The culture as a target of change

Organizational culture is increasingly gaining attention as a target of organizational change. Writers of organizational literature traditionally focused mostly on culture as a stable force that resists change, moving only through management intervention. In a review of organizational change literature, Hatch (2004) concluded that most of the organizational change literature emphasizes the benefits of changing organizational culture to enhance performance by pitting stability against managerial demands for adaptability. However, classic writings from sociology and anthropology offer a different perspective that organizational change practitioners are starting to notice.

Rather than being just a force of resistance, sociologists and anthropologists have documented interacting forces of stability and change in culture, noting the evolution and dynamics of culture. Early anthropologists of cultural dynamics understood the importance of considering change in relation to stability while noting that different cultures move at different rates. Hatch (2004) proposes that the sociological and anthropological perspectives suggest two important keys for unlocking organizational dynamics. First, just as change is a constant force in humanity, change is also constant in organizational cultures. Second, just as different parts of human culture change at different rates, parts of organizational culture change while other parts remain stable. Stability and change simultaneously exist in organizational culture.

Another important lesson from anthropology is that change comes from within and from outside the culture. Observing the introduction of European culture into Africa, Malinouski (1948 [in Hatch, 2004]) argued that change among institutions is a reciprocal process, with each culture satisfying needs in different ways with different techniques using the same resources. This exchange process is important for organizational researchers because it explains how cultural change is not simply the consequence of adding to or mixing cultures, but a complex reaction that creates autonomous change leading to new cultural realities. Sevon (1966 [in Hatch, 2004]) uses “variation” to explain the process that creates conditions for stability and change to interact simultaneously in a culture. Variation is “repetition with a difference” (46). Culture stabilizes behavior that accommodates change.

Change from outside

Hatch (2004) observes that change from outside happens through diffusion, acculturation, and selective borrowing. Diffusion and acculturation describe the processes of cultural borrowing. Diffusion considers cultural transmission has occurred; acculturation considers cultural transmission as it is happening. Borrowing from other cultures is universal and usually occurs when a dominant group is influenced by the cultures they rule. Borrowing is a selective process; people borrow practices that seem worthwhile and discard those that seem impractical.

Herskovitzs (in Hatch, 2004) argued that cultural contact “is never a process of addition” (177); instead borrowing is a process that focuses on and reinterprets the rewarding aspects of a different culture, merging them with the existing culture to create something new. In short, cultures change through a negotiation process of conflict and compromise to build divergent meanings and behaviors.

This perspective provides insight into two important areas to consider as tools for facilitating change: focus and reinterpretation. Cultures may intensify focus on specific areas of change, which leaders can tap to facilitate additional change. Reinterpretation involves applying old meaning to new forms or giving new meaning to old forms. Re-contextualization is a similar concept that explains how cultures give new meaning to borrowed artifacts to minimize disruptions to the existing cultural pattern.

Change from inside

Enculturation explains how cultures remain stable and how cultures transfer symbols, practices, and meanings from one generation to the next (Hatch, 2004). In human development, enculturation involves conditioning to fundamentals and absorbing ethics, aesthetics, and group conventions. As humans reach maturity they have sufficient conditioning to behave within the limits of cultural boundaries and can make decisions about new forms of behavior presented by cultural change.

Herskovitz (1964 in Hatch) argued that enculturation leads to stability but can lead to a change in mature adults. Adults can learn, relearn, and unlearn culture by reconditioning responses to new stimuli and re-enculturating themselves. Late enculturation is a conscious process that creates an opportunity to change by examining alternatives for new ways of thinking and behaving. Organizational theorists call this socialization, meaning how new members of an organization make sense of the environment and learn its culture so they can adapt to its values, norms, and practices. Hatch says that this adaptation can be mutual. Just as individual peculiarities can be the source of cultural innovation, socialization can be a process by which individuals influence change while maintaining stability. Cultural innovation through socialization occurs partly because different people react differently to the same situation, and those different reactions can induce change (Barnett, 1953, in Hatch, 2004).

Cultural dynamics model

Hatch (2004) proposed a dynamic circular pattern in culture in which the individual and group mutually interact in existing cultural patterns while creating cultural patterns [See Figure 3]. Following Herskovits’s (1948, in Hatch 2004) circular notion about cultural processes supporting stability and change, Hatch reformulates Shein’s AssumptionsàValuesàArtifacts framework of organizational culture by redrawing the model from a symbolic-interpretive perspective and introducing dynamism into organizational culture theory.

Considering the relationship among cultural elements, Hatch’s (2004) cultural dynamics model proposes that culture consists of four interrelated and dynamic processes: manifestation, realization, symbolization, and interpretation. The reformulated model places assumptions, values, artifacts, and symbols in a wheeled framework, showing the relationships between the elements and the processes, as follows:

Manifestation processes. Manifestation is the process by which essence reveals itself, usually through the senses, cognition, or emotion. In the cultural dynamics model, assumptions appear in the perception, thought, and emotions of members.

Realization processes. Realization is the process by which something becomes real. In the cultural dynamics model, realization processes are proactive and reactive.

Symbolizing processes. A symbol is something that represents a conscious or unconscious association with a broader meaning. Logos, slogans, stories, actions, and metaphors serve as common symbols in an organization.

Interpretation processes. Interpretation is the process by which members apply meaning to an experience. The cultural dynamics framework puts symbolization experiences in context by giving members a reference for constructing meaning.

Integrating the model with the cultural focus concept provides a better understanding of management’s role in cultural dynamics by helping managers intensify efforts on readily changeable areas of focus. The processes in Hatch’s (2004) cultural dynamics model are constant, so changes should begin at the stage that best represents the desired depth of change. Placing the manager within the organizational culture suggests that the power of leadership lies with sensitivity to the symbolic meaning of being a leader. A leader's ability to influence a culture depends on his or her “knowledge of and relationship with the culture” (2004, p. 207).

Hatch’s (2004) cultural dynamics model suggests a different perspective on leadership in intervention processes. Regardless of what a leader does and how a leader intervenes, culture is a dynamic process in which stability and change are in constant motion. Contrary to traditional intervention approaches that put the leader at the top of the intervention process, this perspective recognizes that the leader is a participant, not the pinnacle, of the process. In addition, a dynamic model of cultural change suggests that stability and change cannot be predicted, they can only be interpreted and explained after the fact.

Cultural interventions

Force field analysis (1947; 1951) and Theory E / Theory O (Beer & Nohria, 2000) provide examples of common cultural intervention methods.

Force field analysis.

Lewin (1947; 1951) proposed force field analysis as a tool for distinguishing between changeable and unchangeable variables in the situation and then focusing efforts on the changeable. Force field analysis assumes that social behavior is the product of two opposing forces. One side strives to maintain the status quo, an equilibrium state maintained by individual resistance and group conformity. The other side pushes for change toward the desired state. Lewin proposed that driving change in individual and social behavior is a function of reducing the forces maintaining the status quo while strengthening the forces for change. This process has three basic steps: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Unfreezing involves shaking up the status quo by increasing the driving forces that direct behavior away from the status quo while decreasing the restraining forces that attempt to maintain the status quo. With the status quo disrupted, change agents can “move” behavior and processes toward the desired state. Finally, once the behavior is at the desired state, change agents “refreeze” the new behavior to maintain it over time.

Through the unfreeze-move-refreeze framework, episodic change becomes a foundation of a planned process that organizations and people use to recognize and close the gap between the way things are and the way things should be. For example, John P. Kotter (1996) expanded Lewin’s model to provide a practical eight-step plan that organizations use to transform and control people, processes, and markets, as follows: (a) To “unfreeze” an organization: establish a sense of urgency; create a guiding coalition; develop a shared vision and strategy, and; communicate the change vision. (b) To “move” an organization: empower broad-based action by eliminating obstacles, changing systems, and encouraging risk; generate short-term wins, and; consolidate gains, and produce more change. (c) To “refreeze” an organization: anchor new approaches in the culture; monitor progress, and; adjust the vision as required.

Theory E and Theory O.

Beer & Nohria (2000) expose duality in OD perspectives by proposing Theory E and Theory O, change theories that represent bipolar values, goals, and actions. With shareholder value as the key measurement of organizational success, Theory E is a “hard” approach to change that uses drastic economic restructuring and incentives to drive radical change in the tangible structures of the organization. Theory E is a quick way to drive a turnaround through a radical transformation at the expense of long-term damage to organizational culture. With the key measurement being the organization’s ability to learn, Theory O is a “soft” approach to change that focuses on building organizational viability by addressing beliefs and social relationships while enhancing individual and organizational learning and continuous improvement.

Theory O preserves organizational culture but can slow change processes to the point that the organization has difficulty adapting, while loyalty and commitment to employees can prevent managers from making necessary business decisions. Although Theory E and Theory O represent bipolar approaches to change, Beer and Nohria (2000) believe they are not mutually exclusive. Organizations can risk fomenting distrust by jumping between cutthroat and nurturing behaviors; however, they argue, “Companies that effectively combine both approaches to change can reap big payoffs in profitability and productivity” (p. 131).

Action research.

Traditional change theory tends to assume that intervention starts with a diagnosis. Schein (1995) argues that separating the diagnosis from the intervention is a “fundamental error” because the act of diagnosing a situation changes the situation. Building on Lewin’s proposal that “one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it,” Schein argues that change agents should assume that “everything we do with a client system is an intervention… unless we intervene, we will not learn what some of the essential dynamics of the system really are” (p. 65). In other words, understanding and changing the system are interrelated acts.

This explains fundamental assumptions of Action Research, an intervention approach developed by Kurt Lewin (1946) that combines action orientation and research orientation to drive meaningful change.

• Action orientation means to change attitudes and behavior. Action orientation is important because the goal is to drive change, which involves diagnosing problems and implementing interventions to solve those problems.
• Research orientation means to test a theory. The change process is research-oriented because change agents apply a theoretical framework they think is applicable to the situation. This process involves diagnosing problems and evaluating how the theory works in practice.

In addition to being a tool for group interventions, Action Research is considered a systems approach to change because it recognizes that organizations have interdependent parts (McShane & Von Glinow, 2005). This makes change interventions a participative process that engages organizational members as collaborators in the diagnosis, intervention, and stabilization of the culture.

To diagnose the need for change, the organization gathers and analyzes data, and determines intervention objectives. The organization introduces the intervention by implementing the change strategy. Finally, the organization evaluates and stabilizes the change to determine the effectiveness of the change and refreeze at the new state (Lewin, 1946; McShane & Von Glinow, 2005).

Cooperrider and Suresh (1987) point out that action research has two key criticisms: negative focus and mutual exclusivity.

Regarding negative focus, action research starts with problems. Problems represent the negative aspects of group dynamics while ignoring the positive opportunities and potentials of the group. Appreciative Inquiry attempts to resolve this problem by focusing change efforts on opportunities and potential.

Regarding mutual exclusivity, the “action” in action theory is consulting; the “research” in action research is theory development. Critics assert that these are mutually exclusive concepts; the practitioner can do one but not the other. Cooperrider and Suresh said that Lewin avoided this conflict by being vague about how action theory could be simultaneously interpretive and creative. In practice, the consulting side of action research has proved dominant.