Building a business program in Romania: creating and sustaining change

Building a Business Program in Romania:

Creating and Sustaining Change

In critiquing the peer-reviewed article Building a Business Program in Romania: Creating and Sustaining Change (Franz, 2004). The analysis centered on attempts to implement nine change management initiatives at the Romanian university, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu (LBUS). The analysis of the failure of five of the nine initiatives underscores how complex change management is in a nation who has gone through turmoil and significant political change over time (Hatum, Pettigrew, Michelini, 2010). The study also shows how the most fundamental aspects of successful change management strategies, including the development of autonomy, mastery and purpose in each of the initiatives is critical for their success (Kirca, Hult, 2009). In evaluating the four initiatives that were successful, the emergence of leadership strengths that enabled greater levels of tasks ownership were present (Hatum, Pettigrew, Michelini, 2010). To the extent that leadership of initiative were transformational in scope was the extent to which autonomy, mastery and purpose were present, which is consistent with findings from comparable studies (Kirca, Hult, 2009) including those in Romania (Poor, Plesoianu, 2010).

Article Analysis and Critique

The failure of the majority of initiatives is complex and not attributable to just one factor. Instead, it is the combination of factors that led to the failure of the majority of the change management initiatives, all predicated on a major cultural disconnect at the planning and implementation stages of each initiative. After reading and analyzing the article, it becomes apparent that there is a systemic disconnect between the U.S.-based and Romanian leaders in charge of the initiatives. One of the most prevalent disconnects, while indirectly mentioned, is the vast difference in how time, and urgency are perceived between the cultures. This is consistent with many empirical studies of why change management programs fail across cultural boundaries, as time is perceived completely differently across each culture globally (Mitsis, Foley, 2009).

After analyzing each of the failures of change management initiatives that are ironically part of a business management program, it becomes clear that the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Model should have been used prior to the programs being planned and executed. The Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Model is comprised of five dimensions is comprised of the Personal Distance Index (PDI), Individuality (IDV), Masculinity Index (MAS), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) and propensity for long-term orientation (LTO) (Hofstede, Crae, 2004). Using these five dimensions to complete an analysis of the differences in the U.S. And Romanian cultures would have given the teams much greater insights into how to better plan and executive the programs with greater effectiveness. The Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Model is particularly relevant to a critique of this article and its background research, as it takes into account the major differences in cultural values. These differences are most noticeable in the rushed approach the Romanians complain the Americans are taking to the implementation of the programs, a sure sign of the disconnect in cultural values between the two institutions working to create the programs (Kirca, Hult, 2009). Using the Cultural Dimensions Model to analyze the differences in cultures, the sources of potential disconnect can be seen in the wide variation in PDI (Power Distance Index), Individuality (IDV), Uncertainty Avoidance (UAI) and long-term orientation (LTO). This graphic is derived using the interactive charting feature on Geert Hofstede's website, which is available to anyone online.

Source: http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_dimensions.php?culture1=95&culture2=72#compare

On cultural level alone there are major disconnects between the U.S. And Romanian teams. The greatest difference is on the IDV dimension, which shows how the U.S. culture values initiative and individuality much more than their Romanian counterparts. This explains the major disconnect in how time and sense of urgency is responsible for the majority of change management initiatives failing (Kirca, Hult, 2009). The article concludes with a model the author defines in Appendix a, yet this does not go far enough to explain and overcome the major differences in cultural mindsets and cultures as is evident from the Hofstede analysis. The Programs and Initiatives table shows the results of each program, and when correlated back to the Hofstede Model the variation in IDV and UAI become clear. Those projects that require tight synchronization on these values are the ones that failed.