Reglas de Mezclado de Van der Waals con dos Parámetros Binarios de

There are a plethora of theoretical propositions and models to manage culture in organisations in extant research (Silverzweig and Allen 1976; Schein 2010; Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Young 2000; Shook 2010; Cameron and Quinn 2006). These studies provide a planned approach that presents quick-fix steps or stages to alter undesirable cultural norms and behaviours in order to sustain desirable cultural elements. This review focuses on predominant theoretical propositions and models advocated by theorists from the late 1970s to the 21st century.

3.5.1 Theoretical Propositions and Models of Culture Management 1970s-2016

Silverzweig and Allen's (1976) normative systems model of organisational change is one of the earliest model introduced in culture management studies. Their model proposed a plan that foremost analyse the current organisational culture; then identify the desired culture and construct a programme of change to achieve the desired culture (see Figure 1).

48

Figure 1: Normative Systems Model for Organisational Change

Source: Silverzweig and Allen (1976, p. 37).

Within this four steps framework, Silverzweig and Allen (1976) proposed a total systems approach to culture management. This approach involves evaluating and modifying eight critical cultural influences to include a modification of leadership behaviour; work team cultures; information and communication systems; performance and reward systems; organisational policies, structures and procedures; training and orientation; first line supervisory performance and results orientation. They argued that these evaluations would establish the norm gap that needs to be changed. The actual means to change culture within this process is a focus on leadership commitment; involving individual participation and support; and measuring results on a continual basis through feedback requests.

Subsequent studies by other scholars (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992; Young 2000) included standard measures as prescribed guidelines for managerial personnel to apply in attempts towards organisational culture management. These measures are often similar with previous propositions (e.g. Silverzweig and Allen 1976), with few modified measures proposed towards culture management. For instance, in Deal and Kennedy (1982) five

49

managerial guidelines to make cultural change take hold, their proposition for building consensus and developing the skills and abilities of organisational members, resonates with Silverzweig and Allen (1976) second and third steps of involving all work teams in consensus building, and introducing series of trainings to build capabilities towards the desired behaviour.

These early studies (Silverzweig and Allen 1976; Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992) acknowledged the significance of understanding the state of the existing culture, determining the desired culture and introducing several initiatives to achieve desired culture. They also emphasise on the capabilities of managers (leaders) to influence desired culture in organisations. In addition, these early studies introduced other similar measures for managers and leaders such as communicating the desired culture, role modelling and rewarding successes. Other modified measures include building trusts, and insist on job security during the transition (Deal and Kennedy 1982); consistency of leaders behaviour with desired values (Kotter and Heskett 1992); being patient and flexible (Deal and Kennedy 1982); recruit and promote employees with values consistent with the desired culture (Kotter and Heskett 1992); sanctioning non-conformers (Silverzweig and Allen 1976; Kotter and Heskett 1992); and using survey feedbacks to assess cultural changes (Silverzweig and Allen 1976).

These early studies, based on their theoretical propositions, presented visible success within the case organisations studied. For instance Silverzweig and Allen's (1976) study of several organisations to include both private and public firms, reported visible success on individual behaviours based on survey instruments that accessed perceptions of changes in behaviour. Silverzweig and Allen (1976) argued that through the implementation of their propositions employee involvement, communication and morale were improved in a chemical division of a pharmaceutical company. Similarly, Deal and Kennedy (1982) noted significant difference in an organisation-wide acceptance of initiated practices in an American public-sector corporation. In line with their propositions and successes, Silverzweig and Allen (1976) and

50

Deal and Kennedy (1982) argued that there are also barriers to culture change. This includes lack of commitment from leaders, inadequate involvement of all organisational members, insufficient attention and support to middle managers and supervisors; the strength of the culture, the cost, time and pace of change efforts. These theorists indicate that there are difficulties in attempts to influence culture management when these propositions are not considered.

Within this century, several theorists have constructed and adapted theoretical propositions and models in attempts to manage culture in organisations (Cameron and Quinn 2006; Schein 2010; Armenakis et al. 2011; Shook 2010; Katzenbach et al. 2012). As observed, they introduced distinct theoretical models towards organisational culture management. However, most of their propositions are similar to the suggestions of early theorists. For instance, Cameron and Quinn (2006) proposed a six step model of culture change through their Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) which is based on a competing values framework. The steps include (1) reaching consensus on the current culture; (2) reaching consensus on the desired culture; (3) determine what the changes will and will not mean; (4) identify illustrative stories; (5) develop strategic action plan; and (6) develop an implementation plan. Their proposition, similar to Silverzweig and Allen (1976) focused on addressing almost every aspect of the organisation to influence culture change such as structure, symbols, systems, staff, strategy, style and skills of leaders. In addition, they proposed the symbolic use of telling and retelling stories to communicate the desired culture on the basis that story telling is more viable than any culture change plot or CEO’s motivational speeches.

Schein (2010) also introduced three stages of initiating planned culture change through a modified version of Lewin's (1947) change model. The three stages involves a process of (1) unfreezing, discovering or experiencing dissatisfaction, discomfort, and disequilibrium with the current culture; (2) moving, learning new concepts, meanings, and standards of the desired

51

culture; and (3) refreezing, institutionalising these new ideologies and measures. In this modified model, Schein (2010) introduced five principles and eight conditions to facilitate culture management process. The core emphasis within Schein's (2010) proposed eight conditions is the aspect of unlearning what was initially learned via creating a compelling vision for change; introduce formal and informal trainings; involve the learners in the learning process; express desired culture through positive role models; create practice fields to coach and generate feedbacks; provide support groups to discuss learning problems; and modify systems and structures to be consistent with the learning process. The intent is to restructure the behaviour and cognitive minds of organisational members. As Schein (2010) argues organisational culture is expressed in three interconnected levels: the level of artefacts (visible organisational structures and processes); values (strategies, goals, philosophies); and underlying assumptions (unconscious taken for granted perceptions, thoughts and feelings); and it is within the level of underlying assumptions, individuals’ cognitive minds, that actual culture change occurs. He argues that most culture management programs fail ‘because they do not create the eight psychological safe conditions outlined’ in his study to reduce learning anxiety (Schein 2010, p. 307).

While Schein's (2010) model emphasise on learning, his propositions are similar to Silverzweig and Allen (1976) and Deal and Kennedy's (1982) suggestions on training, role modelling and modifying structures. Other propositions analogous to the suggestions of early theorists include an initial understanding of the current state of the desired culture, develop and introduce initiatives towards preferred culture state, and implement designed initiatives towards the desired culture (Cameron and Quinn 2006; Shook 2010; Schein 2010; Armenakis et al. 2011); involving other organisational members, communicating desired culture, and building consensus (Schein 2010; Cameron and Quinn 2006); training (Shook 2010; Katzenbach et al.

52

2012; Armenakis et al. 2011), and rewarding behaviours (Katzenbach et al. 2012; Schein 2010; Cameron and Quinn 2006) amongst others7.

Similar to early studies, these theorists reported successes in the implementation of their models and propositions. For instance, Shook (2010) reported successful culture management in a Japanese car manufacturing plant situated in America, following his proposition to foremost, alter behaviours to change underlying assumptions. As Shook (2010) argues "communicating clearly to employees what their jobs were, and providing the training and tools to enable them to perform" successfully changed the organisation’s culture to overcome previous issues of grievance, frequent strikes, absenteeism and sabotage (p. 68). In line with their propositions and exemplar case studies, these theorists, similar to early studies, acknowledged there are complexities in attempts to manage culture. While Katzenbach et al. (2012) attributes the issue to time involved and the strength of the culture; Cameron and Quinn (2006) and Schein (2010) traced unsuccessful culture management to poor consideration of their proposed initiatives. As Cameron and Quinn (2006) argued, their six-step initiative will help overcome "common obstacles to change and make the management of culture change more systematic" (p. 104).

In presenting these propositions and models (1970s-2015), it would appear that culture management in organisations is both feasible and systematic; and though there may be obstacles, it could be resolved from adhering to proposed models. However, further analysis of these studies indicates that there are several issues that are overlooked, and in some instances rarely considered in these theoretical propositions and models. For instance, most of these studies take a functionalists rather than an interpretative and holistic view towards

7 _{Human Resource Management practices were introduced to include aspects of selection, performance appraisals,}

compensations, trainings and dismissal; as well as formal and informal intervention strategies (Armenakis et al. 2011; Katzenbach et al. 2012; Cameron and Quinn 2006).

53

organisational culture management. In this process, the studies rarely consider, in depth, issues of conflicts, power and resistance; and mainly focused on internal aspects of culture management with no in-depth analysis or discussion on the influence of external factors. Omission of such factors presents an incomplete perspective of managing organisational culture in real world situations. The next subsection, in reassessing these theoretical propositions and models of culture management, discuss these issues amongst others.

3.5.2 Reassessing Theoretical Propositions and Models of Culture Management

As stated in the previous subsection, there are limitations with these predominant models and propositions. Foremost is that the preceding studies focused on providing prescriptive and managerial approach towards culture management in organisations. The interpretive perspective is overlooked. For instance, the models are specifically designed for leaders and managerial personnel to use as important tools to maintain or transform culture in organisations. As such, there is more focus on what managers or leaders intend to achieve than the interpretative views of all organisational members (Young 2000; Armenakis et al. 2011; Deal and Kennedy 1982; Kotter and Heskett 1992). In cases where they discuss about organisational members, it is with the intent to build consensus on specific managerial objectives for culture management rather than consider individual views and experiences that might be contradictory and challenge the proposed culture (Silverzweig and Allen 1976; Deal and Kennedy 1982).

Secondly, these studies rarely considered complexities in changing culture such as issues of conflict, power and resistance. Their models are based on the assumptions that all organisational members would embrace the suggestions and implement proposed measures. For instance in Deal and Kennedy's (1982) case study of the American public-sector corporation, they argued that all 2500 organisational members worked in consensus towards

54

the initiated culture management programme and within six months, there were significant difference within the case organisation. Similarly, Katzenbach et al. (2012) study of an American health care company, noted that "while the plan for change challenged long held assumptions (among other things, it would require the elimination of 5,000 jobs, with more cuts likely to come), it was embraced by employees" (p. 112). Katzenbach et al. (2012) argued that all organisational members accepted the new interventions for culture change, and within few years, members felt enthusiastic and genuinely proud of the company. Interestingly, the case organisations in which the propositions were applied, appeared to encounter no conflicts or resistance.

An exceptional case is in Cameron and Quinn (2006) and Schein (2010) study where minimal aspect of resistance was noted. However, in response to such issues Schein (2010) proposed an application of his model. Cameron and Quinn (2006) proposed reinforcing the significance for culture management, mainly towards organisational performance, rather than assess the reasons for resistance. Cameron and Quinn (2006) suggestions reiterates the functionalists’ view of managing organisational culture towards organisational outcomes. Their analysis towards organisational culture, they state, is "biased towards the integration approach to culture because it is in this integration perspective that culture derives its power" (p. 61)8_{. As they}

noted, the power derived is to act as a competitive advantage for organisations by gaining consensus and integrated set of perceptions. Hence, the focus of these studies is on a common consensus with selective or negligible discussion on resistance, conflicts and power.

8 _{Martin (1992) proposed the three perspectives of organisational culture: the integration, differentiation and}

fragmentation perspectives. Integration perspective analyses organisational culture as a homogenous concept where meanings are clearly understood and fully integrated by organisational members. Differentiation perspective acknowledges differences and diversity in organisational culture, and so certain aspects could be contradictory to the dominant culture leading to subcultures. With a fragmentation perspective, manifestations of culture could be clearly inconsistent with each other creating confusion.

55

Thirdly, the theoretical propositions presented are on the assumptions that standard organisational intervention measures could be used as remedies to alter culture in organisations (Silverzweig and Allen 1976; Cameron and Quinn 2006). However, the complexities of managing organisational culture in extant research buttress the point that such systematic frameworks are rather misleading in attempts to alter the beliefs, values and behaviours of individuals (see Ehrhart et al. 2014; Harris and Metallinos 2002; Harris and Ogbonna 2002). Issues such as difficulties to alter deeper levels of culture to include beliefs and values (Gagliardi 1986), as well as surface levels of behaviour have been raised (Ogbonna 1992). The contention is the complexity involved to alter and decipher actual changes in beliefs and values that are outside the control of individuals. In cases when there are perceived changes in behaviours, this could simply be acts of behavioural compliance rather than actual acceptance of proposed organisational culture (see Ogbonna and Harris 1998). In addition, issues such as the history of the existing culture are rarely considered as organisations’ cultural histories could require distinct approaches to influence change or stability (see Wilkins and Dyer 1988). As Trice and Beyer (1993) argues “a particular culture will be based in the unique history of a particular group of people coping with a unique set of physical, social, political, and economic circumstances” (p. 6). Hence culture in different organisational settings may change through different processes and not necessarily through standard measures (see Dyer 1987).

Furthermore, these studies focused mainly on providing measures towards internal aspects of culture management, emphasising on integration and internalisation with rarely any in-depth proposition or analysis to include external environmental influences. In cases where external environmental aspects were included, a functionalist’s view was introduced with the intention to use these external factors as a rationale to instigate organisational members’ acceptance of the proposed initiatives (Deal and Kennedy 1982; Cameron and Quinn 2006; Silverzweig and Allen 1976). Further analysis indicates that these theoretical propositions were mainly

56

developed and applied within organisations operating in Western contexts whose cultures differ from other emerging nations (national culture); industries are more advanced in technology (industry effects); socio-economic situations are different; and human disposition and capabilities differ from other emerging countries. As such, their propositions for culture management in organisations, that tend to be oriented towards a Western context, is questionable in view of other contexts with distinct organisational, industry and national cultural patterns.

These issues indicate the limitations of these theoretical propositions and models as attempts to manage culture in organisations. Though, the theoretical propositions may motivate practitioners, and prove useful to them, these propositions are rather misleading by presenting selective aspects in proposing measures towards culture management in organisations. Interestingly other theorists, taking a non-functionalists perspective to analyse culture management in organisations, have included the perceptions and influence of organisational members; issues of conflicts, power and resistance; and further discussions on the particular levels of organisational culture effected by managerial initiatives (Harris 2002; Grugulis and Wilkinson 2002; Wankhade and Brinkman 2014). Though there are limited studies on these factors in comparison with other functionalist prescriptions on how to manage organisational culture, these studies have indeed broaden further knowledge and understanding on complexities and implications of culture management in organisations. However, their findings are still limited as these theorists conducted their studies within the same Western contexts (particularly the UK and USA); and based their analysis, predominantly, on internal aspects (e.g. members, structures and processes in organisations) without considering external environmental factors. The next section presents extant research on complexities, facilitators and implications of organisational culture management. In this process, it highlights the

57

research focus on Western contexts and an overlooked aspect of external environmental factors in their analysis.

3.6 ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE MANAGEMENT: COMPLEXITIES,