Cultural corporate change and organizational transformation

Change may be difficult for a company, but necessary if the company is to survive. This is not only in the case of mergers and acquisitions, but also in regards to organizational change in general. An effective leader is one who is able to harness and negotiate this change so that the company is able to deal with it and survive.

Our worlds, as Morgan observed, is construed according to metaphor. The way we see things is the way we react. 'Change' can possess various contexts towards people, but the word is generally seen as threatening. Most people simply do not enjoy change since they prefer to live with security. In fact, O'Toole lists 30 causes of resistance to change which, according to him, explain why change is such a difficult element to welcome and accept (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Organizations are a macrocosm of the world of people -- they are a configuration of individuals - and, therefore, change is as threatening to them on the macro scale as it is to the individual on the micro.

Two perspectives of organizational change

The theory of metaphors can equally well be applied to how 'change itself is defined. According to Weick and Quinn (1996) organizational change can be perceived in two ways:

1. Episodic change where there is a unfreeze-transition-refreeze sequence, and

2. Continuous change which follows the freeze-rebalance-unfreeze sequence.

"The contrast between episodic and continuous change reflects differences in the perspective of the observer" (362).

Much depends on the perspective of the observer. From a distance when participants of the organization perceive the flow of events that constitute the life flow of their organization, they may see what appears to be repetitive action interspersed with inertia, and the occasional spurt of change. These observers would define their organization as experiencing episodic change. On the other hand, participants zoning closer would discern patterns of continuous ongoing adjustment and adaptation and the frequent small changes and gradations introduced by the peak of revolutionary change. In this way, the change is frequent and continuous, and this later category of observers would perceive their organization as having undergone frequent and continuous organizational change.

Change is not always seen as a good thing. It is often thought that organizational change would not have been necessary had organizations done their job correctly, thus change occurs in the context of some sort of failure as Czarniawska and Joerges (1996, quoted by Weick & Quinn, 1999) put it: "First there were losses, then there was a plan of change, and then there was an implementation, which led to unexpected results" (365). Occurrence following failure is one metaphor of change, but by employing other metaphors of change, one can perceive change in varying manners. "Change," declaims Ford and Ford (1994), "is a phenomenon of time. It is the way people talk about the event in which something appears to become, or turn into, something else where the 'something else' is seen as a result or outcome."

Change can be seen from various perspectives. From the reference of the organization, change can be termed as differences in "how an organization functions, who its members and leaders are, what form it takes, or how it allocates its resources" ((Weick & Quinn, 1999, 373). When seen from the leader's perspective, or from employees of that organization who are involved in or planning the change, change can be referenced as "a set of behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance through the alteration of organizational members' on the job behaviors" (ibid.).

Change is generally thought of as a three step linear process namely unfreeze, change, and refreeze where: (a) difficulties occur to the organization (or individual) that disturbs it from its torpor, (b) revolutionary change occurs and, (c) after a period of time the change has settled and the organization returns to its previous torpid situation.

Benefit of change for company

This entire discussion of change reminds me of Habermas' theory. It seems to me that transferring Habermas' little known theses of enlightenment as an unfinished product can help us see change in a more positive light and can also provide an organization with insights about how to achieve effective and welcomed change.

Weber had seen society as moving towards greater meaninglessness and irrationality as it becomes more capitalist and technologically oriented. Habermas disagreed; adopting a Hegelian dialectical perspective, he was more enthused about social destiny seeing it as one based on change and therefore still able to arouse something of the spunky, courageous spirit that had, for instance, characterized the ancient Greeks. Distinguishing between the 'logic' and the 'development' of progression within society, he perceived society as representing a dialectical wrestle between two opposing forces which he variously termed the Lifeworld and the System. Each benefited the other and consequented in a mutual spurt towards growth.

The Lifeworld stand for the social dimension which is intrinsically moderated by language and communicative action, and which is free-wheeling, unstructured, and unpredictable. This, according to Habermas, represents the 'symbolic' reproduction of society. The 'material' reproduction, on the other hand -- the System -- is comprised of the rationalized format of capitalized market and state entities. These two forces - Lifeworld and Systems -- pit one against the other in an unending thrust to, on the one hand the world or organization that tends to remain in a rationalized situation, and on the other desacralization that occurs through Lifeworld impinging on System. It is this dialectical twist -- the unceasing conflict between Lifeworld and System -- that prompts Habermas to perceived enlightenment as being an unfinished project, for it is in this way that change occurs and that Lifeworld prevents human reality from becoming too stagnant and unfulfilled.

Transferring this to the organizational level (and it can be easily transferred to the individual level too), it is the tendency of organizations to resist change. Becoming increasingly rationalized, unpredictably and the tension of uncertainty (or the chaos and 'messiness' of the Lifeworld is disturbing and frightening. However, with the Lifeworld is change and change can mean growth. Without the 'messiness' of the Lifeworld, the organization can sink into stagnation and, consequently, decline. It needs the openness of communication, the existence of unpredictably, the chaos of the social world that disregards rules -- in other words it thrives (even though it may not want it) on surprise and non-structure, for only in this way can an organization move to 'enlightenment' and grow as it changes.

The Change Process

Change can be dealt with in various ways, depending on metaphor and then again depending on perspective. Employing Dunphy's (1996) five properties of change can, I suggest, best teach an organization how to perceive and direct its change. The five properties of change according to Dunphy are the following:

1. A basic metaphor of the nature of the organization, where one perceives the organization in some manner of speaking and applies a name to its activity.

2. An analytical framework to understand the organizational change process -- again depending on how one perceives it, whether as threatening element, as necessary element, or as hopeful, beneficial element to growth of the organization;

3. One forms an ideal model of an effectively functioning organization and then structures the change situation to reflect that ideal model so that one creates and specifies both a direction for the change (optimistic and positive of course) and rules (and values) to enable the change and consequences of that change to chart that positive trajectory

4. An intervention theory that, best created with members of the organization, specifies when, where and how to move organization as a unit and members of organization as individuals closer to the ideal and;

5. A definition of the role of the change agent -- what the change will ideally achieve in the life of the organization and how it will ideally affect individual of that organization.

In all of this, the leader plays a major role in charting this course.

The Leader

The leader is the prime mover who creates and directs the change. Macy and Izumi (1993) list 60 ways in which a leader can effect organizational change. 60 ways will exceed the length of this essay. They can be encapsulated in Rorty's (1989) observation in that "a talent for speaking differently rather than for arguing well, is the chief instrument of cultural change" (Weick & Quinn, 1999, 370), and this is what the leader has to essentially possess in more ways than one. One way that this manifest itself is by the leader gently but persistently presenting the change as just that: a change that will occur to and for the good of the organization (Bartunek (1993). What is also important, as Schein mentions, is the ability of a good leader to look outside and beyond the corporate culture and to understand the other from within their particular cultural narrative.

In that sense, Wilkoff (1995, as cited by Weick & Quinn, 1999) reports on her attempts to intervene between two companies that had fused together in an unsuccessful mergence. The actors of the various companies persistently disagreed due to cultural differences in mindset, whereupon the consultant, recognizing this, changed her strategy. She began meeting with each actor separately and explaining the other's performance from his or her particular cultural assumptions. In this way, once each had understood the other, could both meet together and the mergence actually become effective. In a similar way, says Schein, can change be best implemented when the leader is willing and able to looking into, work with, and attempt to understand other cultural patterns. History is change. Change necessitates working with and understanding the heterogeneity of cultures that constitute the world. A leader who does this becomes flexible to the change dynamic and can best enable his organization to follow suit.

Sun Tzu's Art of War (2001) is a popular treatise used in business school and corporations alike. Managers comparing themselves to generals, and their corporations to the army (and competition to enemy) have used his recommendations in various ways. One of these is the rule of "doing it better" that Sun Tzu insists issues from the element of surprise that comes through change.

Two elements exist in war: expected and unexpected techniques. The latter involve change, are innovative but are simultaneously disturbing, since anything new or original, is by nature, disturbing. Expected innovative techniques insist Sun Tzu, however, give you the element of surprise, inevitably hoisting you in a higher position than your competitor.

Sun Tzu exhorts the general to seek change, to seek innovation. The executive reading this book, exhorts his corporation likewise: Change can be the key to your success, since it keeps your competitor guessing and provides you with an appealing characteristic of innovation.

Woolworth Ltd. overcame its challenges of the 1990s and acquired unprecedented success by focusing on change, insistence on flexibility with times, and emphasis that innovation must be encouraged from lower echelons upwards. (Hollingsworth, 1990). Using a bottoms-up approach, creativity was sought from the lowest level of the hierarchy, and change was emphasized and affirmed.

Sun Tzu speaks about the army and to great purpose since a general has to deal with change on a regular basis. A successful general knows how to live with change and succeeds in having his army adjust to the change. Doing so makes them all the more efficient and triumphant in their struggle.

A great example of just such a general was Marion (Crawford, Smithsonian.com), a little known revolutionary hero, otherwise called 'Swamp Fox' due to his ability in creating and adjusting to change, and leading his subordinates to do likewise. Marion adopted techniques deliberately different to conventional ones, he helped his soldiers adapt to and embrace his introduction of change so that they perceived it as innovative and welcoming, and Marion, consequently, became greatly beloved as one of the extraordinary heroes of the American Revolution.

Marion's rules of war were acquired from the successes and failures of contemporaries of his time. He employed rapid movement and surprise, struck in the early morning, and generated a comradeship with his troops where he habituated them to his strategies of surprise and got them to expect, accept, and embrace the unaccepted.

In fact, the element of surprise and the manner in which Marion used change to his advantage gained Marion his nickname. In 1780, a British Lieutenant Marion's troops for seven hours, and finally gave up cursing, "as for this damned old fox, the Devil himself, could not a tribute to his embrace of, and subsequent benefiting from the element of change.

The Four Stages of Change

The leader may be in charge of and harnessing the change, but, as recent analysis shows, attempts and phenomena of 'unfreezing' actually start earlier than was previously thought (Weick & Quinn, 1996) Prochaska and colleagues, for instance, proposed that people at both a micro and macro level when exposed to change the situation are at one of the four stages: precontemplation, contemplation, action, and maintenance. Precontemplators are still in the torpid stage when all seems well and they are unaware of the need to change. Contemplators -- level number two -- are aware that there is a problem, are thinking about change, but still loathe accepting it and disinclined from making or embracing that change. Action -- which most see as the change stage itself - represents that stage in which people accept and go along with the change in some way or other, whilst with maintenance, the participants involved (or on a macro level the organization) has absorbed the change into its system and retains it. It is now at a different level than what it was before.

What is most interesting and valuable from this research is that the action stage demonstrates that most people who have actually reached that stage relapse three or four times before they actually absorb the change in their system and maintain it. This is where the leader steps in, and endeavors to make the change more palatable and appealing so that it can be long lasting and be retained.

Beer et al. (quoted by Weick and Quinn, 1996) disagreed with this linear process and instead proposed that change was rather a spiral patterns of contemplation, action, and relapse followed again by replicated turns of this contemplation, action, and relapse, each of these turns somewhat weakened until the final stage of maintenance was achieved. This too, any leader or organization attempting to implement and come to grips with change will find an invaluable insight. It may explain, the difficulty of their employees in accepting potential change situation, and it may prepare them to potential results of the situation. Knowing this, they can best scheme and implement their strategy.

It has been further found that relapse is more common in discrete episodic change than in seemingly continuous change -- again leaders can present the change series as being continuous to promote this positive perspective - and that 85% of the relapses return to the stage of contemplation rather than to the stage of precontemplation (Weick & Quinn, 1996). Most interesting to the leader, is that "people are changing before we can observe any alterations in their behavior" (373), which suggests that the leader should never be frustrated that his interventions and plans are not working; they may well be even though she is not yet seeing results. What this also implies, as encouragement to the leader, is that people are closer to taking action once they have terminated their replicated spiral of contemplative stage.

How the Leader affects Metaphors of Change

Change, as said, can be seen in various ways, and the leader -- or prime mover - is greatly influential in the eventual change metaphor that is adopted.

Ideally, change can be seen as "improvisation, translation, and learning" (Weick and Quinn, 1996) and if this is the attitude that the leader himself adopts towards the change, the organization is more likely to simulate and follow suit.

It is the leader that crafts the narrative often through using war stories as a metaphor, i.e. analogies to the effect that stress or discouragement or fear (and so forth) is an enemy; we have to fight by being happy, courageous, spunky, persistent (etc.). By thus reinterpreting and relabeling, or, in other words, by adopting a positive, glowing metaphor, employees can be encouraged to traverse the stages of changes in an easier speedier manner.

Other narratives that can be employed are by reframing the change situation as an advantageous, growth-filled opportunity (as was mentioned with Habermas in the beginning). Presenting it as an opportunity, - and with the leader himself integrating this message -- may convert the perspective of participants. As example of this, Thachankary (1992), in Weick & Quinn (1999), presents the situation of intense but unproductive meetings that are rewritten as an image that affirms the value of 'corporative ness' and of community inspired by these meetings. In this way, change-imbued situations are presented as phenomena of improvisation, translation and learning, where the change can be colleted into a less threatening, more ideal manner of perceiving it, and is then translated in that way so that it becomes a learning situation for individual and corporate growth and transforms from fear-filled entity to confidence-promoting circumstance.

As Weick and Quinn (1996) note: "People change to a new position because they are attracted to it, drawn to it, inspired by it." (380). When change is presented and exemplified by the leader in this very attractive manner (as improvisation, translation, and learning), employees will be more eager to embrace the change, particularly if they are seen as being in 'charge' of the 'fight', controlling it, and that victory depends on them.

Returning to the concept of the leader, Kotter (1996) asks whether change is a phenomenon that the leader manages, or a phenomenon that she leads. This therein is the difference between a 'manager' and 'leader': "to manage change is to tell people what to do. But to lead change is show people how to be" (380). Leaders have to show change rather than mange it. Most managers seem to consider that change happens to an organization and its employees. They forget, argues Quinn (1996), that it is the leader, by example, who attracts this change. And it has to be by example, because change -- positive change -- can only occur when employees are attracted to it.