Chapter 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on concepts related to organizational
culture is replete with discussions and disagreements over
the definition, measurement, and transformation of
organizational cultures. Information from a variety of
print and electronic sources is reviewed in this chapter,
including empirical studies, anecdotal accounts in peerreviewed
and professional journals, popular literature, and
practitioners' case studies, including their observations
and recommendations.
The chapter begins with an overview of the literature
on defining what is meant by the term culture and a
description of its different levels. Next is a brief review
of the link between culture and performance. The following
two sections highlight leadership's role in culture
development and change and describe the concept of the
Northbound Train (see Footnote 1, p. 3). The subsequent
sections discuss the creation, assessment, and
transformation of organizational cultures and methods for
reducing or avoiding resistance to these change efforts.
15
The final section before the summary looks at the
distinctive culture of government entities.
Defining Organizational Culture
Many authors and scholars have defined the concept of
organizational culture (e.g., Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison,
1996; Hotter & Heskett, 1992; Martin, 1992; Ouchi, 1981;
Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985, 2004). Barney (1986)
stated, "few concepts in organizational theory have as many
different and competing definitions as 'organizational
culture'" (p. 657). The topic has been examined from a
variety of perspectives ranging from anthropology and
sociology to the applied disciplines of organization
development, organizational behavior, management science,
and organizational communication (Belcher, 2006; Fiol, 1991;
Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979;
Schein, 1988).
In the early 1970s, organizational culture studies
started to appear in the literature (Handy, 1976; Hatch,
1993; Pettigrew, 1979). Pettigrew described culture as an
organization's generally accepted system of meaning. He was
one of the first authors to associate the concept of
16
organization culture with symbols, language, ideology,
beliefs, rituals, and myths.
The concept of corporate culture then began to
proliferate in the 1980s with the introduction of three
groundbreaking texts on the subject (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Driving this
fascination with organizational culture was the realization
that there was a relationship between management and
culture, illuminated by the emergence of Japan as an
industrial leader (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Morgan, 1997;
Ouchi, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Pettigrew, 1979;
Schein, 1988).
Some of the earliest definitions include Ouchi's (1981)
description of culture as an organization's operating
philosophy. This philosophy is comprised of objectives,
representing the leaders', employees', customers,' and
stakeholders' values and procedures or the means for moving
toward the objectives. The procedures are defined by a set
of beliefs about the types of solutions that tend to be
successful for that organization. This would consist of
such things as authority and decision-making responsibility.
Deal and Kennedy (1982) defined culture as "a cohesion of
17
values, myths, heroes and symbols that has come to mean a
great deal to the people who work there" (p. 4) while Peters
and Waterman (1982) interchanged the terms culture and
shared values when describing some of the attributes they
found in high-performing companies.
A review of several works on the concept of culture
reveals that organizationally shared beliefs, values, and
assumptions and their interrelationships are commonly used
to define organizational culture (Chatman & Jehn, 1994;
Conner, 1993; Denison, 1996; Schultz, 1994). Beliefs,
behaviors, and assumptions are said to affect the daily
operation of the organization overtly, through observable,
intentional, direct influences such as goals, policies,
rituals, symbols, norms, and philosophy statements. They
covertly affect operations through obscure, unintentional,
indirect influences, such as informal ground rules and
unofficial guidelines (Conner, 1993). Employees understand
important organizational decisions via the culture (Conner,
1993; Morgan, 1997; Schein, 1988). Strong cultures have
been described as having "an almost palpable 'feel' to them-
-a force that guides workers toward the attitudes and
behaviors that the organization values the most" (Higgins &
18
Mindrum, 2006, p. 4). Schein (2005) listed several factors
impacting the strength of an organization's culture: "the
strength of the convictions of the original founders and
subsequent leaders; the degree of stability of the
membership and leadership over a period of time; and the
number and intensity of learning crises that the group has
survived" (p. 366).
In contrast to the definitions of culture, Denison
(1996) defined organization climate as: "relatively
temporary, subject to direct control, and largely limited to
those aspects of the social environment that are consciously
perceived by organizational members" (p. 624). The author
explained that while generally culture was studied utilizing
qualitative methods, climate was studied using quantitative
methods. He argued that culture and climate are merely
different interpretations, rather than completely different
phenomena, and concluded that quantitative and qualitative
methods should be integrated when studying organizational
culture. He also cautioned that researchers need to have a
clear understanding of the existing concepts and vocabulary
that an organization uses to describe its own context in
order for insights to be effective. In a meta-analysis of
19
culture, climate, and nursing outcomes, Fang (2 007) noted,
"leading scholars . . . agree that culture and climate are
related, but that they describe different levels of
abstraction" (p. 24). Organizational climate is a smaller,
visible element of organizational culture (Schein, 2004).
Additional studies and writings about culture identify
several concepts used to categorize or describe
manifestations of culture: observed behavior; group norms;
espoused values; formal philosophy, rules, and procedures;
climate; embedded skills; habits of thinking; mental models;
the spoken language; shared meanings; jargon and jokes only
understood by insiders; rituals and celebrations;
relationships and terms of engagement between relevant
employees, customers, suppliers, and competitors; formal and
informal dress codes; stories; tasks; pay systems; and daily
routines (Barney, 1986; Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Fairfield-
Sonn, 2001; Martin, 1992; Matthews, 2007; Morgan, 1997;
Schein, 2004). Hofstede et al. (1990) described four
manifestations of culture, including values, symbols,
rituals, and heroes. The authors maintained that the core
of corporate culture is the shared perceptions of practices,
visible through the symbols, heroes and rituals, as well as
20
customs, habits, traditions, and conventions. This means
that an organization's culture can only be completelyexperienced
and understood from inside the organization
(Hofstede et al., 1990).
When scholars and authors describe, analyze, or
introduce methods for changing various organizational
cultures, perhaps the most often cited definition is
Schein's (1985, 2004; e.g., Gagliardi, 1986; Hatch, 1993,
2004; Kaarst-Brown, Nicholson, von Dran, & Stanton, 2004;
Kurtz, 2003; Reiman & Oedewald, 2002; Reino, Kask, & Vadi,
2007; Ribiere & Sitar, 2003; Whetstone, 2005). Schein's
(2004) definition of culture is more dynamic than those
listed above. While they define or depict critical aspects
of culture, they are not the culture. Schein (2004) claimed
that his definition includes the above descriptions and adds
structural stability, depth, breadth, patterning, and
integration. Smircich (1983) criticized the organization
culture theories and definitions that attempt to categorize
cultures. Like Schein, Smircich argued that cultures drive
organizations, and at the deepest levels, individuals are
unaware of how their behavior and interactions are shaped by
the cultural assumptions and unspoken rules.
21
Schein's (1985) definition of culture as a dynamic
learning process is as follows:
The pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered,
or developed by a given group as it learns to cope with
its problems of external adaptation and integration—
that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relating to those
problems. (p. 9)
In 2004, Schein updated his definition to emphasize that
assumptions among group members are shared:
A pattern of shared [italics added] basic assumptions
that was learned by a group as it solved its problems
of external adaptation and internal integration, that
has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct
way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those
problems. (p. 17)
Schein also contended, "culture is a mechanism of social
control and can be the basis for explicitly manipulating
members into perceiving, thinking, and feeling in certain
ways" (p. 19).
Inherent in his definition is the idea that as groups
evolve, they face two challenges: "(1) survival, growth and
adaptation in their environment; and (2) internal
integration that permits daily functioning and the ability
to adapt and learn" (Schein, 2004, p. 18). As the
organization finds solutions to these challenges a
22
collective learning takes place, which becomes embedded in
the culture (Schein, 1985). In accordance with these
concepts, culture has been described as "a series of rules
and methods which a society or organization has evolved to
deal with the regular problems that face it" (Trompenaars &
Woolliams, 2003, p. 363).
External adaptation and survival involve such issues as
defining the organization's primary mission and strategy,
establishing concrete goals, developing the means to
accomplish those goals, measuring and monitoring progress,
and making corrections when necessary to stay aligned with
the mission and strategy. Strategy encompasses good
relationships with major stakeholders and must be feasible
within the organization's assumptions of itself and its
culture (Schein, 2004). Main Event Management's (2000)
seven ports of management model describes the major
stakeholders who make up the reputation of the organization
and whose needs must be considered by every organization if
it is going to survive and grow: customers, employees,
shareholders, vendors, community, government, and industry
(see Footnote 1, p. 3). An organization's strategy includes
guidelines for how to deal with the competing demands of
23
stakeholders while continuously adapting to external
changes.
In addition to the challenges of adapting to the
environment, Schein (2004) described several internal
integration issues, such as creating a common language,
defining group boundaries with criteria for inclusion and
exclusion, distributing power and status, developing norms
of intimacy, defining and allocating rewards and
punishments, and explaining the unexplainable. He asserted
that all groups must establish a communication system and
language that allows for the interpretation of events and
visible behaviors. "As the group matures, it invests common
words with special meanings and the assumptions of what
certain words really mean ultimately becomes one of the
deepest layers of that group's culture" (Schein, 2 004,
p. 116).
Kaarst-Brown et al. (2004) pointed out that lack of
common cultural knowledge might negatively impact
organizations because effective communication requires a
common language about the organization and underscores
shared meaning. With everyone speaking the same language,
employees are better able to understand the organization's
24
message, philosophy, strategies, and tactics (Matthews,
2007). Main Event Management's (1971; see Footnote 2,
p. 7) Model-Netics program, the basis for the culture
development efforts at the Sacramento County Airport System,
is built around the concept that a shared management
language will increase operational effectiveness. The
program is designed to jump start the process of creating a
shared, inclusive language within the organization.
Culture allows individuals to understand what they
hear, see, and feel as they experience organizational
events, actions, and objects in distinctive ways (Morgan,
1997). An organization's culture reveals itself in the
patterns of the different interpretations and enactments of
organizational members' perceptions, memories, beliefs,
experiences, and values (Martin, 1992). For example,
Sapienza 91985) reported that in two case studies, shared
beliefs influenced executive decision making. Fiol (1991)
studied corporate culture as a competitive resource and
claimed that competitive advantage comes not only by
acquiring the "right number, type, and mix of tangible
assets, but also managing the cognitive decision rules that
25
determine how people transform those assets into action
outcomes" (p. 192).
In his study of the National Park Service and Exxon
Valdez, Kurtz (2003) declared, "culture is a primary and
often-overlooked key to understanding decision-making
processes" (p. 306). A key ingredient in the link between
culture and decision making is trust, which assists with
maintaining organizational integrity (Kurtz, 2003). Covey
and Gulledge (1992) also found trust to be an important
factor in the creating of strong, high-performing cultures.
Trust requires authenticity, competence, consistency,
caring, fairness, and candor (Bennis, 1999). The general
success of decision-making principles that facilitate
solving common, recurring workplace problems reinforces
their legitimacy and subsequently, they are passed on to new
employees. These decision-making principles then guide
personnel at all levels of the organization (Kurtz, 2003).
Levels of Culture
Lakos (2002) importantly noted that there are no right
or wrong cultures, except in relation to what the
organizations want to achieve. He stated,
26
Culture is not simple. It is tempting to think about
culture as just "the way we do things here," "the rites
and rituals of the company," "the company climate,"
"the reward system," or "our basic values." These are
all manifestations of culture, but not at the level
where culture really matters. (p. 312)
Schein (2004) described three levels of culture:
artifacts, espoused values, and underlying assumptions.
Artifacts are superficial, accessible, and the visible
manifestations of culture, including such things as
language, symbols, technology, facilities, recognition and
rewards systems, dress codes, and interactions. Schultz
(1994) stated, "with the help of the culture concept, myths,
metaphors, rituals, stories, sagas, clans, heroes,
ceremonies, artifacts, world views, ethos, and aesthetics
have been brought into our understanding of organizations"
(p. 9). These and other artifacts may be easy to identify
but are difficult to interpret by outsiders and newcomers to
an organization because they may be influenced both by
deeper levels of the culture or factors outside the
organization (Cummings & Worley, 2005; Schein, 2004).
Taking Schein's (1985) discussion of artifacts a bit
further, symbols have been defined as physical
manifestations of organizations that are visible indicators
of organizational life. The connection between symbols and
27
the underlying organizational values is an important facet
in understanding an organization's culture (Morgan, 1997;
Rafaeli & Worline, 2000). For example, the symbol of money
during a budgeting process may reveal more about
organizational values than actual spending (Schein, 2004).
Espoused values or the professed culture consisting of
slogans, missing statements, and other guiding principles
represents the next level. Schein (2004)noted that while
these are the shoulds of the organization, the espoused
values do not always reflect the organization's actual
operations and activities, and there may be conflicting
interpretations. If organization members see and experience
the values leading to success, they may evolve into deeply
held beliefs and assumptions. Assumptions are the core of a
culture, deeply held and nearly impenetrable. They are
unseen, unspoken rules, and learned solutions to problems of
external adaptation and internal integration.
Gagliardi (1986) described four development phases that
result in the three levels of culture demonstrated by Schein
(2004). The first is utilizing a vision and a specific set
of beliefs to guide tasks and act as evaluation criteria.
The second is when the new behaviors based on the vision and
28
beliefs produce desired results. The third phase occurs
when the new beliefs and behaviors become the focus, rather
than the results. Gagliardi argued that the idealization of
these behaviors and beliefs becomes embedded as values in
the organization. This leads to the fourth phase, when the
value is shared unquestioningly among the organization
members. At this phase the idealized behaviors and beliefs
are now assumptions that are deeply held by the organization
(Schein, 2004). The factual evidence of why a belief or
behavior is effective is lost over time in the organization,
but the values and assumptions are passed on from one
generation to the next; Gagliardi (1986) called this
creation of organization culture the virtuous cycle. A
shared successful experience leads to the adoption of
values. These shared values result in cohesion and
organization efficiency and distinguishing the
organization's unique competence. As the organization
experiences success and is able to tackle problems utilizing
this competence, values are continuously embedded in the
culture.
An alternative to Schein's (2004) three levels of
culture is Fairfield-Sonn's (2001) four layers of corporate
29
culture model. He described artifacts as the top or surface
level. Next is cultural history or the collective internal
memory of the organization as captured in the stories,
heroes, rites and rituals, symbols, and language. The next
layer holds the organization's ideology, a credo of cultural
imperatives that guide decision making. This ideology is
not explicit in all organizations, but when it is, it can
"become highly informative and often sacred" (p. 40). The
core layer contains the values, which are deeply held and
only sometimes known and explicitly discussed. Regardless
of leaders' and members' awareness, it is these values that
power the decisions and actions of the organization.
Hatch (1993) expanded upon Schein's (1985) ideas in her
cultural dynamics model. In the model, she introduced
symbols as an additional cultural element, rather than
identifying them as artifacts, and focused primarily on the
relationships between the four elements. She labeled these
four processes as manifestations, the process between
assumptions and values; realization, the process between
values and artifacts; symbolization, the process between
artifacts and symbols; and interpretation, the process
between symbols and assumptions. Regardless of how these
30
various elements of culture are labeled, there seems to be
an agreement that the meanings attached by organization
members indicate "how work is to be done and evaluated, and
how employees are to relate to each other and to significant
others, such as customers, suppliers, and government
agencies" (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 483).
The Case for Culture: Why Should
Organizations Care?
The culture of an organization can significantly impact
an organization's performance and the quality of the
products and services it provides. Human beings tend to be
motivated to find meaning in what they do and experience
(Albrecht, 1994; Frankl, 1992; Peters & Waterman, 1982).
Employees want to know what the organization's overall goals
are and the plans to achieve them. They want opportunities
to provide input and feel that their contributions are
valued (Conner, 1993). High-performing organizations
understand this and build it into their culture (Peters &
Waterman, 1982).
Many authors and researchers have suggested that
corporate culture is a strategic resource for organizations
to manage (Kaarst-Brown et al., 2004; see also Cameron &
31
Quinn, 1999; Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Denison, 1990; Kotter &
Heskett, 1992). According to Chatman and Jehn (1994),
"popular writers and academics agree that shared
understandings of a firm's culture enhance strategy
implementation, organizational change, and positive images
of the [organization] in client's eyes" (p. 523; e.g., Deal
& Kennedy, 1982; Kotter & Heskett, 1992).
Deal and Kennedy's (1982) Corporate Cultures: The
Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life was one of the first
books to describe organizational culture and a process for
using it as a tactical advantage. The authors' research
revealed that organization performance was impacted by that
organization's values and beliefs, and they asserted that,
"culture has a major effect on the success of the business"
(p. 4). They linked high-performing cultures to betterthan-
average stock returns, increased revenues, improved net
incomes, the ability to support sustainable change, and
improved staff motivation and performance (Deal & Kennedy;
see also Beard & Zuniga, 2006). Kotter and Heskett (1992)
discovered that "corporate culture can have a significant
impact on firm's long-term economic performance" (p. 10).
Fang (2007) reported that nurse job satisfaction and
32
turnover were predicted by the organization culture and
climate in 32 studies included in a meta-analysis.
Peters and Waterman (1982) referred to a strong,
coherent culture as essential in high-performing, excellent
organizations. They defined excellence as a preponderance
of the following eight distinctive attributes: (a) "a bias
for action" (p. 13), (b) "close to the customer" (p. 14),
(c) "autonomy and entrepreneurship" (p. 14),
(d) "productivity through people" (p. 14), (e) "hands-on,
value driven" (p. 15), (f) "stick to the knitting" (p. 15),
(g) "simple form, lean staff" (p. 15), (h) "simultaneous
loose-tight properties" (p. 15). They claimed that the
stronger the culture, the clearer the principles were for
employees, providing guidance as to what they were supposed
to do in most situations. In fact, some organizations'
cultures are so strong that the employees either "buy into
their norms or get out" (p. 77).
The researchers discriminated between excellent and
poor performing companies, in that poor performing
organizations may have strong culture, but they are
dysfunctional, "focused on internal politics rather than on
the customer, or they focus on 'the numbers' rather than on
33
the product and the people who make and sell it" (Peters &
Waterman, 1982, p. 76). The intense focus on the customer
displayed by a typical excellent organization made it
"unusually sensitive to the environment and thus more able
to adapt than its competitors" (p. 78). "Cultures that can
help organizations anticipate and adapt to environmental
changes will be associated with superior performance over
long periods of time" (Kotter & Heskett, 1992, p. 44).
Ouchi (1981) declared that "development of
organizational culture can in part replace bureaucratic
methods of giving orders and closely supervising workers,
thus leading to both increased productivity and supportive
relationships at work" (p. 132). Gagliardi (1986) supported
this idea, as he found that "a common culture strengthens
cohesion, improves the ability to communicate and allows
that the spirit, rather than the letter, of the
organization's rules are observed" (p. 124).
Denison's (1990) the culture and effectiveness model
depicted the interrelationships between involvement,
adaptability, mission, and consistency, which successful
organizations incorporate into their cultures. Involvement
refers to creating a sense of ownership and responsibility
34
with high levels of employee participation. Adaptability is
the ability to perceive and respond to both the external
environment and internal customers and the capability of
restructuring behaviors and processes. Mission refers to a
shared understanding of the function and purpose of an
organization. Consistency encompasses aligning beliefs and
values with actual policies and procedures, agreement on the
meaning of symbols, and strong cultures capable of implicit
coordination and control behavior. The integrative
framework depicted an organization's point of reference as
external or internal, an organization's capacity for change
and flexibility, and a contrasting orientation toward
stability and direction. He argued that all of these
elements must be present in a successful company and the
"reconciliation of conflicting demands is the essence of an
effective organizational culture" (p. 15).
Matthews (2007) cautioned that left untended, cultures
often become negative, chaotic, scattered, and unhealthy and
rarely result in a positive, strategic asset. He affirmed
that a strong set of values is "the key for building a
focused, positive, and healthy culture" (p. 13) and that
these values then contribute to the growth and performance
35
of the organization. Higher quality candidates are
attracted to organizations with strong, well-defined values,
reducing recruitment time and costs. By utilizing the
values to assist with defining the ideal applicant,
organizations are better able to find individuals who are a
good fit. Newly hired employees find it easier to quickly
become productive because they are working with others who
share similar values. Plus, when an employee is not
behaving as expected it is "easier to identify whether it's
a performance issue or a 'fit with the values' issue"
(p. 13).
In a review of the more recent literature, Jha (2006)
compiled a list of six common cultural characteristics among
high-performing organizations, which Senge (as cited in Jha)
defined as "organizations which engage in strategic thinking
and planning to achieve high payoff results in societal,
organizational, and individual level [sic]" (p. 3). Highperforming
organizations sponsor change, demonstrating a
high level of commitment to change; exhibit a shared desire
for change based on needs assessment data and gap analysis;
share an ideal vision or blueprint for strategy formation;
mobilize commitment through buy-in of all stakeholders;
36
relentlessly pursue process improvement; and measure
progress continuously and consistently. Tracking progress
ensures the change is heading in the right direction.
Culture either supports or inhibits all of these activities.
In the case of the high-performing organizations included in
the study, culture acts as a supporting influence.
Jha (2006) described a model in which there is
alignment between strategy, culture, and implementation.
Strategy and culture were depicted as two paths, with the
culture path driving how the strategy path is implemented.
The researcher pointed out that while two organizations may
follow the same strategy path, the culture is what makes
each unique and greatly influences how the strategy is
applied in each organization. "Proactive [high-performing
organizations] manage relationships between these two paths
very well" (p. 17). Cummings and Worley (2005) stated, "a
well-conceived and well-managed organization culture,
closely linked to an effective business strategy, can mean
the difference between success and failure in today's
demanding environments" (p. 482).
In a historical overview of corporate culture and
organizational performance, Wilderom, Glunk, and Maslowski
37
(2000) pointed out that research to date has revealed a
correlation between culture and performance and that some
studies indicate that culture might predict performance, but
more empirical research is needed to establish a causal
relationship.
Leadership's Role in Culture
Development and Change
There is a strong relationship between leadership and
culture (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Schein, 1985; Trice &
Beyer, 1991). Organization leaders create, maintain, and
ultimately destroy the culture when it becomes dysfunctional
(Schein, 2004). Ribiere and Sitar (2003) defined leadership
as "setting direction, motivating, and inspiring employees"
(p. 43). Lakos (2002) stated, "the three most important
factors contributing to business success are (1) managerial
leadership and vision, (2) customer service, and (3) skilled
and motivated employees" (p. 311). Leaders teach the
vision, mission, and values; nurturing and sustaining the
change until it becomes ingrained, the values become
assumptions, and action is consistently aligned with these
ideals (Lakos, 2002; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Ribiere &
Sitar, 2003; Schein, 1985, 2004; Trice & Beyer, 1991).
38
Customer service is built on management commitment and
accepting responsibility, customer service training,
relationship development, and measuring results through
feedback obtained from customers. Skilled and motivated
employees are related to the organization's culture in terms
of teamwork, measuring performance and results, and
recognizing performance that is aligned with the vision and
values (Lakos, 2002). It is important for leaders to be
clear about their vision, values, and assumptions as
conflicted leaders may send contradictory messages (Schein,
2004).
Cummings and Worley (2005) highlighted three key roles
for executive leaders interested in implementing a
transformational change. The first was envisioning a new
orientation, setting performance standards, and generating
pride in past accomplishments and enthusiasm for the new
direction. Collins (2001) described this as a rigorous
culture, consistently holding each level of the organization
to a certain standard, especially senior leaders and
managers. Another key was to enable the proposed changes by
ensuring adequate resources are available and building an
effective management team supporting the process with new
39
management practices. Third, leaders must be energetic and
enthusiastic about the change, modeling the new behaviors
while demonstrating integrity and credibility. They must
walk the talk by enacting public displays of new values they
wish to infuse into the culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982;
Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 2004).
By choosing projects that demonstrate substantial
positive results early in the change process, leaders help
instill new cultural values and behaviors (Kotter & Heskett,
1992). Some of the most powerful mechanisms for
communicating about values and beliefs is in what the
leaders and managers do and do not measure or pay attention
to; how they react to various crises; their selection,
promotion, and recognition criteria; and through deliberate
role modeling and coaching (Kotter & Heskett, 1992;
Matthews, 2007; Ribiere & Sitar, 2003; Schein, 2004).
Schein (2004) described an example at DEC when the senior
leaders did not comment on imperfect products, cost
overruns, or delayed schedules, which the staff correctly
interpreted as innovation and creating good products being
far more important than controlling costs.
40
Middle managers play an important role in the
development and transmission of culture change. They
provide opportunities for employees to understand how their
individual efforts contribute to and improve the future of
the organization and demonstrate the vision and strategies
in their daily activities (Biggs, 2002; Kane-Urrabazo, 2006;
Valentino, 2004). Holding managers accountable through
feedback for acquiring and practicing skills aligned with
the vision and mission, being trustworthy and trusting,
empowering subordinates, delegating appropriately, being
consistent, and mentoring employees is critical for
successful cultural change (Biggs, 2002; Kane-Urrabazo,
2006).
Creating shared systems of meaning that are accepted,
internalized, and acted upon at every level is the challenge
inherent in attempting to effect a culture change (Morgan,
1997). "If the values are paper values but aren't
practiced, the employees will become discouraged, cynical,
and may lose faith in the mission, the vision—and the
leadership" (Matthews, 2007, p. 14). It is important for
leaders to not only decide the ideal culture and communicate
their values and philosophies, but also create clear
41
messages about the purpose, direction, structure,
measurement, and consequences (Matthews, 2007). The
metaphor of the Northbound Train has been used to describe
these organizational elements.
All Aboard: The Northbound Train
Transportation metaphors have been used in the
literature to describe organizational direction and
movement: whether it is Collins's (2001) gathering the
right people on the bus or Albrecht's (1994) and Main Event
Management's (2000) Northbound Train. The beauty of these
metaphors is that they provide a clear illustration for
organizational members of the vision or where the
organization is heading and the mission and strategy, which
demonstrate movement or progress toward the vision. In
organizations with strong corporate cultures, leaders
articulate the business strategy, philosophy, vision, or all
three (Kotter & Heskett, 1992).
A great organization leader's crucial task is to put
the right people in the right seats on the bus, identify and
move the wrong people off the bus, figure out where the bus
is heading, and cultivate a shared sense of responsibility
so that when people and opportunities that do not fit with
42
the values and ideals of the culture are turned away,
everyone understands why (Collins, 2001).
Langan-Fox and Tan (1997) found the bus metaphor in
place during their research of a culture change with
managers defining those who are on the bus as having adopted
the new values, behavior, and attitudes; those who have one
foot on the bus as not having fully changed their behavior;
and those who are not on the bus as reluctant to adopt the
desired culture and who were holding onto the values and
behavior associated with the old culture. The researchers
took it one step further, characterizing those who were on
the bus as either singing the song, actively and
enthusiastically promoting the adoption of new behaviors,
and those who were not.
Main Event Management (2000) described the Northbound
Train as "the idea that management programs should embody a
philosophy which is understood throughout the organization;
and which will produce a strong feeling of clear direction
and movement. Philosophy refers to the organization's
expectations, values, rewards, and objectives" (p. 31; see
Footnote 1, p. 3). They claimed that productivity increases
when all members of an organization are motivated to move in
43
the same direction. Expectations include things like
performance standards, dress codes, and hours of work. They
defined values as the organization's integrity, character,
and principles. Rewards are the way in which the
organization compensates individuals for their contributions
and includes recognition and status. The organization's
objectives are the results expected from the conducted
activities. It is management's responsibility to clearly
communicate this philosophy so everyone in the organization
can decide if they want to go where to organization plans to
go (Main Event Management, 1971; see Footnote 2, p. 7).
Albrecht (1994) utilized Main Event Movement's (1971)
model because it "conveys the image of unwavering commitment
to a particular direction . . . [and] provides a critical
success premise that leaders can understand, commit to, and
dramatize to others" (p. 20). He cautioned that while top
leaders may believe that meaning and direction are clear and
compelling, unless others can articulate it, then the
Northbound Train has not been clearly communicated. To
consistently reinforce the direction of the Northbound Train
requires developing and implementing a strategy,
infrastructure, and supporting the evolution of a healthy
44
culture in which organization members are energized to
commit to the organization's success. The Northbound Train
drives envisioning the future and planning to create that
future. Executive leaders need to be visionary, team
builders, living symbols who walk the talk and are able to
make difficult decisions in response to challenges presented
by the environment. Leaders also need to help their
employees obtain a clear picture of their contribution to
the organization's success.
Collins (2001) found that in the companies that
transformed from good to great, "there was no single
defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation,
no solitary lucky break, no wrenching revolution. Good to
great comes about by a cumulative process—step by step,
action by action, decision by decision . . . that adds up to
sustained and spectacular results" (p. 165). The bus or
Northbound Train metaphor embodies that cumulative process.
The Northbound Train concept can be inferred in Covey
and Gulledge's (1992) article on "Principle-Centered
Leadership." The authors identified organization culture as
impacting every element of quality, including the materials,
processes, systems, products, or services supplied by the
45
organization. They found that "three integrated elements
comprise the heart of every organization and its culture:
its primary purpose; its desired future; and its core
beliefs about itself and others" (p. 70). They defined
primary purpose as the mission, the long-term, broad,
overriding purpose. This is why the organization exists and
what it stands for. The desired future is defined as the
vision, the organization's destiny, and continuing
destination. They distinguished mission and vision as the
mission being more general and the vision being a more
concrete statement of the goals and future of the
organization. Core beliefs are principles that describe
fundamental truths and natural laws that govern human
behavior. Core beliefs also encompass values, or what is
important to the individuals in the organization and its
stakeholders. The authors asserted that individual
motivation, commitment, and creativity as well as
cooperative synergy, innovation, and quality are maximized
when individuals' "personal sense of mission and vision,
[their] valued principles and significant needs, are in
harmony with and are fulfilled by the organization" (p. 71).
46
Smith (2004) contended that an integral contributor to
Southwest Airlines's success is the organization's culture,
which stresses employees as the airline's "first customers"
and passengers as the second. He stated that "implementing
'quality' throughout a company is not the result of a
formalized program, but requires a cultural change in the
way daily activities are conducted" (p. 31). He also
contended that it is incumbent upon the leaders of the
organization to establish quality as a priority both through
their formal communications and their daily actions. In
other words, Southwest's Northbound Train includes a focus
on quality and a commitment to employees.
Cultural Assessments
This review now turns to cultural assessments,
highlighting several methods for diagnosing culture in an
organization. Culture is best used as a strategic resource
when leaders and members understand all the interacting
aspects. Kaarst-Brown et al. (2004) listed several triggers
for conducting an organizational assessment, including a
change in leadership after years of relative stability;
demographic changes, for example, a new generation enters
the workforce and a different skill set is needed to
47
effectively manage the organization; an organization
experiences increased expectations along with significant
budget cuts, or; "to justify their expenditures and
demonstrate high organizational performance" (p. 50). The
authors pointed out that a cultural assessment is a good
tool to help facilitate organizational transformations by
expressing a clear mission and aligning diverse
intraorganizational cultures. Assessments provide feedback
to employees and stakeholders, provide opportunities for
discussions and corrections when necessary, and allow a
forum for stories of successes to be shared.
Chatman and Jehn (1994) discovered that organizational
culture is significantly different based on industry
membership and suggested that industry context be taken into
account when analyzing an organization's culture. Schein
(2004) cautioned that during a cultural analysis, a
researcher's own reactions are in themselves artifacts to be
analyzed and understood.
Reiman and Oedewald (2002) determined that corporate
culture as a scientific concept strives to describe and
explain activity in the organization as a whole and cannot
be examined separately from other variables that affect an
48
organization's activities, such as the structure, strategy,
market orientation, and technology it uses. The authors
described culture as creating a shared common identity
through norms, which simplify and regulate social
interactions, determining how individuals ought to behave in
each situation and role.
Many methods and tools have been developed to assess an
organization's culture. Some examples include Kaplan and
Norton's Balanced Score Card (as cited in Kaarst-Brown et
al., 2004); Cameron and Quinn's (1999) Organizational
Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI), based on the competing
values framework in which they identified four types of
cultures labeled advocacy, clan, hierarchy, and market, and
each culture type is associated with different leadership
and managerial styles; and Deal and Kennedy's (1982)
integrated perspective of culture.
In Deal and Kennedy's (1982) method they demonstrated
four cultural patterns based on primary dimensions of risktaking
orientation and the speed and availability of
feedback on strategies and action. The four patterns
include the touch-guy macho culture in which rewards are
high and feedback is quick; the work hard/play hard culture
49
in which there is still rapid feedback, but much fewer risks
are taken; the bet your company culture involves more risk
and higher stakes, but it usually takes years to receive
feedback on the outcome of these decisions; and the process
culture pattern, where there is little risk taken and little
or no feedback. Individuals are focused on completing daily
activities, without necessarily connecting to a larger
organization vision or mission. They tend to have much less
innovation, but produce consistent results. Typically
governmental organizations fit into this last pattern.
Martin (1992) advocated that organizational culture
should be viewed from three perspectives in order to obtain
a bigger picture of the culture and enhance understanding of
that culture. The integration perspective looks at
organizational consistency, consensus and clarity with
respect to values, assumptions, and behaviors. The
differentiation view focuses on inconsistencies, conflict,
and contradiction of espoused values and beliefs. According
to the author, this view is "most congruent with the views
of groups that lack the power and status of top management"
(p. 84).
50
It is critical for leaders to recognize subgroups and
subcultures and find methods to align them (Schein, 2004).
"Building an effective organization is ultimately a matter
of meshing the different subcultures by encouraging the
evolution of common goals, common language, and common
procedures for solving problems" (p. 2 89). The
fragmentation perspective concentrates on ambiguity as an
essence of culture. This view postulates that individual
involvement, identity, and self-definition "fluctuates
depending on which issues are activated at a given moment"
(Martin, 1992, p. 153). Martin concluded by stating:
[It is important to adopt] a subjective, threeperspective
view of any organizational culture. At any
point in time, a few fundamental aspects of an
organization's culture will be congruent with an
Integration perspective—that is, some cultural
manifestations will be interpreted in similar ways
throughout the organization, so they appear clear and
mutually consistent. At the same time, in accord with
the Differentiation perspective, other issues will
surface as inconsistencies and will generate clear subcultural
differences. Simultaneously, in congruence
with the Fragmentation viewpoint, still other issues
will be seen as ambiguous, generating unclear
relationships among manifestations and only ephemeral
issue-specific coalitions that fail to coalesce in
either organization-wide or sub-cultural consensus.
Furthermore, individuals viewing the same cultural
context will perceive, remember, and interpret things
in different ways. (p. 168)
51
Levin (2000) proposed a framework and approach for
assessing organizational culture consisting of five windows,
including leadership, norms and practices, stories and
legends, traditions and rituals, and symbols. He suggested
that the model be used to "explore organization culture
while at the same time respecting its ill formed and complex
nature" (p. 92).
Schein (2004) described a culture assessment process to
reveal artifacts, espoused values, and hidden or underlying
assumptions that can be accomplished in a 1-day session. It
begins with obtaining leadership commitment. Once the
commitment has been established, interviews are conducted
with groups representing the culture in an appropriate
setting, which will allow them to feel safe enough to reveal
information to the interviewer. At the group meetings, the
interviewer begins by explaining the purpose of the meeting
and providing a brief introduction to the concept of
culture. Then the interviewer elicits descriptions of
artifacts or those facets of the culture that are most
visible. The interviewer then asks participants to identify
the organization's espoused values by asking, "why are you
doing what you are doing" (p. 343)? The next step involves
52
identifying shared tacit assumptions by checking to see if
the espoused values explain all the artifacts. At this
point larger groups are broken into smaller sets to identify
the assumptions that act as cultural aids and hindrances.
The groups then come back together to conduct a joint
analysis and reach consensus on the organization's
underlying assumptions.
Culture and Organizational Change: Not So
Distant Relatives
Two divergent approaches to organizational culture have
been described in the literature. The interpretive or
evolutionary approach calls for seeing culture as something
that emerges and is created by all the organization's
members. Conversely, the functionalist or architectural
view involves intentionally planning and consciously
manipulating the culture to support the organization's
interest (Belcher, 2006; Conner, 1993). The interpretive
perspective leads to better understanding of an
organization's culture while the functionalist perspective
allows for diagnosis and change (Schultz, 1994).
According to Schein (2004), "culture is to a group what
personality or character is to an individual" (p. 8). It
53
guides and constrains the behavior of group members through
shared norms and beliefs. Culture is the product of group
learning through experience and is stable until a leader
acts to change it by changing the values. Culture, then,
has a powerful influence on major change efforts (Conner,
1993). While studying the implementation of knowledge
management initiatives, Ribiere and Sitar (2003) concluded
that "organizational culture is the main barrier to success
or an important precondition" (p. 41). If the proposed
changes are not supported by the current culture, then an
organization must endeavor to alter the existing culture
(Conner, 1993). A common cause for the failure of change
initiative is not recognizing the need to transform the
culture (Deal & Kennedy, 1982).
Gagliardi (1986) focused on the relationship between
culture and change strategy. His theory identified three
types of changes: apparent, incremental, and revolutionary.
Apparent change occurs when strategies align with existing
organizational values and assumptions. Incremental culture
changes occur when new values are incorporated into the
existing culture. Revolutionary change occurs when at least
some key organizational values and assumptions are
54
incompatible with a new strategy and old symbols are
destroyed while new ones are created. This type of change
is usually initiated through the entry of outsiders,
particularly new leaders to the organization, and requires a
strategic, comprehensive approach with constant
communication and interaction with the workforce (Hatch,
2004; Katz & Miller, 2005). There are high costs associated
with revolutionary change, usually including a large-scale
defection of leaders and employees whose identities are
invested in the old culture (Gagliardi, 1986; Katz & Miller,
2005). "Members who continue to cling to the old ways are
either forced out or leave voluntarily because they no
longer feel comfortable with where the organization is
headed or how it does things" (Schein, 2004, p. 307).
Johnson (1988) studied the process of managing
strategic change in organizations and in so doing developed
the cultural web model. The center of the model, the
paradigm, is the set of beliefs and assumptions that are
commonly held throughout the organization and which play a
central role in the interpretation of environmental
information and relevant strategic responses. He contended
that the paradigm is self-preserving and self-legitimizing
55
and, therefore, resistant to rapid change, cocooned within
the web of rituals and myths, symbols, power structures,
organizational structures, control systems, and routines.
The author argued that if organizational changes are going
to affect the paradigm to effect a change in the
organization's culture, they must be demonstrated in all
aspects of the cultural web.
Denison (1990) compiled detailed case analyses of five
organizations. Each of the case study organizations
underwent a transformational change, allowing the author to
make the following conclusions: Changes in the culture
occurred in response to demands from the external
environment, the culture change was in concert with a change
in top leadership, and that culture change can be managed.
Reino et al. (2007) confirmed that "changes in organizations
do not happen for nothing—there is usually some kind of
pressure from inside or from outside of the organization.
[The] environment has to be placed in the forefront"
(p. 132).
56
Caterpillar to Butterfly: Transforming
an Organization's Culture
Attempting to change an organization's culture, its
values, beliefs, assumptions, and patterns of action is a
transformational change. Important in this process is
changing and developing supportive elements such as
performance measures, technology, and rewards, as well as
supporting a common mission and providing opportunities for
continual learning (Southern, 2005). Transforming an
organization and its culture requires significant changes in
the philosophy and values with an accompanying change in a
majority of organization members' behavior. "Not only is
the magnitude of change greater, but the change
fundamentally alters the qualitative nature of the
organization" (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 480).
Making changes in the reward and punishment system and
publicly recognizing the organization's members who
successfully engage in behaviors supporting the new culture
are some of the quickest and easiest ways to impact
organizational culture (Katz & Miller, 2005; Schein, 2004).
Conner (1993) asserted that culture change must involve a
strong commitment from the organization's leaders "and a
wide-angel view of the situation" (p. 174). This would
57
include a clearly stated vision, mission, and strategy.
This type of change requires leaders to invest a lot of time
and resources. Kaarst-Brown et al. (2004) learned that
culture change is not a quick process, but may take multiple
years to accomplish. Cummings and Worley (2005) offered six
general guidelines for instituting cultural change: "1.
Formulate a clear strategic vision. . . . 2. Display topmanagement
commitment. . . . 3. Model change at the highest
levels. . . . 4. Modify the organization to support
organizational change. . . . 5. Select and socialize
newcomers and terminate deviants. . . . 6. Develop ethical
and legal sensitivity" (p. 490).
A clear and compelling vision of the desired future
state is necessary for effective change (Hoffman, 2007).
Vision speaks to what the organization is trying to become
in the long-term future (Collins & Porras, as cited in
Fairfield-Sonn, 2001), and it helps the organization
determine its current position and future direction
(Fairfield-Sonn, 2001). Landau, Drori, and Porras (2006)
demonstrated how vision exerts its influence through the
organization's culture and can be a powerful binding force
within an organization. Ford and Pasmore (2 006) maintained
58
that organizations need individuals who are committed to a
viable, sustainable vision to survive. They defined vision
as "a statement of purpose determined by management based on
the organization's core values and beliefs that defines the
organization's identity and combines an ideal manifestation
of its direction together with a tangible prescription for
realizing its goals" (p. 147). Pettigrew (1979) commented,
"visions are not merely the stated purposes of an
organization, though they may imply such purpose, but they
also are and represent the system of beliefs and language
which give the organization texture and coherence" (p. 577).
"A powerful enough vision can transform what would otherwise
be routine and drudgery into collectively focused energy—
even sacrifice" (Bennis, 1999, p. 77).
In contrast to the virtuous cycle described earlier,
Gagliardi (1986) described a vicious cycle of culture
transformation when an organization is in denial about its
own lack of competence and lack of success is blamed on
specific individuals, groups, or unpredictable and
uncontrollable external forces. The organization spends its
energy on searching for excuses and scapegoats; efficiency,
cohesion, and confidence are eroded. The culture that held
59
the organization together must now be changed in order for
the organization to survive. The author submitted that onlyoutsiders
or newcomers to the organization can clearly
diagnose these issues and work to redefine its identity and
reconstruct its competence.
Deal and Kennedy (1982) provided several elements
necessary to transform an organization's culture, including
building consensus among major stakeholders, including
employees; engaging in two-way trust through open
communication; focusing on training and treating change as
skill building; demonstrating patience, allowing enough time
for a change to settle in; and signaling flexibility by
encouraging employees to adapt the basic change concepts to
fit their current situations.
Schein (2004) identified five principles of culture
change:
(1) Survival anxiety or guilt must be greater than
learning anxiety (p. 331). (2) Learning anxiety must
be reduced rather than increasing survival anxiety
(p. 331). (3) The change goal must be defined
correctly in terms of the specific problem you are
trying to fix, not as culture change (p. 334). (4) Old
cultural elements can be destroyed be eliminating the
people who carry those elements, but new cultural
elements can only be learned if the new behavior leads
to success and satisfaction (p. 334). (5) Culture
change is always transformative change that requires a
60
period of unlearning that is psychologically painful
(p. 335).
Sethia and Von Glinow (1985) identified four basic
patterns for aligning desired culture with reward systems:
financial, job content, career development, and status.
Kilmann's (1985) five steps for closing culture gaps
identified another approach to culture change. The stages
included (a) identify the current operating norms,
(b) conduct a needs assessment, (c) develop a list of
desired norms, (d) perform a gap analysis between the
current and desired norms, and (e) develop a plan of action
for changing behavior to be in line with the desired norms
and tracking the organization's progress. Trice and Beyer
(1985) advocated for using the following organizational
rites in culture change initiatives: rites of passage as
new members enter the organization, such as new employee
orientation or occupational training; rites of enhancement
or publicly recognizing successful organization members;
rites of degradation, which signal members who do not fit;
rites of conflict reduction, such as labor-management
committees and collective bargaining; rites of integration
such as potlucks, office picnics, and other social
activities; and rites of renewal, such as an employee
61
assistance program or team building activities. The authors
cautioned that the rites of renewal may actually act as
barriers toward achieving true culture change, as they are
intended to reinforce current social structures.
Schein's (1985) organization life cycle approach to
culture change advocated different change mechanisms be used
during an organization's founding and early growth, midlife,
and maturity. During the beginning phases of an
organization, interventions aimed at giving a sense of
identity are critical. In midlife, the focus turns toward
growth, and subcultures may emerge within the organization.
Incremental, planned organization changes are observable.
In the final stage, identification and elimination of
dysfunctional values and assumptions are crucial.
Trompenaars and Woolliams (2003) argued that cultures
are self-preserving and that culture change is a
contradiction in terms. They believed that as organizations
seek to preserve themselves, they are faced with the
challenge of balancing change with continuity as the
organization's identity continuously evolves. In their
research they found a reoccurring dilemma within
organizations: the need to change the organization's
62
culture to be convergent with a new business mission and the
need for a new business mission that is compatible with the
existing corporate culture.
They developed a new methodology for cultural
interventions, which involves envisioning the future
organization state and then assessing the current corporate
culture. Next, they outlined steps to define the
organization's core values and key purpose and then define
the ideal corporate culture, embedding the core values and
key purpose. Defining and reconciling the major business
dilemmas caused by the tensions between the envisioned
future and the key purpose and between the current and ideal
corporate cultures are the next two steps. They then
suggested that the organization diagnose the current
leadership competence to reconcile major value dilemmas and
implement the new design, with a definitive action plan.
Sathe and Davidson (2000) proposed a framework for
culture change. The bottom portion of their framework
equated Lewin's (1958) three-step model of change with
Harrison's (as cited in Sathe & Davidson, 2000)
gratification driven cultures of survival, defense, and
security. These types of cultures engage in what Argyris
63
(as cited in Sathe & Davidson, 2000) distinguished as model
I or single-loop learning organizations. The top of the
framework, or model II zone, represented value-driven
cultures of self-expression and transcendence and is
characterized by continuous learning and transformational
change. The distinction between the two zones was the
adoption of an evaluative attitude, not only in the control,
measurement, and monitoring sense, but also in determining
continued merit, worth, and significance.
A new methodology for instituting transformational
change called self-designing organizations has emerged in
recent literature. The process is dynamic and iterative
with the goal of providing organizations
with the built-in capacity to change and redesign
themselves continually as the circumstances demand.
The approach promotes organizational learning among
multiple stakeholders at all levels of the firm,
providing them with the knowledge and skills needed to
transform the organization and continually improve it.
(Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 494)
The elements in this approach include laying the foundation,
which involves acquiring knowledge about the organization
and how it functions, determining the values that will guide
the transformation process, and diagnosing the current
organization to determine what needs to be changed.
64
Organizations generate innovations and new designs utilizing
a minimum specification design concept where broad
parameters are specified but the details are left to be
tailored by the groups that will implement them. Utilizing
a continuous improvement paradigm, organizations then engage
in a cycle of implementing the designs, continuously
assessing progress, and making necessary modifications and
enhancements. There is an inherent feedback loop in this
process, where implementation and assessment activities may
lead back to designing, diagnosing, valuing, and acquiring
knowledge activities (Mohrman & Cummings, as cited in
Cummings & Worley, 2005).
You Want Us to Do What? Reducing
Resistance to Change
While determining the desired culture and creating a
plan to implement changes are necessary, without individual
changes in behavior, the culture will not change (Cameron &
Quinn, 1999). Employee engagement in organizational change
through the development of compelling reasons for the change
is imperative to their success (Katz & Miller, 2005).
An important factor in the successful implementation of
change programs is employee readiness or belief that the
65
change is necessary and that the organizations will be able
to effectively adapt to changing conditions. Change usually
requires individuals to unlearn an existing behavior and
adopt a new way of doing things, which makes creating
readiness for change a difficult process. In researching
readiness for corporate transformation, scholars found trust
in senior leadership, self-efficacy for change, and
perceived organizational support to be strong drivers, with
flexible policies and procedures also displaying a positive
association with readiness for corporate transformation
changes (Rafferty & Simmons, 2006). Jones, Jimmieson, and
Griffiths (2005) studied the role of readiness for change on
successfully implemented organizational changes. They found
that employees who accepted the need for change and
recognized the potential positive outcomes for themselves
and the organization had higher levels of success in
implementing the changes.
According to Schein (2004), resistance to change has
been attributed to fear of loss of group membership or
violating some aspect of an individual's identity. Main
Event Management's (1971) North Wind theory posited that in
order to increase acceptance of organizational changes,
66
employees must be dissatisfied with their current situation
sufficiently to produce a desire to change (see Footnote 2,
p. 7). This is consistent with Schein's (2004) description
of the culture change process, which he drew from Lewin's
(1958) unfreezing-restructuring-refreezing theory. The
unfreezing stage creates a motivation for change and,
according to Schein, must include the following three
factors: "discontinuing data which causes serious
discomfort and disequilibrium" (p. 320), connection of these
data to important goals or ideals resulting in anxiety or
guilt, and psychological safety in that the individual can
visualize the possibility of solving the problem or learning
new methods associated with the change without loss of
identity or integrity in order to reduce his or her anxiety.
Goodstein and Burke (2000) presented an example of a
culture change based on Lewin's (1958) work. They explored
three levels of organizational change: individual,
structures and systems, and climate or interpersonal style.
For each level, they described the unfreezing, movement, and
refreezing stages. The authors used a case example to
illustrate the concepts presented in the paper and noted
"resistance to change was actively managed by using
67
unfreezing strategies at all three levels" (p. 396).
Examples include training, instituting task forces comprised
of organization members from different functions with
differing levels of responsibility to coordinate significant
aspects of the change process, demonstrating openness to
feedback throughout the process, and using symbols and
rituals to indicate significant achievements.
Main Event Management (1971, see Footnote 2, p. 7)
suggested several means by which to create the desire for
change and therefore reduce anxiety, including continuous
communicating about the proposed changes, discussing the
benefits of the change, and listening to employees' concerns
regarding the change. Cummings and Worley (2005) discussed
overcoming resistance to change and offered three strategies
for dealing with resistance: empathy and support,
communication, and participation and involvement. Fugate
(2005) suggested that in order for managers to lessen the
undesirable effects of an organizational change they should
"pay attention to employees' perception of threat . . . and
focus on situation characteristics and how the organization
relates to its employees . . . [and that] communication is
critical" (11 6) .
68
Maurer (n.d.) advocated for active listening and
meaningful dialogue when employees are having a
physiological and emotional reaction to change. Employees'
support for change efforts increase as the employee becomes
more familiar with the change. This stresses the importance
of communication and effective staff training to ensure
employee acceptance of and understanding for the reasons
behind the changes being implemented (Preston, 2004; Weber &
Weber, 2001).
A Distinctive Case: Culture and
Government Entities
Cummings and Worley (2005) noted that competing
political, social, and economic forces are just some of the
environmental elements confronting public-sector
organizations, such as federal, state, and local
governments. As of late, government agencies are commonly
called upon to act in a business-like manner and be more
citizen-focused. "Public-sector organizations face
increasingly complex and significant challenges in
responding to citizens, crafting public policy, and
providing public services" (p. 596). Government entities
are attempting to become more productive, effective, and
69
efficient while continuously facing shrinking resources.
Privatizing public services and utilizing new technology are
some of the methods being utilized to conquer these
challenges.
Individuals choosing to work in public entities are
often driven by their strong belief that their work will
benefit the public, and they identify with the public
interest (Job, Stout, & Smith, 2007). Chatman and Jehn
(1994) stated that service sector organizations, including
government entities, "rely heavily on social control
mechanisms, such as cultural values, to direct members'
actions" (p. 524). Rainey and Steinbauer (1999) developed a
theory of effective government organizations, which includes
a strong, mission-oriented organizational culture. Other
elements in their theory are leadership, mission valence,
task design, responsive autonomy, relationships with
external stakeholders, and the financial, human, and
technological resources appropriate to accomplish their
mission. All of these factors impact public service
motivation, mission motivation, and task motivation, which
influence agency effectiveness. They define organization
effectiveness by the agency's performance in discharging the
70
administrative and operational functions aligned with the
mission. Mission valence refers to how attractive or
abhorrent an agency's mission is to individuals. This is
important both in attracting highly qualified candidates as
well as employees' motivation to perform in a highly
effective and efficient manner.
Cummings and Worley (2005) provided an overview of
current literature on the differences between public and
private sector organizations, highlighting four primary
distinctions: "values and structure, the multiplicity of
decision makers, stakeholder diversity and access, and the
extent of intergovernmental relationships" (p. 597).
Public sector fundamental values, for the most part,
are to respond to public wants and needs while governing
toward the greater good, rather than focusing on profit and
competitive advantage. Government entities are structured
such that there is a political domain consisting of elected
and politically appointed officials and the administrative
domain to whom the implementation of programs and statutes
is delegated. Differing values between the political and
administrative domains often occur, causing tension between
71
politicians and the administrators who are mandated to run
an efficient organization.
In government entities, the public expects full access
to all decision makers, thus the process is broader with
more dispersed accountability than in private sector firms.
In governments, different agencies and departments are
responsible for different steps in the decision-making
process, making it sometimes extremely difficult to identify
who is responsible for what decision and accountable for
which products and services. As for stakeholders,
government organizations conduct business in open public
meetings, which involves "greater variety of individuals and
groups and with different and often mutually exclusive sets
of interests, reward structures, and values" (Golembiewski,
as cited in Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 600). Public
records, public notices, and the Internet provide interested
parties with full access to public documents, plans,
reports, and other information. In contrast, access to
private sector organization information is much more
restricted. It is important to note that in public sector
organizations employees are considered stakeholders with a
legal right to form unions and be represented on matters
72
concerning working conditions, hours, and wages. As opposed
to private sector firms, government is made up of
interrelated agencies and organizations providing differing
services to the same customers. Often federal, state, and
local government organizations share power, responsibility,
and sometimes resources providing issues involving
coordination of services.
Bureaucratic organizations tend to operate under a
command-and-control atmosphere, advocating precise and
narrowly drawn rules with the threat of consequences for
noncompliance (Job et al., 2007). The resulting culture is
based on fear, which stifles innovation and creativity
(Kanter, 1989). Command and control as a leadership style
has outlived its usefulness and is incapable of bringing
about transformative change (Albrecht, 1994; Anderson,
2002). Reducing fear and nurturing the courage to try new
approaches to work requires senior leaders to provide
support and lead by example (Job et al., 2007).
Leadership is a critical component for successful
public agencies, particularly relative to changing the
culture of government organizations (for a review of
relevant literature, see Rainey & Steinbauer, 1999).
7
Successful culture change in the public sector has been
linked to a customer service focused vision and leadership,
efforts to connect staff to the customer, developing clear
and measurable objectives, and spending resources and time
on professional development and training activities
(Bennington & Cummane, 1997). Sminia and Van Nistelrooij
(2006) found that a simultaneous approach of organizational
development and strategic management in a public sector
entity was possible; however, the "commitment, trust and
confidence that were built up initially oozed away after .
. management had intervened and started working in a topdown
manner" (p. 110). Their findings suggested that
culture change is necessary to ensure organizational change
are fully implemented and that executive leaders must
present opportunities for employee participation in the
change process to generate commitment. Reverting back to
the command-and-control leadership style eroded the progres
the organization had made.
Public agencies are pressured due to diminishing
resources to work more efficiently and effectively and,
therefore, must transform bureaucratic organizations into
customer focused, adaptive, and streamlined enterprises.
74
These changes are possible, but there are several
constraints that need to be taken into account when
implementing changes, differing goals among constituents and
stakeholders and frequent changes in political leadership as
examples (Rusaw, 2007). Kuechler and Edberg (2002)
conducted a study documenting the implementation of a new
software enabling process coupled with an organizational
structure and culture change at the Nevada Department of
Motor Vehicles. The researchers claimed "from an
organizational culture perspective, the transition from a
bureaucratic, program-driven organization to a customer
centered service organization has been successfully
completed" (p. 238).
Methods for implementing change in government
organizations include means-end or strategic planning;
incremental or minor, short-term changes focused on visible
results; pluralistic models of change when all stakeholders
in a particular issue or concern are gathered together to
facilitate change through dialogue and concerted action.
This involves changing multiple mental models to affect the
good of the whole, as opposed to the small changes
characteristic of incremental strategies. Another method
75
involves teaching individuals key skills and competencies to
prepare them to manage both present job-related problems as
well as providing opportunities for future development
(Rusaw, 2007).
Fairfield-Sonn (1993) identified three overlapping
critical issues for effective bureaucratic cultural change:
vision, addressing internal or external threats, and
implementation. The researcher demonstrated that it is the
primary responsibility of the organization's leaders to
create a guiding view of the new goals that show respect for
the existing culture. Careful assessment of the current
political climate within the organization as well as the
capacity and demands created by the organization's existing
technology will impact whether the vision leads to an
evolutionary or revolutionary change. Leaders must instill
and reward behaviors that are aligned with the new vision.
The author compared these concepts with Lewin's (1958)
unfreeze, change, refreeze model, stating it "is as true for
bureaucratic cultural change efforts as it is with any other
attempt to alter the functioning of an organization, but one
that occurs in several interconnected phases and multiple
levels" (p. 52). "[Government] organizations with
76
forward-thinking leaders strongly committed to
institutionalizing change are more likely to succeed at
achieving their goals" (Koehler & Thompson, 2006, p. 4).
Summary
This literature review has defined and described
several concepts related to organizational culture.
Leadership's role in the development, transformation, and
particularly setting the direction and demonstrating
movement ala the Northbound Train were explored. The
various tools and methods for assessing and transforming
cultures and the special circumstances surrounding
government cultures were investigated.
General observations can be made from this review.
First, culture is not a static phenomenon. It is a dynamic
process with the organization impacted by both its external
and internal environments. Second, there is yet to be
consensus on the specific terminology used to define or
describe organizational cultures; however, a common language
is an important factor. Third, culture change is necessary
for organizations to adapt to changing circumstances. This
is particularly true for government organizations. Fourth,
in all types of organizations, private and public,
77
leadership is the key to successfully implementing a culture
transformation. Fifth, there are many tools and assessment
methods available for describing, diagnosing, changing, and
evaluating cultures. Some are proprietary and require
special licensing and training, while others are fully
described in the literature. Each of these tools contains
similar elements. In determining a method to use,
organizations should consider their particular situation and
industrial context to determine which would be most
appropriate. Sixth, reducing resistance to organizational
transformation requires employee engagement, training, and
participation by seeking employee input. Regular
communication about what is changing as well as why, how,
who, where, and when the changes will take place is also
critical. Seventh, public agencies are changing from
compliance driven to being customer service orientated.
Government agencies are unique in that they are constrained
by procedures and processes not present in the private
sector. Changing the culture of a government entity takes
diligence, planning, and time.
The following chapters offer a description of a
government entity that, upon the appointment of a new
78
director, initiated a continuous transformative change in
its culture. Consistent with this literature review, this
change was necessitated by changes in the operating
environment to improve organizational performance. The
director, utilizing the Northbound Train metaphor, set the
direction and proceeded to move toward a new vision of being
The Airports of Choice for Northern California.