p143

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

Source: Johnson & Scholes 1999 p74

Adaptive Corporate Cultures

Managers pay close attention to all their

Un-adaptive Corporate Cultures

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

Source : Senior, 1997 p133

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

Source: Hampden-Turner, 1994 p161

Value excellent leadership

The Lower performing

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

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

You might also like