J Occupat Organ Psyc - 2010 - Silvester - Organizational Culture Change An Inter Group Attributional Analysis

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72, 1–23 Printed in Great Britain 1
Ó 1999 The British Psychological Society
Organizational culture change: An

inter-group attributional analysis
Joanne Silve ster*

Department of Psychology, City University, UK
N eil R. Anderson
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths College, University of L ondon, UK
F iona Patters on
Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, UK
Attempts by researchers to quantify organizational culture and culture change

have been severely hindered by a lack of theoretical models to aid empirical
investigation. This paper has two aims. First, a socio-cognitiv e model of
organizational culture is discussed which de nes ‘culture’ as the product of a
dynamic and collective process of ‘sense-making’ undertaken by members of a
group or organization. Second, an empirical case study is presented which uses
attributional analysis to quantify the beliefs held by key stakeholder groups
involved in a culture change programme within a multi-national manufacturing
organization. A total of 1230 attributional statements were coded using a modi ed
version of the Leeds Attributional Coding System (LACS), which included four
main dimensions: stable–unstable, global–speci c, internal–external, controllable–
uncontrollable. Results indicated considerable inter-group diVerences between
managers, trainers and trainees in their cognitive maps as sense-making
heuristics of this planned change process. The implications of this model and the
usefulness of attributional analysis as a method for evaluating dynamic aspects of
organizational culture and culture change are discus sed.
Organizational culture is a popular but elusive concept which has been variously
de ned as: a system of publicly and collectively accepted ‘meanings’ which operate
for a group at a particular time (Trice & Beyer, 1984); a pattern of ‘basic
assumptions’ developed as the group or organiz ation learns to cope with its
environment (Schein, 1985); and more simply as ‘the way we do things around here’
(Deal & K ennedy, 1982). Y et despite the numerous culture change programmes
that have been initiated by organizations in recent years, eVorts directed at
identif ying speci c, observable and therefore measurable features of organiz ational
culture have met with far less success. Moreover, the transmission of cultural values
*Requests for reprints should be addressed to Joanne Silvester, Department of Psychology, City University,
Northampton Square, London E C2V 0HB, UK (e-mail: J.Silvester@ city.ac.uk).
20448325, 1999, 1, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/096317999166464 by Universitatea Technica, Wiley Online Library on [10/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 Joanne Silvester et al.
also remains a neglected area in organizational psychology (e.g. OstroV &
K ozlowski, 1992; Wanous, 1992) and whereas attempts have been made to measure
culture’s sister concept at the team level, group climate, there remains a dearth of
research which focuses upon deeper stratas of shared culture in work groups
(Anderson & West, 1994, 1998). Indeed, the lack of integrative theoriz ing or
models of application in occupational psychological research into organiz ational
change has been noted by several authors (Paul & K oopman, 1992; Hosking &
Anderson, 1992). The eVect of this has been to mitigate the clarity with which
organizational culture, and in particular culture change, is viewed within our
discipline.
Given the continuing popularity of organizational culture as a focus for
organizational change, there is clearly a pressing need for new methods by which
culture and culture change can be systematically, reliably and meaningfully assessed.
In an eVort to meet this need, we propose a socio-cognitive model of organiz -
ational culture which identi es causal attributions as fundamental units of analysis
and their communication as a means by which cultural beliefs are transmitted and
shared between group and organizational members. This model is used as the basis
for a case-study of an ongoing culture change programme within a multinational
manufacturer based in the UK . The investigation employs attributional analysis, a
methodology which involves the identi cation, extraction and coding of spoken
attributions produced during semi-structured interviews by individuals from key
stakeholder groups in the culture-change programme. By quantifying the patterns
of attributions held by members of diVerent stakeholder groups, we demonstrate
how it is possible to identify shared and discrepant causal beliefs regarding the
causes of successful and unsuccessful organizational change. Finally, as at-
tributional analysis is a novel methodological approach in this context, a detailed
discussion of potential advantages and disadvantages with respect to analysing,
measuring and thus, potentially, ‘tracking’ culture change is provided.
Initially, however, it is necess ary to note brie y the context of this case study into
culture change within the host organiz ation. In common with many other
manufacturing organiz ations over recent years, this company had begun to
introduce a planned programme of culture change in accordance with the tenets
of Total Quality Management (TQM: Deming, 1988; see also Anderson,
Rungtusanatham & Schroeder, 1994; Spencer, 1994; Waldman, 1994). This pro-
gramme centred upon a major training and development interv ention, futher details
of which are described later in this paper. The point to note, in essence, is that the
training programme constituted the principal method utilized by the organization
to attempt to initiate culture change. Although numerous researchers have
articulated the problematic nature of changing an established organiz ational culture
(e.g. Schein, 1985; Thompson & Luthans, 1990), few empirical studies, which
evaluate with any robustness the outcomes of alternativ e methods of cultural
change interventions , have appeared (see also Denison, 1996; Pettigrew, 1985;
Pheysey, 1993). Moreover, training programmes are only one of a range of potential
methods for culture change at the disposal of organiz ational development
practitioners (Rogers & Byham, 1994; Schein, 1985). Indeed, Schein (1985)
distinguishes between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ levels for culture change; the
Organizational culture change 3
former including more direct strategies , such as modifying organiz ational structure
and work design, the latter including more tangential approaches, such as changing
appraisal system dimensions, reward strategies, and training and development
provisions . Schein argues that a combination of levers, both primary and secondary,
is needed in most situations to ensure cultural transformation and to overcome
resistance to change and systemic homeostatsis (see also Pheysey, 1993; Thompson
& Luthans, 1990). Notwithstanding the intractable diYculties in de ning and
measuring success in culture change interv entions , the present study presents a
novel analysis of attempted culture modi cation through a single secondary
lever—a major training programme.
A socio-cognitive model of org anizational culture

According to attribution theorists, people ‘make sense’ of events in terms of cause
and eVect relations hips because they are motivated to understand why such events
occur, predict when they might occur again and thus render their environment
more controllable (e.g. Heider, 1958). A ‘controlled’ process of attributional search
is generally triggered when individuals encounter novel, surprising, unexpected or
potentially threatening events (e.g. Baucom, 1987; Weiner, 1985; Wong & Weiner,
1981). This leads to the production of causal attributions which are subsequently
stored as causal schema in long-term memory as a cognitive framework which aids
mastery of similar situations in the future (Kelley, 1967). Consequently, when
individuals encounter familiar, routine or well-practised situations , controlled
processing can be replaced by the automatic accessing of relevant causal schema
already present in long-term memory (Louis & Sutton, 1991; Weick, 1979). Such a
cognitiv e heuristic permits essentially ‘mindless’ interactions with the environment
and leaves the indiv idual’s attentio n free for other tasks.
Attributional processes have traditionally been discussed with reference to the
individual, but Louis & Sutton (1991) argue that similar automatic processing can
also occur in groups when group members share the same causal schema for
important work-related events. These shared attributions enable group members to
respond similarly to routine work situations and thus interact more eYciently with
one another and more eVectively with the wider work context (Louis, 1980; Sathe,
1985; Schein, 1985, 1990). As such, shared attributions operate as a group level
cognitiv e heuristic in much the same way as a cognitive framework operates for an
individual (Kilman, 1985; Sapienz a, 1985). Obvious similarities exist with Schein’s
de nition of organiz ational culture as a set of basic assumptions shared by
members of a group in their attempts to understand and interact successfully with
their environment (Schein, 1985).
At an organizational level, shared causal attributions for organizational events
may form the cognitive ‘building blocks’ of organiz ational culture, but the question
of how attributions come to be shared by group and organiz ational members still
remains. Although controlled attributional activity takes place at the level of the
individual, attributions have increasingly begun to be recognized as a social
phenomenon (Doise, 1980; Hewstone, 1989). For example, when important events
are not witness ed ‘ rst-hand’, individuals look to other people to explain events
which have mutual relevance (Wells, 1981). Furthermore, Snyder & Higgins (1988)
argue that the communication of causal attributions is an important means by
which indiv iduals negotiate a ‘shared reality’ and generate a common understanding
of the causes of events in their environment. If causal attributions represent the
‘building blocks’ of organizational culture, the transmission of cultural beliefs may
simply depend upon the communication and sharing of attributions for important
organizational outcomes through everyday conversation. Support for this can be
found in research concerned with close relations hips. Philips en (1987) actually
de nes culture as ‘conversation’ and Duck (1994) contends that groups cannot
avoid developing their own culture because relations hips are founded on a need to
generate shared meanings through communication. Thus, organizational culture
can be conceptualized as the dynamic product of a process of collective
‘sense-making’ where individuals communicate and agree common explanations
for work-related events in an eVort to understand, predict and control their
environment (Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Rousseau, 1990).
Perhaps more importantly for research, spoken attributions can be isolated from
discourse material and subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis (Antaki,
1994; Moscovici, 1984; Rommetveit, 1984; Silvester, 1997; Silvester, Bentovim,
Stratton & Hanks, 1995; Weiner, 1985; Wong & Weiner, 1981). Therefore, in terms
of organiz ational culture, spoken attributions represent an ideal focus for exploring
the extent to which causal attributions are shared by members of a particular
group. Similarly, diVerences in the patterns of attributions shared by members of
subgroups within organizations may be identi ed and compared. In order to
explore the utility of this model of organiz ational culture, and the potential aVorded
by analysis of spoken attributions, a case study was carried out using the
methodology to explore shared beliefs held by three key stakeholder groups in a
large organizational culture change programme. The aim of this largely exploratory
case study investigation was to explore similarities and diVerences regarding
perceived causes of success, as well as potential barriers to success of the change
programme.
Methods
Host organization
The host company was a multinational engineering and manufacturing organization based in the UK
and employing some 30 000 people. The organization has recently instigated an extensive training
programme based on the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM) (Deming, 1988) and
designed to aVect cultural and behavioural change in the company. The objectives of the programme
were to provide trainees with an understanding of TQM planning and development approaches ,
together with the knowledge and skills essential for eVective cross-functional teamworking. A
fundamental tenet of this training programme was that it integrated TQM techniques with behavioural
skills training as a means to eVect culture change within the organization. The training programme was
extensive and involved the commitment of substantial organizational resources. It consisted of
37 days oV-the-job training grouped into seven modules, each of which was designed to instigate
personal and culture change through the enhancement of teamwork, cooperation and communication,
and through changing staV attitudes to quality engineering processes. The completion of all modules
takes approximately 18 months and the programme was being delivered to over 4000 engineers based
in the UK and Germany. Twenty full-time trainers and two training coordinators (11 British,
11 German) were seconded from engineering functions around the company to deliver the modules
in both companies and the organization has committed itself to a detailed, multi-method evaluation
programme being undertaken by the researchers.
Stakeholder analysis
A multi-method evaluation strategy was designed to validate the impact of the programme as a
planned organizational change intervention (Patterson, Anderson & Ferguson, 1994a; Patterson,
Fergus on & Anderson, 1994b). This included pre- and post-course questionnaires, psychometric
measures of attitudes, structured interviews and stakeholder analyses of inter-group diVerences
between groups of staV aVected by the programme. The quantitatively based measures involved large
samples of staV and are reported elsewhere (Patterson et al., 1994a,b), and so this paper focuses on
results from the qualitative methodology of analysing the spoken attributions produced by
participants during stakeholder interviews.
Stakeholder analysis (Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Burgoyne, 1994) was chosen as the methodology for
enquiry. The analysis is based on the view that events in organizations have a number of ‘stakeholders’
who aVect, or are aVected by, their experience of the event. This experience then leads stakeholders
to develop a construct or to conceptualiz e the event in some way. Stakeholders are thus de ned as ‘the
agents, interested parties, bene ciaries or indeed victims, involved in an event or process, and their
views are of interest because their perceptions and constructs may be diVerent’ (Burgoyne, 1994,
p. 190). Stakeholder analysis therefore provides a methodology in which diVerent constructions and
causal beliefs for given events can be elicited and understood. It is seen as a broad organizing principle
for research within which it is possible to use more tactical research methods, e.g. interview,
observation of behaviours (Burgoyne, 1994). In this study, the analysis proceeded by identifying
stakeholder groups and then designing semi-s tructured interviews with a representative sample of
interviewees from each group.
Sampling framework
Three key stakeholder groups were identi ed: managers, trainers and trainees. The management group
was originally responsible for the instigation of the training programme and for its broad strategic
intent and principles as an intervention. They had also completed, as a minimum, the rst module of
the training programme. The trainer group comprised the full-time trainers involved in delivering the
programme and, it should be noted, this group also had input to the detailed design of the modules
in the early stages of ‘translating’ the vision of the management team into a feasible training
intervention. The trainee group included a random sample of engineers from each engineering
department who were approximately half-way through the training programme.
A total of 22 stakeholders (all from the UK and all male) were interviewed across these three
groups, comprising 11 trainers, 7 trainees and 4 senior managers. Although this is relatively small
sample compared with questionnaire-based studies or with the sample included in the quantitative
evaluation of the programme, the total numbers of attributions elicited (see below) exceeded 1200
distinct and codeable causal statements. The focus of this methodology, it should be noted, is thus on
an in-depth review and appreciation of individual stakeholder’s structuring of their attributional
statements and their construal of emergent events within the culture change process.
Stakeholder interviews
All interviews were conducted by F.P. They lasted approximately one hour and were semi-s tructured
in format in order to ensure that, while the same questions were asked of each participant, individuals
were free to discuss in more detail those issues which they considered particularly important. The
interviewer did not explicitly request causal attributions, but asked a series of open questions,
including ‘What do you consider to be barriers to the success of the programme?’, ‘How would you
describe the culture in this organization?’ and ‘How (if at all) has the programme changed the way in
which you work?’. Interviews were audio-taped and then transcribed verbatim.
Coding procedure
Stage 1: E xtraction of attributions. Spoken causal attributions were identi ed and extracted from
interview transcripts using the de nition adopted by Joseph, Brewin, Y ule & Williams (1993) as those
‘statements identifying a factor or factors that contributed to a given outcome’ and where ‘a stated or
implied causal relationship had to be present’. Examples include: ‘by cooperating with each other and
bringing together all the appropriate skills, we end up with a good product’, ‘the programme is
eVective because it gets the engineers to really think in a structured way about a problem and identify
root causes’, ‘they’re having diYculties attracting trainers, because the only way of moving up the
career ladder at present is through the management side of technical teams’.
Stage 2: A gent–target coding. Following extraction, individual attributions were rst coded for ‘agent’ and
‘target’; where an ‘agent’ is de ned as ‘the person, group or entity instrumental in causing change or
bringing about the outcome of the attribution’, and a ‘target’ as ‘the persons, group or entity
in uenced, changed or acted upon by the agent’. Analysis of agent and target coding allows a
preliminary investigation of the organizational groups that interviewees nominate as being most
in uential in causing events to happen or those groups most likely to be in uenced by, rather than
in uencing of, change. In order to focus the research, agent and target categories were restricted to
groups considered important to the culture-change programme: ‘company’, ‘the programme’
(including trainers, the training course and the culture change programme), ‘senior’ and ‘middle-
management’, ‘self’ (speaker), ‘colleagues’ (including company employees generally), and ‘speci c
department’ (e.g. ‘sales’). ‘Other’ was used for agents and targets which did not t into any of these
groups. So, in the example: ‘Going on programme modules has made me re-think the way I plan my
team meetings’, agent would be coded ‘the programme’ and target would be ‘self’. In the few cases
where more than one agent or target was nominated by an interviewee, a policy of hierarchical coding
was adopted. For example, where it was unclear whether the individual was describing an event which
aVected the programme or the company more widely, the target would be coded company because
this category could include the programme. In the nal analysis, however, very few attributions were
generated for certain agent–target categories , consequently only agent and target categories for ‘self’,
‘company’, ‘the programme’ and ‘employees’ were included in statistical analyses of agent–target data.
Stage 3: Modied L A CS coding. Next, extracted attributions were individually coded using a modi ed
version of the Leeds Attributional Coding System (LACS: Stratton, Munton, Hanks, Heard &
Davidson, 1988). This is a method for coding spoken attributions which provides for binary ratings
on each of four causal dimensions: stable–unstable (how permanent or long-lasting the cause is
perceiv ed to be); global–speci c (whether or not a cause is perceiv ed as important or in uential);
internal–external (causes which originate in the person or group being coded vs. situational causes);
controllable–uncontrollable (whether or not the cause is perceived as controllable or open to in uence
by the person or group being coded). Internal and control dimensions can be coded separately for
agent and target, so it is possible to code whether the cause is deemed to be open to in uence by the
agent (control for agent) and/ or the target (control for target). In addition to these dichotomous
codings , a third rating ‘uncertain’ was used when an attribution was ambiguous or included insuYcient
information for coders to make a decis ion. More detailed de nitions and examples of coded
attributions are provided in Table 1.
As the LACS was originally developed for use in clinical research, de nitions were modi ed slightly
to take account of the nature of attributions found in the organizational context. So, for example, in
the case of ‘global–speci c’ a cause was coded ‘global’ if it in uenced a range of important outcomes
at a company level rather than a more limited range of outcomes at an individual or group level. A
fth LACS dimension (personal–universal) was originally designed for use in clinical contexts and, as
such, was not considered appropriate for this study. In addition, attributions were coded according to
whether they referred to a ‘negative’ or ‘positiv e/ neutral’ event and whether they described an ‘actual’
Table 1. Causal dimensions, de nitions and examples
Coding dimension and de nition Examples from interviews
Stable–unstable: refers to how permanent or Stable: ‘The programme is unlikely to be a recipe

long-lasting the speaker believes the cause to be. for change, ’cos some things are historical and
If relatively unchanging, code ‘stable’ (2). If have been around for years and years.’
changeable or non-permanent, code ‘unstable’ (1). Unstable: ‘Fortunately attitudes are changing, the
The extent to which an individual attributes old style of management may soon be a thing of
events to stable as opposed to unstable causes the past.’
has an important in uence on their expectation of
the likelihood of change (Weiner, 1986).
Global–speci c: refers to the degree of Global: ‘Our commitment to technical excellence
importance that the speaker associates with the is fundamental, because the success of the
cause being coded. For the purposes of this company is founded on it.’
study, a cause is coded ‘global’ (2) if it is Speci c: ‘Half the problem [with the programme]
considered by the speaker to have outcomes is that so many of us have seen so many things
which occur at a company level. If the cause is before, it’s just another avour of the month,
perceived to have a more limited eVect upon a thing’s won’t change.’
smaller subsection of the company such as a
single department or a particular group of people,
code ‘speci c’ (1).
Internal–external: a cause is coded ‘internal’ (2) Internal (to management): ‘If they went to more
when it originates with the person, group or of the training modules, they could make a real
entity being coded, in the form of a behaviour, diVerence (to employees’ attitudes towards the
characteristic or action. A cause is ‘external’ (1) if programme).’
it refers to something situational such as External (to self): ‘We’re just too busy with all
circumstances or the behaviour of another this re-structuring, I don’t have the time to go on
person, group or entity. This dimension and the a training course.’
control dimension are both coded separately for
the agent and the target of an attribution.
Controllable–uncontrollable: a cause is coded Controllable: ‘By cooperating and bringing
‘controllable’ (2) if the speaker believes that the together all the relevant skills we end up with a
person, group or entity being coded was able to good product.’
exert substantial in uence over whether or not Uncontrollable: ‘It’s been extremely diYcult for
the outcome occurred. A cause is coded us in education and training because we don’t
‘uncontrollable’ (1) if the speaker believes that have management clout.’
the outcome was inevitable and not under the
in uence of the person, group or entity being
coded.
event (which had either happened or was on-going) or a ‘hypothetical’ event (which the interviewee
anticipated might occur in future should certain conditions be satis ed). Finally, a number of content
categories were included, speci cally whether or not individual attributions described some aspect of
‘quality’ (2 = yes, 1 = no), whether they mentioned organizational ‘culture’ (2 = yes, 1 = no), and
whether the attribution described an example of success ful behavioural or organizational ‘change’
resulting from the programme (2 = yes, 1 = no).
Table 2 reports the means, standard deviations, j coeYcients and intercorrelations for all coded
dimensions. Coding reliability was obtained by comparing codings for 38 attributions randomly
extracted from interview transcripts, that were made by three raters, each of whom had varying
8
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, j values and intercorrelations for all coding dimensions
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Stable–unstable 1.66 .64 .581

2. Global–speci c 1.66 .92 2 .02 .653
Internal–external
3. Agent 1.71 .45 .07* .01 .418
4. Target 1.22 .46 .13*** .01 .26*** .346
Controllable–uncontrollable
5. Agent 1.98 2.16 .05 2 .06* .07* .04 .198
6. Target 2.18 2.02 .00 2 .08* .06* .05 .40*** .610
7. Quality 1.92 .27 .04 .04 .07* .07* .04 2 .08** .648
Joanne Silvester et al.
8. Culture 1.87 .33 2 .04 .20*** .05 .00 2 .15*** 2 .17*** 2 .02 .466
9. Change 1.49 .50 .05 2 .05 .06* .01 .12*** 2 .02 .11*** .01 .843
*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

Note. j coeYcients are given in bold on the diagonal; N = 1230 for all cells.
experience with the method and the company: coder 1 had considerable experience working with the
company, but no prior experience of the methodology; coder 2 had no previous experience with the
company, but had used the methodology in a number of clinical contexts; coder 3 had no previous
experience of the methodology or of the company. With the exception of ‘control for agent’
(j = .198), which was subsequently excluded from analyses, j coeYcients for coding dimensions were
mostly acceptable or good (Fleiss , 1971). ‘Internal for target’ just failed to achieve acceptability: as the
agreement between coders was 76.3% it was decided to include this dimension in analyses.
As a total of 1230 attributions were extracted from the verbatim transcripts, even quite moderate
correlations reach signi cance levels, as shown in Table 2. However, few correlations are above .20,
and only a single correlation, between control for target and control for agent, is .40. Thus, the general
pattern of intercorrelations suggests that the attributional dimensions are orthogonal to one another.
Only the correlations between internal for agent and internal for target (r = .26, p< .001) and between
Global and Culture (r = .20, p< .001) are noteworthy.
With respect to the outcome dimension of change resulting from the training programme, only two
correlations were signi cant: change correlated .12 (p< .001) with controllable for agent, and .11
(p< .001) with quality. It is perhaps surprising that more signi cant correlations between coded
dimensions were not found, as all statements were coded across all dimensions. However, this could
be due to the sheer variety of attributional statements made by interviewees even though the research
interview was in a semi-s tructured format.
Results
Of the 1230 attributions extracted from the transcripts, 617 (50.16%) described
positiv e or neutral events and 613 (49.84%) described negativ e events. In addition,
767 attributions (62.36%) concerned actual events and 463 attributions (37.64%)
referred to hypothetical or future outcomes. A breakdown by group found that
trainers produced a total of 571 attributions (mean = 51.91, SD = 21.83), trainees
produced 453 attributions (mean = 64.71, SD = 32.76), and managers produced
206 attributions (mean = 51.5, SD = 37.28). Therefore, despite diVerences in total
numbers of attributions which re ect group size, mean numbers of attributions
produced by individuals in each group were approximately equal. However, the
three groups diVered in terms of the proportion of negativ e and positive
attributions they produced with trainees producing a signi cantly larger proportion
of positiv e attributions than either managers or trainers (v 2, p < .001). In order to
explore in more detail those attributions where either the company or the
programme were identi ed as agents, these were extracted from the data and
analysed separately. Table 3 demonstrates the distributio n of positive and negative
attributions of actual and hypothetical events.
It was predicted that a greater proportion of attributions referring to positive-
actual events than positive-hypothetical, negative-actual or negative-hypothetical
attributions, would provide more substantial evidence that individuals believed
successful change was being achieved. When the programme was identi ed as agent
(total number of attributions = 413), 61.4% of attributions for actual outcomes
were positive and 38.6% were negativ e, and in the case of hypothetical or future
outcomes, 73.6% were positive and 26.4% were negative. This pattern of attri-
butions suggests that, overall, those interviewed considered that the programme
was having a positiv e in uence on change and they were even more optimistic
about future outcomes. However, in the case of attributions where company was
nominated as agent (total number of attributions = 212), only 25.7% of attributions
10
Table 3. Positive and negative attributions by all groups for actual and hypothetical events
Programme as agent Company as agent

Positive outcomes Negative outcomes Positive Negative
Raw % Raw % Total Raw % Raw % Total
Actual 135 [61.4] 85 [38.6] 220 37 [25.7] 107 [74.3] 144

Event { 48.7} { 62.5} { 48.7} { 78.7}
Hypothetical 142 [73.6] 51 [26.4] 193 39 [57.4] 29 [42.6] 68
Joanne Silvester et al.
Event { 51.3} { 37.5} { 51.3} { 21.3}

Totals 277 136 413 76 136 212
Note. Row percentages within [ ]; column percentages within { } .
Table 4. Descriptive statistics and percentage of positive and negative attributions by
stakeholder group
Actual outcomes Hypothetical outcomes

Positive Negative Positive Negative
Raw % Raw % Total Raw % Raw % Total
Managers 59 39.3 91 60.7 150 41 73.2 15 26.8 56

Trainers 122 36.7 210 63.3 332 143 59.8 96 40.2 239
Trainees 138 48.4 147 51.6 285 114 67.9 54 32.1 168
Totals 319 448 767 298 165 463
referring to actual events were coded positive, whereas 74.3% were coded negative.
In the case of attributions for hypothetical or future events, 57.4% concerned
positiv e outcomes and 42.6% concerned negative outcomes. This represents a less
favourable picture of general beliefs about the company’s involvement in change,
but although the proportion of negative future events remains high, it is lower than
that for actual outcomes, suggesting a certain optimism with respect to future
company outcomes.
Inter-group diÚ erences

Attributions produced by indiv iduals in each of the three groups were then
separated in order to explore inter-group diVerences for positive–negative attribu-
tions and actual–hypothetical outcomes. Table 4 summarizes descriptiv e statistics
and the percentage of positive and negativ e attributions for each group in relation
to actual and hypothetical outcomes.
When discussing actual outcomes, trainees produced proportionately more
positiv e attributions than either trainers or managers. One reason for the more
positiv e outlook shown by trainees may result from their instrumental role in
applying the skills they have learned in the programme in the workplace and thus
being able to see them in operation. They are therefore better placed to witnes s the
direct eVects of the programme upon their own and colleagues’ day-to-day
behaviour. As one trainee commented: ‘Well I’m putting it all into eVect where I
can—whenever I go to meetings. I even had an interes ting one where we were
called to a meeting at very short notice. I didn’t know some of the people, and the
chairman was going to do his meeting the way he’s always done it. So I said to him
‘‘can’t we just stop now because I don’t know some of the people here, could we
just go round and introduce ourselves, who we are and what we’re all trying to do
while we’re at the meeting?’’ and he was surprised.’
In contrast, the larger proportion of negative-actual attributions made by
managers and trainers is surprising and somewhat worrying given that trainers
operate as change agents and managers would be expected to espouse positive
comments about a change programme they have been instrumental in creating. This
becomes potentially more serious when we consider attributions for future
outcomes where trainers are the most negative of the three groups. For example,
one trainer comments: ‘I suppose we ought to have quite a large amount of control
[over the programme], because as trainers we actually face-oV to the delegates.
What they take away to a certain extent is what we give them. So we’ve got direct
control in terms of that side of things. Where I don’t feel that we’ve got a lot of
control is in the strategy and implementation of the programme. I mean you can do
the best programme in world and the best course and it can all be wonderful, but
if you don’t point it in the right direction, you’re never going to hit the target.
That’s not to say that we’re going in totally the wrong direction, because we’re not.
But there are still times when I feel we’re not sort of going on the course that
perhaps we ought to be.’ The large proportion of negative attributions for future
outcomes produced by trainers suggests a somewhat pessimistic outlook. Given
their responsibility for implementing and promoting the programme as an
instrument of successful organiz ational change, further discuss ion with this group
on the part of the organiz ation would appear to be warranted.
Cognitive maps
To explore inter-group diVerences further, a series of inter-correlation matrices
using Pearson’s r were computed within each group. Managers’, trainers ’ and
trainees’ attributional codings were correlated across six main coding categories
(change, global, culture, quality, internal and stable) in order to examine relation-
ships between these constructs from attributional statements made by interv iewees.
Particular attention was given to how each group perceived the change dimension
as correlated with all other dimensions on the grounds that this construct consisted
of attributional statements relating to whether the training programme would result
in successful organizational change. The inter-relationships between change and all
other dimensions thus illustrate the group’s collective perception of the organiz -
ational change process: how long-lasting it is expected to be (the stable dimension),
whether it is perceived as being under the control and in uence of stakeholder
individuals involved (the internal dimension), the extent of likely change (the global
dimension) and the links between successful change and organizational culture and
quality.
Consideration was given at this stage to the use of log–linear modelling
procedures to attempt to predict the change dimension as the dependent variable
from all other coding dimensions as predictor, or independent variable. Indeed,
several preliminary log–linear models were computed using the LOGIT procedure
on SPSS-PC (Norusis, 1993), but all failed to demonstrate parsimony in terms of
accepted goodness of t statistics (see, for instance, Agresti, 1989; K riska &
Milligan, 1982). Figures 1, 2 and 3 illustrate each group’s cognitiv e map.
Comparing the cognitive maps derived for each of the three groups, notable
diVerences are apparent in relationships between dimensions. This would suggest
that each group perceiv es the process of change diVerently and is likely to construe
events arising from the training interv ention through a fairly idiographic cognitive
F igure 1. ‘Cognitive Map’—Senior Managers Group. N = 97–100 dependent upon cell sizes.
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. Non-signi cant relationships (Pearson’s r) only between change and
other coding categories shown for clarity.
F igure 2. ‘Cognitiv e Map’—Trainers Group. N = 264–265 dependent upon cell sizes. *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001. Non-signi cant relationships (Pearson’s r) only between change and other
coding categories shown for clarity.
map which may also act as a sense-making heuristic (Pheysey, 1993; Reichers &
Schneider, 1990). Substantial inter-group diVerences in perceptions of the change
process clearly has major implications for the successful management of this
interv ention a nding which we return to later.
F igure 3. ‘Cognitive Map’—Trainees Group. N = 250–252 dependent upon cell sizes. *p < .05;
**p < .01; ***p < .001. Non-signi cant relationships (Pearson’s r) only between change and other
coding categories shown for clarity.
In addition, these group level cognitive maps clearly show a substantially

higher magnitude of correlations between coded dimensions than those found
across the combined sample reported in Table 2. This suggests that managers,
trainers and trainees held similar perceptions at an intra-group level, while when
combined into a composite organiz ational sample, few signi cant correlations
emerged.
Considering each group in turn, Fig. 1 illustrates the cognitive map derived for
the managers’ group. Only one dimension, global, correlates at a level of statistical
signi cance with change, but this correlation is negativ e and highly signi cant
(r = 2 .37, p < .001). This suggests that managers do not expect changes resulting
from this intervention to be company-wide (i.e. global) but more likely to be
speci c and procedural, with behavioural modi cations restricted to speci c areas
of the business. As one manager stated during interview: ‘I think the programme is
basically there to provide engineers with a tool box of quality techniques.’
Interestingly, the single other statistically signi cant correlation occurs between
the global and culture dimensions (r = .54, p < .001). This positive relations hip is
indicative of the perception that the organization’s culture is a company-wide and
pervasive factor underlying any attempt towards organization change. That the
existing culture was perceived by the majority of managers interviewed as a
formidable barrier to change is typi ed by the following quote: ‘It’s the culture
which acts to block it [organizational change]. We need to develop a new structure
which enables the new culture to happen.’ Paradoxically, of course, one of the key
objectives of the intervention was to update and shift the organiz ation’s culture.
However, this analysis of the manager group reveals a critial ‘double-bind’ in their
perceptio ns of the change process: that the organization’s culture itself is perceived
as a pervasive barrier which is unlikely to be fundamentally aVected by the training
interv ention. This perception is perhaps exacerbated by the nding illustrated in the
cognitiv e map in Fig. 1 that change correlated negatively with internal (r = 2 .17,
p = n.s.), although this relation is non-signi cant. This would suggest that the
manager group views change as something which is caused by factors external to
themselves and that they can exert little personal in uence or control over the
change process. This agenetic mode self-marginaliz ation is consistent with percep-
tions of any likely change being merely peripheral rather than core as a result of a
long-established and ubiquitous company culture.
Figure 2 portrays the cognitive map derived for the trainers group. In common
with the managers group, the trainers perceiv e a signi cant but negative relation
between the change and global dimensions (r = 2 .17, p < .001), again suggesting
doubts about whether the intervention will create wide-ranging change across the
company. For example, one trainer commented: ‘People look at the diVerent
modules and see them as technical modules with a bit of people skills added on. If
they know about the technical side people say ‘‘oh I don’t really want to do that
module’’ they don’t look at what the people side brings to it. So my worry is that
the people skills side is going to get washed away, diluted a little bit, which won’t
create the culture change that we need.’
Conversely, this group exhibits a more integrated pattern of construing relation-
ships between several dimensions, particularly the triad of global, culture and
quality. Both culture and quality correlate positiv ely and signi cantly with global
(r = .24, p < .001, r = .21, p < .001, respectively), suggesting a perception that for
company-wide change to occur requires shifts in organizational culture, and staV
attitudes and behaviours associated with product quality. This cognitive map also
illustrates a non-signi cant relations hip between change and the stable and internal
dimensions (r = .02, p = n.s. for both relations ), raising concerns that the trainers,
as the key agents at the cutting-edge of this interv ention, do not perceiv e a strong
association between internally attributable causes, stable outcomes, and the success
of the training interv ention as a major organization development intervention. For
example, when asked about the likely success of the programme one trainer
commented: ‘I don’t think the desire is there, I think it’s a fear of change. Change
is one of the most diYcult things to happen, because it involves a loss of
responsibility and a loss of power. It’s something that we have to overcome if we
want to strive for this new environment, but I can’t see it happening with the
current structure.’
The third cognitive map represents interrelations hips between dimensions as
perceived by the trainees group (Fig. 3). Once again, change correlates negatively
with global, and with the same magnitude found in the manager and trainer groups
(r = 2 .17, p < .01). Most intriguing, though, is the negative relation between
change and internal (r = 2 .13, p < .05). This leads one to suspect that although
trainees make proportionately more positiv e attributions than the other two groups,
the type of positive attribution they produce suggests that they see change as
caused by external factors rather than anything they do themselves. For example,
one trainee explained that: ‘It depends on management really. We can go on the
modules, but at the end of the day if your manager hasn’t been, it’s diYcult to put
the new ideas into practice.’
Again, the global and culture dimensions are signi cantly correlated (r = .37,
p < .001), suggesting that trainees also perceive the organiz ation’s culture a pervasive
factor, but interestingly culture correlates near-zero with change (r = 2 .06,
p = n.s.). Stronger relations hips are evident in this group’s cognitive map between
internal and stable (r = .27, p < .001) and between stable and quality (r = .13,
p < .05), indicating that the trainees perceive that stable outcomes related to quality
in the production process can be in uenced by factors within their own personal
in uence. According to one trainee: ‘You get one person in the oYce who does
something diVerently and they get laughed at and ignored and stuVed away in the
corner. They feel a bit awkward about it so probably they keep quiet. If you get four
or ve in an oYce who start to do it, people start to take a bit more notice and
gains a bit of momentum . . . So if you can get to that point of critical mass, you
can get a sort of ip over where all of a sudden it becomes the norm . . . and
the people who don’t do it become the ones who get scorned.’ Similarly, a
second trainee commented: ‘I feel I’m a better engineer because of the training,
especially the team skills. It really makes a diVerence to working together’. Thus,
of the three groups, trainees appear to have the most positiv e outlook regarding
their own ability to in uence quality outcomes, if not change on a more global
scale.
To summarize these cognitiv e maps, it is evident that although some similarities
exist across all three groups, each group displays quite a unique pattern of
construing relations hips between dimensions . All groups appear to perceive only
limited in uence over the change process, a nding which is perhaps most
concerning for the trainer group as the providers of the training programme aimed
at in uencing culture and behaviours in the company. However, given the trainees ’
attributions regarding their in uence over quality, there may be grounds for arguing
that despite the counter-beliefs of the trainers and managers, the interv ention
programme is having a positiv e aVect upon trainees’ underlying assumptions and
cognitive schema.
Discussion
This study has presented a novel methodology for examining socio-cognitive
aspects of cultural change in organizations. Based upon an hypothesiz ed socio-
cognitive model of organiz ational culture, this methodology was operationalized in
the empirical case study presented in this paper by eliciting and content analysing
a large sample of attributional statements made by indiv iduals involved in the
culture change interv ention. This culture change interv ention, a major training
programme in a multinational manufacturing organization, permitted the identi -
cation of three stakeholder groups—managers, trainers and trainees . Summarizing
the results of this study, four main ndings were apparent:
(i) all three groups considered that the programme would produce positive future
outcomes;
(ii) trainees made a signi cantly higher proportion of positive attributions than
either managers or trainers ;
(iii) the trainers made signi cantly more negative future-oriented outcome attribu-
tions than either managers or trainees;
(iv) cognitiv e maps illustrating perceptual relations between dimensions diVered
notably between the three stakeholder groups.
The measurement of organizational culture has long been a controversial and

problematic topic in the occupational psychology literature (e.g. Deniso n, 1996;
Likert, 1967; Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schein, 1985). In this paper we have
postulated, and illustrated by case study, a socio-cognitive model of culture
grounded upon the notion that culture represents shared causal schema of
individuals and work groups, and is manifest as attributional statements concerning
salient issues for those actors. As such, the attributional coding methodology
illustrated in this paper permits analysis of rich, ethnocentric, qualitative material as
a means to uncover quantitative relations hips between pertinent constructs using
correlational analyses. By examining group members’ shared explanations for
positiv e and negativ e outcomes using attributional dimensions, it is possible to
determine the extent to which change, for example, is perceived as stable or
transient, wides pread or more localized, and whether or not members of a
particular group believe change to be within their sphere of in uence. The method
allows investigation of deeper levels of meaning, thereby providing important
information for an organization seeking to manage a successful intervention.
The ndings of this study highlight issues for comfort and concern within the
host organization. While all three stakeholder groups anticipated that change would
be generated by the training interv ention, they diVered in their perceptions of
how deep-rooted, long-lasting and culturally-related these changes would be. The
management group appeared to be pessimistic about resultant changes being
company-wide, suggesting perhaps that they expected change to be more localized
or peripheral in its impact upon company culture. For example, when asked about
what he hoped the programme would accomplish, one manager commented: ‘I
hope that it will give people a better understanding of what quality is, the whole
concept of quality. It makes available all the tools and tells you how to use them.
As I see it, the programme is a major focus for quality and we should use it as that.’
But, when asked to what extent the programme might in uence the organization’s
culture, he continued: ‘Well I think it’s more to do with the technical skills
side—the programme gives you the tools and the skills to do your job better.
Hopefully, it may have a bigger impact as more people go through the training, but
that will take a long time.’ Given that culture change was the primary objective of
the intervention such a nding is disappointing, but perhaps not unusual in relation
to culture change programmes in other organiz ations: organizational culture being
perceived as an all-pervasive and sedimentary intangible spanning across the whole
organiz ation but acting as a deeply-rooted but hidden governing in uence upon
individual’s behaviour (Schein, 1990).
The trainers group, obversely, appeared to hold the most negative expectations
of all three stakeholder groups. Not only did they make signi cantly more negative,
future-oriented attributions than either the managers or the trainees, they appeared
to harbour real doubts over their ability to in uence outcomes. For example, one
trainer when asked what the success or failure of the programme would mean to the
company, replied: ‘I guess if it fails no one will notice because in a way, it’s a case
of us carrying on as always. I suppose eventually it’s like you come to the end of
the road or something. I guess if it succeeds, it just helps us have a chance to
compete against other companies. It’s only a small part of the picture but it’s an
important part.’ The interviewer also asked him how he saw the future of the
programme: ‘I don’t know, I guess I’m concentrating on the here and now, I don’t
really think about it in a year or two years time, but . . . I mean in my most
depressing moments, and I know the other trainers have felt the same, they can see
the programme just coming to an end, or at least not being continued in its present
form. It all depends on how we as a company use it I suppose.’ These perceptions
of helplessness and fatalism may have been born out of past experiences of earlier
attempts towards culture change within the organization. However, given the
trainers’ position as the group responsible for enacting and delivering training
intervention such comments would certainly warrant attentio n from the organiz -
ation if the momentum of the change programme is to be maintained. In contrast,
trainees appeared notably more optimistic about the likely outcomes from this
programme. For example: ‘it’s diYcult at rst, but once you build up courage
and try the new ideas out, you can see that people become less cynical’. From
the company’s perspective, perhaps this is the ‘acid test’ of the programme’s
in uence and success, regardless of the less optimistic views held by trainers and
managers.
A central aim of this study was to explore diVerences and similarities in the way
in which indiv iduals from each of the three stakeholder groups perceived the
success or otherwis e of the culture change programme and, so far, discussion has
centred upon this issue. A second important question, however, concerns whether
or not the training programme was, in fact, successful in achieving culture change.
This is a diYcult question to address for two reasons. First, as we have already
discussed, organiz ational culture is a notoriously diYcult concept to measure (e.g.
Langan-Fox & Tan, 1997). Second, most methods used to ‘measure’ culture and
culture change rely themselves on individuals’ perceptions of change within the
organization (Rousseau, 1990). However, the study reported here formed part of a
multi-method evaluation of the change programme. Knowledge questionnaires,
pre- and post-training attitude questionnaires, and a quasi-experimental study using
behaviourally anchored rating scales (BARS) were all used to determine the
eVectiveness of the programme in changing trainees’ technical knowledge, inter-
personal skills and attitudes (see Patterson et al., 1994a,b). Although these
investigations did not attempt to assess culture change directly, a brief discuss ion of
their ndings in relation to this study is worthwhile.
Results from knowledge questionnaires administered to trainees before and after
training revealed an increase in knowledge regarding both technical and people
skills, but with a larger increase in the former relative to the latter. In the case of
attitude questionnaires, trainees showed a signi cant change in their understanding
of quality and were more customer focused after training. However, perceptions of
the organiz ation’s culture, conceptualized in terms of their attitudes towards
‘management trust’, ‘help-seeking behaviour’, ‘management eYciency’ and ‘trust in
colleagues’, did not change after training. Finally, two work groups, one of which
had received training and one which had not, were observed in the workplace.
The extent to which people skills were demonstrated was assessed using BARS.
The results showed that the group that had received training demonstrated
better people skills in some, but not all, categories, with certain skills perceived
as inappropriate to the workplace. In summary, the results from these evaluation
studies (which focused on trainee perceptions and behaviours) found that as a
function of training trainees became more customer-focused in their attitudes
towards quality and there was evidence that some of the people skills were
being used. However, their perceptions of the organization’s culture did not
change.
These ndings are compatible with the results of the study reported here. In
general, the training programme was perceived by most individuals as a technical
skills programme with an ‘add on’ people skills component. This is not how the
organiz ation had originally conceptualized the training programme, designed as it
had been as a means for achieving culture change. However, most researchers
would argue that organiz ational culture, by its very nature, is resistant to change
(e.g. Reichers & Schneider, 1990; Schein, 1990). This is not to say that change
cannot take place, but that change will generally be slow and will require both
primary and secondary levers to overcome resistance to change (Schein, 1990). In
our model of organiz ational culture, we suggest that culture can be de ned in terms
of the patterns of causal attributions for organizational events which are shared by
members of a particular organiz ation. From an attributional perspective, individuals
relinquish ‘old’ causal attributions when they: (i) encounter new situations which
challenge old assumptions and require them to formulate new attributions; or (ii)
hear attributions from other group members which help them to explain new
situations . Thus, any change in patterns of shared attributions is also likely to be
slow and will depend upon individuals being challenged by new situations and
organiz ational events. In the case of this training programme, trainees were the
group most likely to be faced with new situations , required as they were not only
to learn new technical and interpers onal skills but also to transfer them to the
workplace. As a group they were also best placed to witnes s these new skills
eVecting change. It may be for this reason that trainees shared the most favourable
attributions regarding the programme and organizational culture. Moreover, it is
possible that culture change is taking place as a ‘bottom-up’ phenomenon in this
organiz ation with those groups most resistant to change being middle-management
and, paradoxically, the trainers themselves.
A nal aim of the study was to evaluate the use of attributional coding as a
method for evaluating organiz ational change. Inevitably, there are advantages and
disadvantages to any method. Certainly, attributional coding permits the quanti -
cation patterns of causal attributions derived from qualitative interviews. As such it
is possible to identify common patterns of causal attributions at an individual and
a group level. Quanti cation also permits comparison between groups and of the
attributions made by the same group over a period of time. Thus, it provides one
method for analysing change (Silvester, Ferguson & Patterson, 1997). The method
also generates a very rich source of qualitative information and, as Rousseau (1990)
states: ‘quantitative assessment oVers opportunities for inter-organiz ational com-
parisons to assess relations between culture and organizational success, strategy and
goals . . . qualitative research can explore the meanings behind the patterns ’
(p. 192). Attribution coding, we would argue, oVers an optimum combination of
qualitative and quantitative strategies for evaluating organiz ational and cultural
change. Attention is focused upon individuals’ own spontaneous causal beliefs as
represented by attributional statements (Antaki, 1994; Silvester, 1997), rather than
on questionnaire dimensions and items decided upon by the researcher and
‘imposed’ upon indiv iduals to rate along a numerical scale.
Potential disadv antages of the method derive from the time taken to undertake
detailed content analysis of interview material and the need to ensure high levels
of reliability between coders. For most research it is simply easier and cheaper
to undertake a questionnaire-based attitude survey within host organiz ations.
However, causal attributions are not equivalent to attitudes and, as has been
demonstrated in this study, there are marked diVerences between beliefs about
actual and hypothetical relations hips, a distinction which is often diYcult to draw
in questionnaire-based studies . In addition, questionnaires are often unsuitable
for investigatio n of more sensitiv e topics and lack the exibility aVorded by
semi-structured interviews (Antaki, 1994). Similarly, there will be inevitable
analytical diYculties when seeking to impose quantitativ e rigours upon qualitative
material. But although the level of reliability obtained when coding interview-
based statements is unlikely to be as high as that achieved with psycho-
metric tools such as questionnaires, acceptable levels of reliability can be
assured through careful de nition of coding dimensions and rigorous training of
coders.
To conclude, a question arises about follow-up research stemming from the
current study. An obvious next stage would be to undertake a longitudinal analysis
of culture change programmes to investigate whether successful change results in a
progressive relinquishing of ‘old’ and redundant causal beliefs and their replace-
ment with ‘new’ causal beliefs more relevant to the new environment (e.g. Palmer
& Dunford, 1996). Somewhat surprisingly, there exist only few studies of how
attributions change over time (e.g. Miller & Porter, 1980; Moore, Sherrod, Liu &
Underwood, 1979; Peterson, 1980) and this would seem to be an ideal situation in
which to explore the dynamics of attributional change within organiz ational culture.
Furthermore, as it was suggested in the introduction that the strength of a culture
should be manifest in the extent to which similar causal attributions are nominated
by members of a group during discours e, it was beyond the bounds of the present
study to attempt any assessment of this issue. It therefore remains for future
research to pursue the relationship between strength of culture and the homoge-
neity of in-group attributions . Similarly, the status, expertis e or relative power of an
individual within a particular group is likely to act as a moderator of the extent to
which that person can in uence which schema come to be shared by other group
members (Schein, 1985, 1990; West & Anderson, 1992). It should therefore be
possible to use attribution coding methodology to explore how new group leaders
communicate their own causal beliefs in an attempt to aVect culture within a work
group.
Referenc es
Agresti, A. (1989). Tutorial on modelling ordered categorical response data. Psychological Bulletin, 105,
290–301.
Anderson, J. C., Rungtusanatham, M. & Schroeder, R. G. (1994). A theory of total quality
management underlying the Deming management method. A cademy of Management Review, 19,
472–509.
Anderson, N. R. & West, M. A. (1994). The Team Climate Inventory. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Anderson, N. R. & Wes t, M. A. (1998). Meas uring climate for work-group innovation: development
and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, 235–258.
Antaki, C. R. (1994). E xplaining and arguing. London: Sage.
Baucom, D. H. (1987). Attributions in distressed relationships: How can we explain them? In
D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics and deterioration. London:
Sage.
Burgoyne, J. (1994). Stakeholder analysis. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds), Qualitative methods in
organisational research. A practical guide, pp. 187–207. London: Sage.
Deal, T. E. & K ennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Deming. (1988). Out of the crisis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the diVerence between organizational culture and organizational
climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. A cademy of Management Review, 21,
619–654.
Doise, W. (1980). Levels of explanation. E uropean Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 213–231.
Duck, S. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense and relating. London: Sage.
Fleis s, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76,
378–382.
Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y . (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New Y ork: Wiley.
Hewstone, M. (1989). Causal attribution: From cognitive processes to social beliefs. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hosking, D. M. & Anderson, N. R. (1992). Organizing change and innovation: Challenges for
European work and organisational psychology. In D. M. Hosking & N. R. Anderson (Eds),
Organisational change and innovation: Psychological perspectives and practices in E urope. London: Routledge.
Joseph, S. A., Brewin, C. R., Y ule, W. & Williams , R. (1993). Causal attributions and post-traumatic
stress in adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 247–253.
K elley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (E d.), Nebrask a symposium
on motivation, Vol. 15. Lincoln, NE : University of Nebraska Press.
K ilman, R. H. (1985). Five steps for closing culture gaps. In R. H. Kilman, M. J. Saxton & R. Serpa
(E ds), Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
K riska, S. D. & Milligan, G. W. (1982). Multiple regress ion analysis for categorical data with an
illustrative application in personnel selection. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 193–202.
Langan-Fox, J. & Tan, P. (1997). Images of a culture in transition: personal constructs of
organizational stability and change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 273–293.
Likert, R. (1967). The human organization. New Y ork: McGraw-Hill.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: what newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar
organisational settings. A dministrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–250.
Louis, M. R. & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active thinking.
Human Relations, 44, 55–76.
Miller, D. T. & Porter, C. A. (1980). EVects of temporal perspective on the attribution process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 532–541.
Moore, B. S., Sherrod, D. R., Liu, T. J. & Underwood, B. (1979). The dispositional shift in attribution
over time. Journal of E xperimental Social Psychology, 15, 553–569.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (E ds),
Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for Windows: A dvanced statistics . Chicago, IL: SPSS.
OstroV, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organisation socialisation as a learning process: The role of
information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–873.
Palmer, I. & Dunford, R. (1996). Con icting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in the
eld of organizational change. A cademy of Management Review, 21, 691–717.
Patterson, F., Anderson, N. & Fergus on, E. (1994a). Training evaluation in a manufacturing organization.
Paper presented at the 23rd International Association of Applied Psychology (IAA P) Conference,
Madrid.
Patterson, F., Fergus on, E. & Anderson, N. (1994b). Multi-method analysis of organisational change in a
manufacturing organization. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society Occupational Psychology
Conference, Birmingham. Leicester: BPS.
Paul, J. & K oopman, P. L. (1992). Strategic decis ion making in organizations: A research model and
some initial ndings. In D. M. Hosking & N. Anderson (Eds), Organizational change and innovation:
Psychological perspectives and practices in E urope. London: Routledge.
Peterson, C. (1980). Memory and the ‘dispositional shift’. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 372–380.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1985). The awak ening giant: Continuity and change in imperial chemical industries. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Pheysey, D. C. (1993). Organisational cultures: Types and transformations. London: Routledge.
Philipsen, G. (1987). The prospect for cultural communication. In D. Kincaid (E d.), Communication
theory: E astern and western perspectives, pp. 245–254. New Y ork: A cademic Press.
Reichers, A. E. & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In
B. Schneider (Ed.), Organisational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rogers , R. W. & Byham, W. C. (1994). Diagnosing organizational cultures for realignment. In
A. Howard and Associates (E ds), Diagnosis for organizational change: Methods and models. New Y ork:
Guilford.
Rommetveit, R. (1984). The role of language in the creation and transmission of social representa-
tions. In R. M. Farr & S. Moscovici (E ds), Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). A ssessing organisational culture: the case for multiple methods. In
B. Schneider (Ed.), Organisational climate and culture, pp. 153–194. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sapienza, A. M. (1985). Believing is seeing: how culture in uences the decisions that top managers
make. In R. H. Kilman, M. J. Saxton & R. Serpa (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sathe, V. (1985). How to decipher and change corporate culture. In R. H. Kilman, M. J. Saxton &
R. Serpa (Eds), Gaining control of the corporate culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organisational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organisational culture. A merican Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Silvester, J. (1997). Spoken attributions and candidate succes s in graduate recruitment interviews.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 61–73.
Silvester, J., Bentovim, A., Stratton, P. & Hanks, H. G. I. (1995). Using spoken attributions to classify
abusive families. Child A buse and Neglect, 19, 1221–1232.
Silvester, J., Fergus on, E. & Patterson, F. (1997). Comparing spoken attributions by German and UK
engineers : evaluating the success of a culture change programme. E uropean Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 6, 103–118.
Snyder, C. R. & Higgins, R. L. (1988). Excuses: Their eVective role in the negotiation of reality.
Psychological Bulletin, 104, 23–35.
Spencer, B. A. (1994). Models of organization and total quality management: a comparison and critical
evaluation. A cademy of Management Review, 19, 446–471.
Stratton, P., Munton, A. G., Hanks, H. G. I., Heard, D. H. & Davidson, C. (1988). L eeds A ttributional
Coding System (L A CS) Manual. Leeds: LFRTC.
Thompson, K . R. & Luthans, F. (1990). Organizational culture: a behavioural perspective. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Trice, H. M. & Beyer, J. M. (1984). Studying organisational culture through rites and rituals. A cademy
of Management Review, 9, 653–669.
Waldman, D. A. (1994). The contributions of total quality management to a theory of work
performance. A cademy of Management Review, 19, 510–536.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organisational entry: Recruitment, selection, orientation and socialization of newcomers,
2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addis on-Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds),
Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weiner, B. (1985). ‘Spontaneous’ causal thinking. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 74–84.
Weiner, B. (1986). A n attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New Y ork: Springer-Verlag.
Wells, G. L. (1981). Lay analyses of causal forces on behaviour. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social
behaviour and the environment. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
West, M. A. & Anderson, N. R. (1992). Innovation, cultural values and the management of change in
British hospitals. Work and Stress, 6, 193–210.
Wong, P. T. P. & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask ‘why’ questions and the heuristics of attribution
search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 649–663.
Received 8 May 1996; revised version received 9 December 1997

J Occupat Organ Psyc - 2010 - Silvester - Organizational Culture Change An Inter Group Attributional Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Occupat Organ Psyc - 2010 - Silvester - Organizational Culture Change An Inter Group Attributional Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72, 1–23 Printed in Great Britain 1

Ó 1999 The British Psychological Society

Organizational culture change: An

Joanne Silve ster*

Attempts by researchers to quantify organizational culture and culture change

A socio-cognitive model of org anizational culture

Coding dimension and de nition Examples from interviews

Stable–unstable: refers to how permanent or Stable: ‘The programme is unlikely to be a recipe

1. Stable–unstable 1.66 .64 .581

p< .05; p< .01; p< .001.

Programme as agent Company as agent

Actual 135 [61.4] 85 [38.6] 220 37 [25.7] 107 [74.3] 144

Event { 51.3} { 37.5} { 51.3} { 21.3}

Note. Row percentages within [ ]; column percentages within { } .

Actual outcomes Hypothetical outcomes

Managers 59 39.3 91 60.7 150 41 73.2 15 26.8 56

Inter-group diÚ erences

In addition, these group level cognitive maps clearly show a substantially

The measurement of organizational culture has long been a controversial and

Received 8 May 1996; revised version received 9 December 1997

You might also like

J Occupat Organ Psyc - 2010 - Silvester - Organizational Culture Change An Inter Group Attributional Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Occupat Organ Psyc - 2010 - Silvester - Organizational Culture Change An Inter Group Attributional Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (1999), 72, 1–23 Printed in Great Britain 1

Ó 1999 The British Psychological Society

Organizational culture change: An

Joanne Silve ster*

Attempts by researchers to quantify organizational culture and culture change

A socio-cognitive model of org anizational culture

Coding dimension and de nition Examples from interviews

Stable–unstable: refers to how permanent or Stable: ‘The programme is unlikely to be a recipe

1. Stable–unstable 1.66 .64 .581

*p< .05; **p< .01; ***p< .001.

Programme as agent Company as agent

Actual 135 [61.4] 85 [38.6] 220 37 [25.7] 107 [74.3] 144

Event { 51.3} { 37.5} { 51.3} { 21.3}

Note. Row percentages within [ ]; column percentages within { } .

Actual outcomes Hypothetical outcomes

Managers 59 39.3 91 60.7 150 41 73.2 15 26.8 56

Inter-group diÚ erences

In addition, these group level cognitive maps clearly show a substantially

The measurement of organizational culture has long been a controversial and

Received 8 May 1996; revised version received 9 December 1997

You might also like

Coding dimension and de nition Examples from interviews

p< .05; p< .01; p< .001.