See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275517990

Organizational Change: A Focus on Ethical Cultures and Mindfulness

Article  in  Journal of Change Management · January 2015

DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2015.1009720

CITATIONS READS

3 2,782

3 authors, including:

Rune Todnem By Achilles A. Armenakis

University of Stavanger (UiS) Auburn University
36 PUBLICATIONS   1,353 CITATIONS    117 PUBLICATIONS   7,599 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Blue action research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rune Todnem By on 27 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Staffordshire University]
On: 23 April 2015, At: 07:58
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Change Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20

Organizational Change: A Focus on

Ethical Cultures and Mindfulness
a b c
Rune Todnem By , Achilles A. Armenakis & Bernard Burnes
a
Staffordshire University Business School, UK
b
Auburn University, USA
c
Stirling Management School, UK
Published online: 24 Feb 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Rune Todnem By, Achilles A. Armenakis & Bernard Burnes (2015) Organizational
Change: A Focus on Ethical Cultures and Mindfulness, Journal of Change Management, 15:1, 1-7,
DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2015.1009720

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1009720

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015
 Journal of Change Management, 2015
Vol. 15, No. 1, 1 –7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1009720

Organizational Change: A Focus on

Ethical Cultures and Mindfulness

RUNE TODNEM BY∗ , ACHILLES A. ARMENAKIS∗∗ &

Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

BERNARD BURNES†
∗ ∗∗
Staffordshire University Business School, UK, Auburn University, USA, †Stirling Management School,
UK

With a New Year Come New Opportunities

The year 2014 was another exciting year for Journal of Change Management
(JCM), and we would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone submitting
to, publishing with, reviewing for, subscribing to, producing and reading JCM.
This is YOUR Journal, going from strength to strength!
True to tradition, the annual editorial board meeting was held in conjunction
with the Academy of Management meeting in sunny Philly. What a great city –
why did Fresh Prince ever leave? The meeting was very well attended by both
board members and the publisher, and it was awesome to observe the energy, ded-
ication and support so strongly committed towards the future of our great Journal.
As a new development of the year, JCM and Routledge sponsored the Organiz-
ation Development & Change (ODC) Distinguished Speaker Award which went
to Professor Gareth Morgan (watch out for interview). Based on this success,
we are now hoping to sponsor the award for years to come.
Last year we published 22 articles written by 47 authors representing 12 differ-
ent countries, making us a truly international journal specializing on all aspects of
organizational change. Amongst the work published were Chia’s Reflections: In
praise of silent transformation – Allowing change through ‘Letting Happen’,
Dawson’s Reflections: On time, temporality and change in organizations and
the special issue Coping strategies of professionals in emerging change processes,
guest edited by Dr Christine Teelken and Dr Mairi Watson.

Correspondence Address: Rune Todnem By, Staffordshire University Business School, Staffordshire, UK.
Email: r.t.by@staffs.ac.uk

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 R.T. By et al.
We are attracting and publishing articles of the highest quality, and hope for
Thomson Reuters to acknowledge this and our international standing in the field
by including us in their Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) – everyone
involved in the work of JCM deserves nothing less. With regard to our second
target list, we expected 2014 to be the year to observe an improved ranking in
the fifth version of the International Guide to Academic Journal Quality (Associ-
ation of Business Schools, UK). However, due to some delays and the publication
of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) results on 18 December 2014,
its publication was delayed to the week commencing 2 February 2015, missing our
December deadline for issue 1– 2015 and making it five years since the last
version was published.
It continues to amaze us that so many academic careers and so much research
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

which should be aimed at contributing to the greater purpose of improving

society is being dictated by (a) an international list with no transparency or equi-
table rules on how to be included (SSCI, Thomson Reuters) and (b) a UK-based
organization (Association of Business Schools) which takes five years to
provide the academic community it supposedly serves with a new version of
their list. On page 1 in the 2010 version, it is stated that ‘The Guide should be
designed primarily to serve the needs of the UK business and management
research community’ . . . So how come its publication has been delayed twice
when it was first promised in 2012 and then again in 2014? These continued
delays make the list unreliable. Why oh why do we as a group of well-educated
critical, independent thinkers let this detrimental regime of private sector
‘quality lists of academic journals’ continue to dictate our research and careers?
However, chin up! As an editorial board, we do believe in a greater purpose and
our role in contributing to an improvement of society and all institutions and indi-
viduals within it. We believe in making a difference, and JCM provides us with a
great opportunity to do so. The task ahead of us is a substantial one as too many
individuals are still feeling like Eep in the Dreamworks Animation production The
Croods (DeMicco & Sanders, 2012, pp. 1– 2):

With every sun comes a new day. A new beginning. A hope that things will be better
today than they were yesterday . . . But not for me. My name’s Eep. This, is my
family, the Croods. If you weren’t clued in already by the animal skins and
sloping foreheads – we’re cavemen. Most days we spend in our cave, in the dark.
Night after night, day after day. Yep. Home sweet home. When we did go out,
we struggled to find food in a harsh and hostile world. And I struggled to survive
my family . . . We were the last ones around. There used to be neighbors. The
Gorts, smashed by a mammoth. The Horks, swallowed by a sand snake. The Erfs,
mosquito bite. Throgs, common cold. And, the Croods. That’s us. The Croods
made it . . . Because of my Dad. He was strong . . . and he followed the rules. . . .
the ones painted on the cave walls. Anything new is bad, curiosity is bad, going
out at night is bad. Basically, anything fun is bad. Welcome to my world.

For the rest of this annual editorial article, we continue our effort to increase the
focus on ethics (Burnes & By, 2012; By & Burnes, 2013; By, Burnes & Oswick,
2012) and cultures (Armenakis, Brown, & Mehta, 2011; Armenakis, Harris, &
 Organizational Change 3
Feild, 1999; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Armenakis & Lang, 2014;
Armenakis & Wigand, 2010) by urging further research on building and maintain-
ing ethical cultures and the potential role of Mindfulness in doing so.

Building and Maintaining Ethical Cultures

If we did not already know it, the 2008 financial crisis showed that many organ-
izations have entrenched practices which are deeply unethical, and we do not
believe this has changed much since. This was not simply a case of a few rotten
apples or a half-dozen Gordon Gecko-type figures running wild. The practices
observed go right to the heart of organizational cultures, and imply a great
number of people at all levels. Therefore, passing yet more laws or introducing
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

additional codes of practice is unlikely to solve such problems. The real issue is
to replace unethical cultures with ethical cultures, but how can we do this?
Kish-Gephart, Harrison, and Trevino (2010) conducted a 30-year meta-analysis
of the empirical research on ethics. This research, which analysed the findings of
136 studies, was organized into a framework including (a) individual character-
istics (e.g. cognitive moral development and demographics), (b) moral issue
characteristics (e.g. moral intensity) and (c) organizational environment character-
istics (e.g. organizational culture). Because of the complex nature in understand-
ing unethical behaviour, Kish-Gephart et al. (2010) concluded that researchers
should investigate the combined relationship of individual, moral issue and organ-
izational characteristics. We concur with this recommendation.
In some published studies, change researchers have incorporated behavioural
intentions as a dependent variable. However, this contributes to a weak design
and at best questionable findings. Intentions are part of the composition of an atti-
tude and simply do not constitute behaviour. An important factor in ethics research
is what has been labelled the decision –action gap. In other words, leaders may
intend to implement a course of action but actually act in a contrary manner.
The result may be unethical outcomes. We recommend, first, that researchers
incorporate as a dependent variable, behaviour (preferably assessed separately
from the method used to assess independent variables) and, second, include in
the research design what Hannah and Avolio (2010, pp. 291– 292) operationalized
as moral potency, which is defined as,

. . . an experienced sense of ownership over the moral aspects of one’s environment,

reinforced by efficacy beliefs in the capabilities to act to achieve moral purpose
in that domain, and the courage to perform ethically in the face of adversity and
persevere through challenges.

Moral potency is a construct comprising (a) moral ownership, (b) moral efficacy
and (c) moral courage. Without moral courage, those performing leadership are
more likely to experience the decision –action gap. The role of organizational
culture and moral potency on ethical and unethical behaviour could be a worth-
while investigation. Is an organization’s culture more influential on individual
behaviour than moral potency? In their analysis of HealthSouth Corporation,
Armenakis and Lang (2014) reported that 16 employees pled guilty to a
 4 R.T. By et al.
$2.7 billion fraud, perpetuated over a seven-year period. Five of the 16 were
former chief financial officers and many of the 16 were certified public accoun-
tants. What was the motivation of the 16 fraudulent employees? Greed? Coercion?
Need satisfaction? Each of these and other possible reasons could be valuable in
investigating (un)ethical behaviour.
Organizational science researchers have investigated the formation, mainten-
ance and transformation of organizational cultures. Schein’s (2004) research has
given organizational scientists a framework for identifying the elements that
can be used to classify an organization’s culture, namely (a) artefacts, (b) espoused
beliefs and values, and (c) underlying assumptions. A culture is initiated and
formed by a cultural leader and cultural carriers. The leader can be a founder, a
chief executive officer or any leader in a division/department/group within an
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

organization. However, in order for the culture to be diffused throughout the

organization, the cultural carriers – those individuals who serve as opinion
leaders – must ‘walk the talk’. Key to establishing an ethical organizational
culture is for cultural leaders and cultural carriers to be morally potent, that is
they must have moral ownership, moral efficacy and moral courage. Together,
the cultural leaders and carriers establish the underlying assumptions, espoused
beliefs and values, and artefacts. In order to maintain the culture, the underlying
assumptions, espoused beliefs and values, and artefacts should be reinforced
through daily practices. To transform the culture, the underlying assumptions
(i.e. the roots of culture) must be changed. The espoused beliefs and values
should follow suit. As organizations evolve over time in response to the
dynamic external environment in which they function, an organization’s culture
is subject to change. Sometimes these cultural changes result in more ethical
organizational cultures (Armenakis et al., 2011), but can also change to be more
unethical (cf. Armenakis & Lang, 2014; Armenakis & Wigand, 2010).
The diagnosis of an organization’s culture can be to determine whether or not it
is ethical using Schein’s (2004) framework. Using a qualitative methodology and
through the observation method and accessing organizational archives, we can
identify and assess artefacts, and espoused beliefs and values. One way to deter-
mine the underlying assumptions is to feed back these findings to groups of
employees and challenge the participants to explain what the underlying assump-
tions are. With a quantitative methodology, the artefacts, and espoused beliefs and
values can be assessed using a self-report instrument (cf. DeBode, Armenakis,
Feild, & Walker, 2013). These responses can then be fed back to groups of
employees to identify the underlying assumptions and establish change targets.
It is interesting to note HealthSouth consisted of more than one culture. The
culture of the finance and accounting departments was clearly unethical while
the remaining organization was ethical. How common is it that an organization
can consist of more than one culture? What classifications of ethical and unethical
organizational culture exist? For example, Armenakis et al. (2011) described
ethical organizational cultures as ranging from secular to religious. Is there a
range of unethical organizational cultures?
Changing an organization’s culture – from an unethical to an ethical culture –
is quite a challenge. After all, only about a third of organizational change efforts
are successful (Meaney & Pung, 2008). Armenakis and Lang (2014) and
 Organizational Change 5
Armenakis et al. (2011) explained how the CEOs of two businesses transformed
their respective organizational culture. Armenakis and his colleagues have
described a model for creating readiness (Armenakis et al., 1993) and a model
for institutionalizing change (Armenakis et al., 1999). What other models exist
which can serve as guides for change agents planning and implementing organiz-
ational change? The change field is ripe for the development of additional quan-
titative methodologies to diagnose organizational culture, as well as, qualitative
cases to assess ethical organizational cultures. Furthermore, what other models
can be used to bring about change in organizations? In the next section, we will
examine the concept of Mindfulness, a yoga-based technique which some
researchers claim can assist in changing individual values and organizational cul-
tures (Gärtner, 2013).
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

The Role of Mindfulness

In its original Buddhist manifestation, Mindfulness was taught as a way of solving
human suffering. It stresses that individuals should adopt a non-judgemental
awareness of what is going on around them and what is going on inside them
(Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Ramsey, 2014). Mindfulness attention is based in the
present and is not influenced by preconceived ideas or biases. Its efficacy stems
from its ability to develop a person’s attention so that he/she can recognize in
the moment his/her habitual ways of thinking, feeling and behaving and the
results which flow from these. By so doing, it allows the person to understand
why he/she behaves as he/she does, judges the appropriateness of his/her behav-
iour and to rethink and change it if necessary (Hunter & Chaskalson, 2013).
In the West, it has attracted much interest from psychologists who associate it
with psychological and physical well-being (Dane & Brummel, 2014). Langer
(1989) argues that Mindfulness, by concentrating on the present moment,
makes people more perceptive of new information, possibilities and the existence
of multiple perspectives thus creating a rich awareness of context and alternative
ways of coping with it. Psychologists have applied Mindfulness training to a wide
range of medical conditions, including severe stress, chronic pain, depression,
eating disorders and substance abuse, and there is a growing body of evidence
of its effectiveness in treating these conditions (Chiesa & Serretti, 2010).
Over the past two decades, there has been a growing interest in applying the
concept of Mindfulness to management and organizational development (Dane
& Brummel, 2014; Ramsey, 2014; Reason, 1999). The argument for doing so is
that managers and organizations tend to develop habitual, unthinking and difficult
to change routines and ways of interpreting and responding to the world around
them, which in turn leads to them responding inappropriately to changing situ-
ations (Hunter and Chaskalson, 2013).
These cognitive routines, which are based on what has been successful in the
past either for them or others, present strong barriers to individual and organiz-
ational learning and the emergence of new patterns of behaviour (Miller, 1993,
1994; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984). This is why Lewin stressed the need to
‘unfreeze’ and Argyris and Schön stress the need to ‘unlearn’ before new learning
and behaviours can emerge (Burnes, 2014). Traditionally, Mindfulness has been
 6 R.T. By et al.
perceived as an effective way of promoting such unfreezing and unlearning for
individuals. However, in recent years, there has been a move to extend the
concept to organizational settings, especially as a means of facilitating change
by encouraging cultural leaders and cultural carriers to question the continuing
appropriateness of existing values, and behaviours and practices (Hernes &
Irgens, 2012; Weick & Sutcliffe, 2001).
Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (1999) identify five processes which encourage
organizational Mindfulness, these being: (a) preoccupation with failure, (b) reluc-
tance to simplify interpretation, (c) sensitivity to operations, (d) commitment to
resilience and (e) underspecification of structures. Just as these processes can
assist individuals to ‘unlearn’, Weick et al. (1999) maintain that they can enable
employees – including managers – to recognize when organizational processes
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

and routines are no longer appropriate and to accept the need to change them,
no matter how valuable they have been in the past.
Therefore, as we can see, Mindfulness can prove a valuable tool in enabling
individuals and organizations to challenge and change their unethical behaviour.
However, a few words of caution. First, Mindfulness is not in itself a new
approach to organizational change but can contribute to the first and in many
cases the most difficult stage of the change process: namely helping people to
realize and accept the need to change their values and behaviour, and to separate
the future from the past. Second, Mindfulness training to prepare employees to
unfreeze or unlearn consists of yoga breathing, meditation and exercise tech-
niques. This training must be provided by qualified yoga/Mindfulness prac-
titioners who have spent a minimum of two years developing their basic skills.

Conclusion
The year 2014 was another fantastic year for everyone contributing to the devel-
opment of JCM, and the Journal is truly becoming the community centre for scho-
lars with an interest in all things organizational change. Together we can make a
difference. Not only to individual careers, the Journal and our subject areas – in
JCM we have a fantastic opportunity to contribute to what is a greater purpose: the
improvement of society and all institutions and individuals within it. Is this ambi-
tious? Yes, indeed it is. But to plagiarize Obama: ‘Yes, we can’. We can, will and
are already making a difference. This is what we are about.

References
Armenakis, A., Brown, S., & Mehta, A. (2011). Organizational culture: Assessment and transformation. Journal
of Change Management, 11(3), 305– 328.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing
change. In W. Pasmore & R. Woodman (eds.), Research, in organization change and development, Volume
XII (pp. 97–128). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change.
Human Relations, 46(6), 681– 703.
Armenakis, A. & Lang, I. (2014). Forensic diagnosis and transformation of an organizational culture. Journal of
Change Management, 14(2), 149– 170.
 Organizational Change 7
Armenakis, A., & Wigand, J. (2010). Stakeholder actions and their impact on the organizational cultures of two
tobacco companies. Business & Society Review, 115(2), 147– 171.
Association of Business Schools. (2010). Guide to guide to academic journal quality. London: Author.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing change (6th ed.). Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
Burnes, B., & By, R. T. (2012). Ethics, leadership and change: The case for greater clarity. Journal of Business
Ethics, 108(2), 239–252.
By, R. T., & Burnes, B. (Eds.). (2013). Organizational change, leadership and ethics. London: Routledge.
By, R. T., Burnes, B. & Oswick, C. (2012). Change management: Leadership, values and ethics. Journal of
Change Management, 12(1), 1 –5.
Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2010). A systematic review of neurobiological and clinical features of mindfulness
meditation. Psychological Medicine, 40(8), 1239–1252.
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and
turnover intention. Human Relations, 67(1), 105– 128.
DeBode, J., Armenakis, A., Feild, H., & Walker, A. (2013, December). Assessing ethical organizational culture:
Refinement of a scale. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(4), 458 –481.
Downloaded by [Staffordshire University] at 07:58 23 April 2015

DeMicco, K., & Sanders, C. (2012). The croods. Glendale: Dreamworks Animation.
Gärtner, C. (2013). Enhancing readiness for change by enhancing mindfulness. Journal of Change Management,
13(1), 52– 68.
Hannah, S. T., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Moral potency: Building the capacity for character-based leadership. Con-
sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(4), 291– 310.
Hernes, T., & Irgens, E. J. (2012). Keeping things mindfully on track: Organizational learning under continuity.
Management Learning, 44(3), 253–266.
Hunter, J., & Chaskalson, M. (2013). Making the mindful leader: Cultivating skills for facing adaptive challenges.
In H. S. Leonard, R. L. Lewis, A. M. Freedman, & J. Passmore (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the
psychology of leadership, change and organizational development (pp. 195–219). New York, NY: Wiley-
Blackwell.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10, 144– 156.
Kish-Gephart, J., Harrison, D., & Trevino, L. (2010). Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic evi-
dence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 1– 31.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Meaney, M., & Pung, C. (2008, July). Creating organizational transformations. McKinsey Quarterly, 1– 7.
Miller, D. (1993). The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 18(1), 116 –138.
Miller, D. (1994). What happens after success: The perils of excellence. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3),
325– 358.
Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid crises, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53– 65.
Ramsey, C. (2014). Management learning: A scholarship of practice centred on attention? Management Learning,
45(1), 6–20.
Reason, P. (1999). Extended reviews: Action, democracy and mindfulness in inquiry. Management Learning,
30(4), 487–493.
Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2001). Managing the unexpected. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective
mindfulness. Research in Organisational Behavior, 21, 81–123.

View publication stats