research question: change management theories - studenttheses

Master Thesis Cand.merc HRM

1


Synnøve Holgersen Mentor: Stine Staffeldt (external)

Research question: Change Management Theories - is there an optimal way of

implementing change in an organisation, and how can this be seen in an intercultural perspective?

Problemformulering: Endringsledelsesteorier - finnes det en optimal måte å implementere

endring i en organisasjon, og hvordan blir dette sett på i et interkulturelt perspektiv?

Copenhagen Business School Total number of pages: 79

January, 2011


2

ABSTRACT

This text presents the different sciences related to change management – rationalism,

functionalism and social constructivism, and with the basis of these three fundamentals, one

has tried to identify ways that change can be implemented in an organisation. The aspect of

culture has further been brought in to perspective, by looking at how theories of change and

organisational development (OD) can be seen and implemented in the different national

cultures. Are there some models which are better suited in some cultures, or is it one model

that in general could be used in all organisations and / or cultures?

First one look at the reasons for change, where this may be due to planned change, as well as

change as a coincidence, where one in the text focus on implementing change as a planned

change. The basis of the analysis and discussion are functionalism and Kotter’s eight step

model, together with the new and not quite finished research area of social constructivism and

the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model. The two different models are compared, and in the

social constructivism one say that humans think, feel and see the things they want to see –

hence some things are being taken into consideration in a process of change, while others are

left out. This contributes to the fact that there is not only one reality, and that in the

communities of practices, together one create meaning within the organisation. In a social

constructivism approach this means that change does not happen and make sense until the

change is negotiated and meaningful within the communities of practice. Functionalism looks

at both the classic rational approach and the visionary approach, which emphasise on a more

analytic approach; whereas Kotter’s eight step model and a linear approach are the basis for

the implementation of change (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

The models used for comparison are Organisational Development (OD) and Total Quality

Management (TQM), where an OD definition and model is used as material for the analysis

and discussion. Further the TQM and quality programmes are themes which may be used as

an example and key determinants for implementing change, with focus on quality throughout

the change process. These are both models where a common goal is for the organisations to

be more competitive, and where a strategic change could benefit the entire company by

simple steps, concerning both a quality concept and a definition characteristic which departs

substantially from a traditional approach.


3

When relating these different theories of change and culture, one seek to explore if there is a

best possible and optimal way for an organisation to handle and implement change at every

level of the organisation, both on a short and long term basis. The main models of Kotter and

the AI model, together with OD and TQM are reviewed and when looking at the different

evaluations in this paper, it is difficult to see and explore which is the most optimal for

implementing change, and consequently one may say that there is not only one way of doing

it, or one culture that is better suited compared to the others. Suggestions are made when

comparing change models and different cultural features, and evaluations are made, both

concerning the comparison of the two main models, but also the comparisons related to OD

and TQM, as well as involving the cultural aspect. One may presume that there does not exist

only one optimal model for change, however,based on the discussion and analysis one have

found, that this is something that depends on the entire situation as a whole. Something that

works in one situation does not necessarily work in another organisation, and for that matter,

another country. The findings of the text suggest that the choice of change model should be

situational, where the organisation’s history, management style and what kind of change one

has to deal with are important aspects to consider, before starting the process of change

(Guldbrandsen, 2010). To have knowledge about this and the existing composition of cultures

within the organisation, could be an important advice for the future, because then, one may be

able to know and recognise what to do in specific situations involving change.


4

Contents ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5

2. METHOD ........................................................................................................................ 6

2.1. Research question: ................................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Research design and ontology ................................................................................................. 7

2.3. The three ”isms” ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1. Rationalism ...................................................................................................................... 9

2.3.2. Functionalism ................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.3. Social constructivism..................................................................................................... 12

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 15

3.1. Types of change – what is the reason for change? ................................................................ 15

3.1.1. Planned change .............................................................................................................. 15

3.1.2. Change as lifecycle ........................................................................................................ 16

3.1.3. Change as evolution ...................................................................................................... 17

3.1.4. Change as dialectic process and power battle ............................................................... 19

3.1.5. Change as contingency / coincidence ............................................................................ 20

3.1.6. Different models – competitive or complementary? ..................................................... 22

3.2. The two main models ............................................................................................................ 24

3.2.1. Kotter’s eight step model ............................................................................................... 24

3.2.2. The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model ............................................................................ 27

3.2.3. Change Management ..................................................................................................... 28

3.3. Comparative models .............................................................................................................. 31

3.3.1. Organisation Development and Change ........................................................................ 31

3.3.2. Total Quality Management (TQM) ............................................................................... 37

3.4. National cultures and demand of management ...................................................................... 46

3.4.1. The four dimensions ...................................................................................................... 48

3.4.2. Practical differences of culture - a Norwegian perspective. .......................................... 54

4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 61

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 75

5.1. Further research ..................................................................................................................... 77

6. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 78

6.1. Books and articles: ................................................................................................................ 78

6.2. Internet sources: .................................................................................................................... 79


5

1. INTRODUCTION

Change can vary in complexity, from introducing relatively simple changes into a small work

group to transforming most features of the total organisation, and although change

management differs across situations, it is important to address some points that need to be

performed when managing any kind of organisational change. Aspects like motivating

change, creating a vision, developing political support, managing the transition and sustaining

momentum, are some of the theories that needs be taken into consideration when

implementing change (Cummins & Huse, 1989). The culture is seen as “the invisible web” in

a society, and it is a prerequisite for theories to be valid and secure that behaviours such as

managerial behaviours are effective, when managing change. As long as we are “in” the

culture, there is a tendency where one may have troubles with discovering it, or taking it for

granted. However if one try to manage and organise after one’s own well-known principles in

an unknown and different social and cultural context, one may experience that some of the

fundamentals one relies on, no longer are valid, and that one needs to open up one’s mind and

use the differences to something that could benefit the entire organisation.

I start by looking at the sciences of change management, which both Kotter’s eight step model

and the situational Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model are mentioned and based upon.

Rationalism is mentioned, but the main argument involves mostly functionalism and the

theory of social constructivism. These are the sciences that the theories are based upon. The

Further in the theoretical framework I examine the different reasons for change, whereas this

is seen as the basis for understanding change, before one begin exploring the different change

models and their applications. The main models are, as mentioned above, Kotter’s eight step

model and the AI model. The models which they are compared with are the OD model and

TQM. I finalize my theoretical framework with including culture and the four cultural

dimensions of Hofstede, which also are the basis for analysis and discussion, together with the

change theories mentioned above. The analysis looks at different change theories and

different international cultures, to seek to find a correlation between change theories and

cultures, and a possible optimal solution for implementing change.


6

2. METHOD

Social science tries to understand and explain phenomenon’s that occurs. To give rich, well-

informed and well-substantiated descriptions is one of the responsibilities of social science, as

well as explaining and trying to understand how the human world is put together. The basis

for science is the causal belief; meaning that one thing leads to another. The quantitative and

qualitative approaches do not demand strong causal coherence. It explains the probability of a

phenomenon occurring, and that some degree of regularity is present. The aim is to look for

tendencies, regularities or correlations (Skog, 2005). The object of this chapter is to

substantiate the chosen methods, and give an account for the rational, functional and social

constructivist assumptions and theories, together with the more ontological assumptions and

the theoretical basis and paradigm pragmatic constructivism.

First one may consider some general qualitative and quantitative theoretical assumptions,

where these quantitative and qualitative ontological assumptions vary. Quantitative

researchers isolate and define variables and variable categories to frame hypotheses.

Hypotheses are often produced before the data is collected, and are then tested upon the data.

Variables are the means of the analysis. It is often pictured like a researcher looking through a

narrow lens, at a specific set of variables (Brannen, 1992). Quantitative method is according

to Jacobsen (2005) and Skog (2005) mainly based on a deductive approach. Data collection is

based on survey where different alternatives for an answer are given. The goal is to perform

an affective statistical analysis, and present the results in enumerative analysis. The purpose is

to find frequencies, and how many and what kind of people in general have the characteristic

which has been found to exist in the sample population (Brannen, 1992). The object is to

make connections or to reveal regularities between variables.

With qualitative research it is the concepts and categories that matter. One of the purposes is

to test theory, and participate in analytic induction. Brannen claims that analytic induction,

which often begins without a clear hypothesis, can be combined with deductive methods, and

the testing of hypothesis. Qualitative researchers may begin with defining general concepts.

During the process of the research program the definitions may change. Variables constitute

the product or outcome. The research is described as looking through a wide lens, searching

for patterns of inter-relationships between a former unspecified set of concepts (Ibid.).

Qualitative method collects information often of a more interpretive and descriptive character.


7

Interviews, group interviews, observation and documentary research are the main approaches

(Blaikie, 2000; Jacobsen, 2005). Qualitative research can also be descriptive.

“Enumerative and analytic induction have different starting points therefore: enumerative

induction abstracts by generalizing whereas analytic induction generalizes by abstracting”

(Brannen, 1992, p. 7).

Several schools discuss whether designs and methods should be mixed, combined or

triangulated (Blaikie, 2000; Creswell, 1994; Ellefsen, 1998; Jacobsen, 2004; Morgan 1998).

Traditionally quantitative and qualitative research is seen to belong to different paradigms. It

is assumed to be a connection between epistemology, theory and method.

2.1. Research question: Change Management Theories – is there an optimal way of implementing change in an

organisation, and how can this be seen in a intercultural perspective?

2.2. Research design and ontology The object of this study is to complete an analysis of different change management theories

compared to international cultures, and to look at how cultural similarities and differences

relates to and accepts the different terms of change in an organisation. By answering this

research question, our contribution is placed within the literature concerning voices in

organisational fields, especially considering theories of change management and culture.

The paper is based on secondary data and literature, where other researchers and authors have

made some distinctions of the different theories described in the paper. It is worth mentioning

that not all of their theories and aspect have been used in this paper, only the terms that were

seen as preferable in relation to the argumentations of the text. I have used Guldbrandsen`s

paper ”Den fjerde isme” as a basis or fundamental for the theories concerning the

implementation of change, the discussion and analysis, and also the summary and conclusion

of this paper. The main arguments are based upon functionalism and social constructivism,

whereas John Paul Kotter`s eight step model is one of the models, which are seen as a tool to

understand and implement change. The models’ counterpart is the model within social

constructivism and Appreciative Inquiry, the AI model. In comparison with these two models

I have used OD and TQM, where Almaraz (1994) and French and Bell Jr. (1999) are used as

empirical sources. The reason for choosing OD is the substantially difference from the


8

traditional approach to implementing change, whereas this could be seen more similar to both

Kotter`s model and the AI model. The TQM model or initiative is chosen due to wanting to

explore further the aspect of quality as a way of implementing change. One can also mention

that both models, OD and TQM, contains some perspectives on the behaviour of humans,

when implementing change, and this is something that I, personally. Think is an aspect that is

interesting, but also a crucial determinant to consider when handling change. Further I have

used literature from known authors like Schein and Hofstede, where both of them are well

known voices within cultural theory. I also choose to take an Norwegian perspective in the

evaluations concerning cultures, and this is due to my own nationality, but also in the sense of

looking at the Scandinavian countries like a unity, when comparing it to the other continents,

countries and cultures that are mentioned in that section. In general one can say that most of

the mentioned literature used in the paper, including books and articles – except for

Guldbrandsen, are part of the curriculum in the master programme “Change Management” at

the University of Stavanger, Norway, this is also one of the reasons for my choice of

literature, however only to some degree. The following will represent the ontological

assumptions used in this paper, whereas pragmatic constructivism is the practice paradigm

involved.

In this paper a paradigm is taken to mean, a set of ontological and scientific assumptions that

make up a framework within which knowledge can be obtained, acted upon, evaluated, and

developed. It follows that a paradigm includes the basic presumptions made about the nature

of our environment and our place within it. They are based on what we consider to be truth

and knowledge and reflect on how these are obtained and used (Nørreklit, Nørreklit &

Mitchell, 2010). Not only do they reflect on how people behave and why they do so, but also

why a particular behaviour is appropriate. A paradigm can be implicit or explicit. It is widely

recognized that validity is determined by inter-relationships between the paradigmatic

components of ontology and epistemology where certain ontological assumptions imply a

particular epistemology with the task to safeguard the validity of our knowledge. In particular,

the modern founder of the concept of scientific paradigm, Kuhn, points to a paradigm as a

disciplinary matrix involving:

Some general metaphysical assumptions about the composition of the field under

consideration;

Some general laws, principles and concepts for analyzing questions and presenting the


9

results;

Shared values of what forms the qualities of a scientific theory that are applied in the

choice of competing theories/paradigms; and

An exemplary result including artefact paradigms as the ideal norm to be transferable to

other closely related problem areas.

Pragmatic constructivism is based on the thesis that four dimensions of reality must be

integrated in the actor-world relation if the construct is to be successful as a basis for

undertaking actions. These four dimensions are facts, possibilities, values and

communication. The argument for the inclusion of these four dimensions and the relationships

among them is as follows. Facts are necessary as a basis of action, whereas facts alone are

insufficient. If there are no possibilities, there can be no action and if one has no possibilities

then one is dead. The possibilities must be grounded in the facts, if not they are fictional.

Further, possibilities create room for choice, but they only function if there is a reason to

choose and prefer one possibility to the other, hence if the actor has values and the values lie

within the range of one’s possibilities. Finally, the integration of facts, possibilities and value

must be expressed in communication in order to enable action in a social setting. If the

integration of facts, possibilities, value and communication dissolves, then the ability to act

intentionally breaks down because the distinction between true and false in the pragmatic

sense, for example between successful and unsuccessful action, breaks down (Ibid.).

Further the paper will represent the quantitative and qualitative ontological assumptions,

which the literature relies on.

2.3. The three ”isms”

2.3.1. Rationalism The management theory and practice within change management has its roots in three schools

or isms, where rationalism is the first one. Rationalism has its source from the metaphorical

picture of an organisation as a goal-seeking machine and it the goal is to be as effective as

possible considered the problem and the different solutions to the problem (Guldbrandsen,

2010). To execute this, the management has some structural and administrative

measurements;

1. Organisational structure, which defines the different unit’s purposes, references and

authority.


10

2. Job descriptions, which connects the tasks and authority of the actual positions

3. Process descriptions, which describe the best way to execute the work

4. Explicit performance criteria, which makes the goals clear for the employees

5. Recruitment procedures ensuring the proper qualifications

6. Control, sanctions and reward, which ensures that structure, rules and procedures are

being delivered

The rationalists recognize that there are irrationalities in the organisation, but these are meant

to be reduced as much as possible because they are in the way of the optimum, which have

been created by the existing order and structure. The aspect of rationalism can be expressed in

the way rationalism relates to culture, where culture and cultural leadership are not very

widespread. Instead they use norms to explain the irrationality that exist in the organisation

and the term normative control to bring the irrationality under control and the means to

control this is done by classic bureaucratic management and control (Ibid.).

The rationalist saw a change as something disturbing to the organisation and therefore the

changes should be executed as fast as possible to recreate stability and efficiency. This should

be done through a ”top-down” access and change management were, due to this, not seen as

an important management discipline, but more as an opportunity to those management

disciplines, which are connected to the ”normal” managerial optimization.

Later, a tendency which was called “planned change” rose within rationalism and behind this

idea one can seek to find that a change should be planned and executed by a change agent,

which often should be the senior manager or an external consultant. The change agents task is

to secure that the necessary changes are carried out, which means that the organisation needs

to adapt to the environmental changes outside the organisation (Ibid).

The theorist that contributed most to the development of the rationalistic view on planned

change was Kurt Lewin. Lewin says that change occurs, when there appears a disturbance in

the tension which ensures organisational stability and when the powers that ”wants” the

change are stronger than the powers that seeks to maintain the already existing state. In the

process of change, the change agent’s first task is to ensure that the change can happen by

staggering the existing equilibrium, and the second assignment is to take initiative to ensure

that the activities that are being done due to the change can ensure re-freezing around a new

equilibrium. This is stated in Lewin’s tree-stage model for planned change and this model

contradicts some of the other models for change management, where Lewin’s models is


11

empirically grounded from World War 2, where he did a survey for the U.S. Government.

Even though Lewin’s model is more than 50 years old, can the linear and one-dimensional

change strategy be seen as base for much organisational theory. For example the tree-phase

model is seen as soundboard for Kotter’s eight step model, which we will look closer at later

in the text. In organisational practice the models for planned change are still very popular

today and many management practices take their impetus in rationalistic thoughts, where the

change agent is seen as the most important actor for recreating order, with a ”top-down”

strategy, with structure, culture and systems as the primary areas of effort (Ibid.).

The second ”ism” is functionalism and has its roots in the system theories and is based upon

the perception of that an organisation is a living organism, which needs to take care of four

important functions to survive: Ensure access to the necessary resources from the

environment - adaption, formulate and follow goals, coordinate activities – integration, and

also maintain and adapt the mindset through the culture. To maintain, develop and coordinate

the four important aspects described above the functionalism has developed a new

management discipline; Strategic management, which is described as a process that consist of

two separated steps: The formulation of the strategy and the implementation of the strategy.

Within functionalism there are two schools which have different permissions related to

strategy and change management and the two will be further addresses below (Ibid.).

2.3.2. Functionalism There are two approaches / models within functionalism, whereas the first one to be described

is the classic rational approach and the second one, which is to be described later, is the

visionary / ideological approach to strategic management (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

The classic rational approach to strategic management consists of a set of steps, where the

first thing is to make some assumptions about the future and the strengths and weaknesses of

the organisation, where a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis

could be a suggestion. The next step is to set the goals and to describe the actions to which the

goals are reached. After this the plan is tested for its acceptability – can it generate the wanted

results? How will stakeholders and competitors react and does the strategy march the cultures,

or does the culture also need to change? Finally the plan is tested for how it fits to the

situation; Product portfolio (lifecycles), financial resources and cash flow, in addition to the

human resources (competencies). The result of the process is a written plan for the future,

where success demands effective implementation (Ibid.). John P. Kotter wrote the book

”Leading Change”, where he presents the eight step model, which is a model that need to be


12

executed in the right order to succeed with the implementation of the change. A second model

is the visionary / ideological approach to strategic management, where this model seeks to be

inspired by ”best practice” from other organisations, and with this create an attractive vision

for the future, which can be the driving force in the organisations strategic development. We

will address further attention to these models in the theoretical framework section below.

2.3.3. Social constructivism The third and last ”ism” is social constructivism which is a practice field that is still under

research and development and due to this is not entirely solid cast yet. One of the most

important messages in this way of thinking is that humans do often look at things differently;

we have a different focus and / or goals. We therefore, consciously or unconsciously, choose

to see something and to overlook something else (Guldbrandsen, 2010). Secondly we

experience what we see differently, we have our own attitude, moral and ethic, which is a part

of the way we see and experience things the way we do. This term within the social

constructivism is called selective perception and leads us to the first important point: In an

organisation there is not only one reality. The second important point in this theory is:

Together we create our reality. The reality and the truth are ”born” through dialogue and

negotiation together with those that we attach importance and meaning to. Within the theories

of management one often use the term communities of practice, when referring to the network

we use when we constructs reality. This is where we together create meaning within the

organisation. In a social constructivism approach this means that change does not happen and

make sense until the change is negotiated and meaningful within the communities of practice.

First, the consequences is that the change should be facilitated and adapted as a process,

where all are involved, and where there is room for meaning creation in the communities of

practice. Second, there is also a consequence related to that it is hard to predict the outcome of

a change, which again challenges the process of change as a planned change, which consist of

a number of limited steps. A third principal within the social constructivism is: The positive

expectations of refugee’s magical power - the thought of organisations as heliostats tropical

systems that grows with the sun, just as plants. Thus, when there is a change it is important

that the energy is directed towards the positive expectations to the future, instead of directing

it towards the problems in the past. Therefore, with function in the terminology from the

functionalism approach, this means that one in the process of change should be based on the

vision, rather than ”the burning platform”. Further we will describe these to aspect within a

social constructivism approach to change. ”The burning platform” gives a negative emotional

reaction, where feelings such as fear, guilt, uncertainty, anger, powerlessness and


13

hopelessness are prominent. This leads to defensive actions, whereas people start blaming

each other, or they do nothing at all, and / or thirdly they could start fighting against it and

resist to the change. However, the visions – ”the burning wish”, contributes with positive

feelings to the process of change. This could be feelings like trust, curiosity, happiness,

optimism and openness. These feeling will again create actions like creativity, commitment

and involvement, and vigour (Ibid.).

The fundamentals that the social constructivism rests on challenges the whole fundamental of

the modernism and functionalisms approach to change management, and there exist some

critique from the social constructivism towards the classic approach to change management.

The change is not a deviation, but a state and the consequence is that complex models cannot

handle the turbulence we face. At the same time the fundamental attitude (disorder) is

contributing to create a mood, where change is considered something unpleasant, which needs

to be over and done with as fast as possible. According to Kotter the source is to get the

humans to change their behaviour and behind this definition there is an assumption that some

people do the change and use power, while others are being changed and feel powerlessness.

The social constructivism approach says that resistance to change appears when one feel

powerless and the negative feelings are further enhance when dealing with the problems in the

past and there is no room for meaning creation within the communities of practice. If the

change also relies on simple cause and effect relationships and does not reflect the complexity

that characterizes social systems, the meaning creation will have very narrow circumstances

and this could easily result in distrust towards the management and resistance. The

organisational world is not linear, but circular – everything affects everything. The phase

section relies on a thought that it is possible to separate the analysis, recognition, plan and

influence. This idea is rejected within the social constructivism – where life is lived forwards,

but acknowledged backwards. We learn as we act, and learning leads to new insights and new

actions. Learning and action cannot be separated – ”the phases” should be more floating and

contain many reflection and reorientation points. The meaning of ”resistance to change” is an

important aspect within this and from a social constructivism view the classic approach to this

is quite critical. The problem is that the basic assumption, disregard from the things

mentioned above, prevents a more nuanced view on the changes that are being executed. If

the employees express doubt of parts of the change due to for example that the management

have not considered the what type of information the employees possess and that there is a

chance or risk that they will not be heard – they are immediately stamped as ” opponents”.


14

The problem becomes amplified when the employees have experienced this psychological

mindset and further in the future does no longer want to contribute with their knowledge and

information, because they have learned that it is wrong to be negative. The consequences of

this are repressed emotions, frustration and apathy, which confirms the leader saying”

resistance to change” is the biggest challenge when it comes to change management. From a

social constructivism approach one can say that the assumptions that the classic approach

relies on when considering change management, creates a self-reinforced negative spiral,

whereas we experience, that the biggest challenge in relation to change is to handle the

employees resistance, the problem is really within ourselves. The resistance appears due to

the way we think and act i relation the change. When we think of ”top-down”, ”the burning

platform”, and linear process, we create resistance to change (Ibid.) Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

is a model that has been more and more widespread as a method within social constructivism,

which can be used in several classic management tasks – including change management

(Ibid.).


15

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

UNDERSTANDING CHANGE

3.1. Types of change – what is the reason for change? One can find four different models for change that represents fundamental different sequences

of happenings and causal mechanisms which explains how and why change occurs (Jacobsen,

2004).

3.1.1. Planned change The first model is a teleological model which shows planned change. Planned change occurs

because people see some problems they want to solve. Organisations change because people

want a change to reach a new goal (Ibid.). This model have some requirements, where the

most important one is the one we can call intentional. This means that there are certain

intensions or goals behind the process of change. A group of people have analyzed the

problems, new possible solutions and then taken actions to solve the given challenges (Ibid.).

It can be illustrated as follows:

Phase 1: Diagnosis: recognition of need for a change – experienced problems / possibilities

Phase 2: Solution: descriptions of a future ideal state of mind for the organisation and a plan

to further execution

Phase 3: Execution of planned action – interventions in the organisation

Phase 4: Evaluation of planned actions and stabilization of the new ”improved” state

Figure 3.1.1: The four central phases in a planned change process (Jacobsen, 2004, pp.20)

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4


16

One can call this an analytic and rational approach to change, which means that the change is

based on a perception that there is a need for change, problems have been analyzed and

strategies been made for improving and give solutions to the foreseen problems. In phase 1

one recognize these problems, whereas this could be a decrease in the overall sales, conflict

between major group internally in the organisation or failing customer loyalty (Ibid.). In

phase 2, one tries to find the reason for the problems. Why have the overall sale decreased

from one period to another? What are the reasons for the internal conflicts that have appeared

the last couple of years? Typical activities related to this could be surveys, interviews and

focus groups, often organized by external consultants or scientists. Phase 3 is where the plan

is being settled with a time limit, prioritized activities and key personnel for each activity. The

activities are being executed in form of teaching, advice from experts or work groups. At the

end in phase 4 one evaluates the activities that have been executed. Has the overall sale

increased? Are the internal conflicts sorted? Can we see an increase in customer loyalty? If

the change is seen as successful, one needs to stabilize or institutionalize the change, which

means that one wants to get the support from the employees and the management to enhance

the change. This is often done by adapting the payments systems, structures and procedures to

the changes that have been made (Ibid.).

This way of thinking is strongly used in western cultures, but it is not the only way a change

in an organisation can happen. One major feature with social organisations is that they are

undetermined, which means that it is not possible to say what is going to happen, even in near

future, so planned change does not always lead to the results one wishes to achieve, which

leads us to the other models (Ibid.).

3.1.2. Change as lifecycle In this model change can happen due to intentional choices, but there is a perception that

organisations develop in a special and a pre-determined way. The changes follow a particular

development pattern, so that every organisation, from birth, has an underlying form, logic,

program or code which regulates the process of change, and moves the units from one start

point to a finished form. This means that changes happen because every organisation goes

through a set of phases in their ”life” (Ibid.). Henry Mintzberg says that when organisations

are established – born – they often have a simple structure, they are small and consist of a few

number of people. Once time goes by the organisation grows larger and more people start

working there, a need for more formalities arises and this often means that the organisation


17

develop a more sophisticated system for surveillance and control, through more extended

hierarchies. As the organisation increases in both size and number of people, it creates

problems due to the divided structure, and the result is an organisation that has difficulties

coordinating the different divisions and keeping it together. Mintzberg suggests in these

situations, the possibilities to make a structure matrix, where one could integrate the different

division by creating more lateral connections where several units work together for example

in projects. Mintzberg is describing organisations that move through a set of phases of life due

to growth, where an increase in size implies a need for change in the structure. Age and size

are the two most significant elements which provokes an organisational change (Ibid.).

Larry Greiner suggests that organisations that grows, always goes through five phases, where

there always is a possibility that the organisation makes it from one phase to another. The

phases are the creativity phase, management phase, delegation phase, coordination phase and

cooperation phase. In between every one of these phases one find different crises, which are

the reason for all the different phases the organisation has to go through. In this approach

there is always room for what we call human choices and if an organisation can`t go from one

phase to another it will die. The point of action is that when an organisation reaches a certain

size, there are few choices concerning the planned change to get to the next phase – the

alternatives are in some way given. This can be seen as a sort of planned change, the only

different is that there are fewer options to choose in this model, but if the organisation wants

to make it to the next level it is crucial that the right decisions are made at the right time

according to the situation and also in relation to where the organisation is situated (Ibid.).

This model of change has been criticized because of its deterministic nature, which means

that the development of the organisation follows a permanent pattern. Empirical research has

also questioned the necessity of the different phases. Many of today`s organisations are

bureaucracies, while others manage to grow without establishing any bureaucratic or

divisional organisation forms. Change from one form to another could also often happen

where an organisation skips some phases or goes back to a previous phase, so even if this

model, together with the planned change model, can explain a lot of the reason for change,

there is still a need for other models (Ibid.).

3.1.3. Change as evolution This model focuses on change as a natural development, a perspective which gets its

inspiration from theories on evolution amongst living organisms. The model focuses on


18

change on a population level and a central term in this is organisational fields – which means

an area or marked where a set of organisations compete for limited resources. This could be

banks or insurance companies that rivals over customers, or universities which competes over

students (Ibid.). In large companies there are powers that resist to the effort of change and

there are certain features by an organisations environment which resist change and makes sure

that stability is maintained (ibid.). Three aspects in the evolutionary model are central;

variation, selection and maintenance. This can be illustrated in the figure below.

Figure 3.1.3: Central elements in evolutionary change (Jacobsen, 2004, pp. 26).

The idea behind this model is that only the organisation that are best adapted or fit to their

environment, will make it against hard competition, others who fail to adapt will die and be

exchanged with other and new organisations. This could happen with establishment of new

small organisations in a small part of the initial field and that this steals what’s left of the

market. In this perspective change happens due to changes in the mix of populations of

organisations, but still there is no consistent rule on who lives and who don`t. As a part of

some fields there are strong ideals on how organisations should look like and behave. Some

organisations are connected to certain values and it is difficult to exchange these fundamental

institutions with new ones, because of their knowledge, seniority and depth. The process of

change is seen, in this situation, as a natural selection where the environment and

surroundings decides which organisations who ”lives” and which ”dies”. This model is not far

from what we call ”planned change”, because those who wants to be the best, has to make

New "spicies" arrives

Variation Selection Maintenance


19

adjustments along the way to adapt to its surroundings, to create a balance between the

demands of the environment and organisation form (Ibid.). The powers behind these types of

changes are, at first, the competition of scarce resources, but secondly new theories have

suggested that the competition is also about legitimacy. In some fields there are norms which

are based on how an organisation should look like, be established and behave. The

organisations that symbolize these messages out to its customer and clients in a best possible

way will also get the most support from its environments. In this way it creates a pressure,

which is called “isomorphic”, where the organisations are getting more and more similar

trying to satisfy and fulfil the dominating values and perception of its surroundings. Change

then often happen like imitation – where organisation imitates other organisations that are

considered as “the best”. Either way, organisational changes are seen as a reflection of the

changes which exists in the environments. When preferences, utility curves and perceptions

on what’s hot and what’s not changes, organisations also change and there exist an

interpretation that the process of change is a change for something better or together with the

relations to society (Ibid.).

The evolutionary model could also exist, whereas ”outside” changes transfers into

organisations, and the change in the organisation reflects the changes in the environment.

Overall changes in this model adapts to changes in the environment, where the central aspect

is that the changes are not something that the organisation can control (Ibid.).

3.1.4. Change as dialectic process and power battle This model gets its inspiration from the fact that the development of the society happens

through a confrontation between different parties. Change is a result of a power battle

between different interests, where a hypothesis meets an anti hypothesis and ends up as

something new - a synthesis. This can be seen at an organisational level, where the change in

the organisation happens because problems are confronted, bases of power are activated and

the part that “wins” changes the organisation after their interests. Politics and power battles,

becomes the reason for change, and the result depends on the conflicts and their solutions. In

a given point of time there will always be a dominated coalition, which creates a stabile state

of mind for the organisation. This coalition creates structures, systems and values, and as long

as one accepts that there are different groups of interests, the existence of resistant groups will

always be valid. Over time, changes internally in the organisation and the environment may

and can affect the base of power. An example of this could be the power balance between

employer and employee, depending on weather there are good access for labour supply or not.

If the unemployment rate is high and the supply of labour is high, the wages decreases and the


20

working terms and conditions for the employees are less attractive, while if you have the

opposite situation the wages decreases and the employees have more influence on the terms

and conditions that are being settled in relation to employment (Ibid.). One could also look at

the situation where the power balance in an organisation is more even, the change in these

situations will often appear after negotiation between the different parts, and the outcome will

often be a compromise. This could turn out to be a worse outcome than either of the parties

wanted and the rational participant could end up in a relatively less rational solution. The

dialectic perspective has a less positive fundamental idea, where it is not necessary the “best”

who “wins”, but rather the “strongest” one. One example of this could be where a financial

company buys up another company with the intention of closing it down and in this way one

dispose one of the competitors. It could well be that this organisation is better adapted to the

environments and more effective, but it “dies” because a “strong” part wants it to. This type

of change has been in focus within what we call horizontal integration – change happen, but it

is not always that this change is for the best (Ibid.).

3.1.5. Change as contingency / coincidence This “model” looks at change as a result of coincidences – something that appears without

any life phases, solution to a problem, competition of scarce resources, or politics and power

battles. James March quotes: “Organisations are in a continuous process of change, routine,

practical and respondent, but not always controllable. Organisation seldom do what they

been told to do.” (Jacobsen, 2004, p. 31).

Behind this statement there is an assumption that organisations are complex units, where there

happen many things at the same time without any participants having control or a total

overview over the specific situation. A central point in this is uncertainty and ambiguity and

on a general basis one can say that change happens when there is a modern (temporary)

concurrence of different organisational streams. It is fundamental that humans (participants)

meet each other on an arena (a decision opportunity), where everybody has a different set of

ideas and ways to solve a problem. Who meets where and when, will determine how the

connections of problems and solutions happens. It is not the best solution to the problem that

is the main choice, but rather the solutions, which are available at that particular point in time

(Jacobsen, 2004). The main point in this model is that it is where and when the different

participants connect, which creates the outcome. Which participants who meets at the

different arenas of decision will in many cases be quite structured, but it could also be more


21

random who meets, and then also how problems and solutions resolves. Change can appear

with individuals or groups changing their routines in the daily work. This could be change in

systems, structures, routines, which maybe not have the function that the participant wants, so

he or she changes it. These small adjustments takes place on an individual level, but summed

together it makes a difference in total, for the organisation (Ibid.).

Another source to a more incoherent development in an organisation comes from the number

of turnovers – some people resign and new ones begin. One should often think that once a

new person enter a new position, he or she would do close to the same as the previous did, but

research has shown that this is in fact, not true. A position or job will never be totally defined

and there will always be room for execution of assessment, which leads to personification of

the position in favour of the new employee. On a more aggregated level, organisations often

experience big changes when changes in so-called cohorts occur. In periods with a lot of new

arrivals it may be that the organisation gets in a large group with one particular education, for

example lots of women or men, or many young of age. In this way the power balance between

the different groups varies, which often leads to changes in important elements in the

organisation. This may be part of a large plan for the company, but in many cases these

changes will occur without a plan and without being a solution to a defined problem (Ibid.).

A third source to an incoherent development we can find in undefined structures and a

planned change can be seen as a decision process, where one evaluates possibilities and

threats, find solutions and implement them. However a more anarchistic view on a decision

process challenges this approach – whereas we look at the decision process over time with

different decision arenas and a set of participants, one could get a larger feature of coherency.

This will again depend on who participates, which depends on the formal structure of the

organisation – who has the right and energy to participate? If a person is occupied with

something else, someone else might replace him or her, and this person possibly has other

ideas, values and solutions to problems. In this way a change can appear spontaneously

without this being an answer to a well-defined problem. The result can be that organisations

changes in several levels at the same time, without a united plan. Kjell Arne Råvik says that

this looks like “multi standard organisations” – which means that different parts of the

organisation has adopted various solutions at different times, so change has happened, just not

at the same time and in different ways and parts of the organisation (Ibid.).


22

The fourth and last source to incoherent change one may find in the environments. The

organisations surroundings are seldom clear and uniform, which leads to interpretation of the

environments. When changes are made, this is often based on an assumption on how the

surroundings look like and not how they actually are. The change gets engraved by

coincidences, more based on what one thinks is necessary not on what really is necessary.

This perspective does not stand in direct inconsistency to human choices. Many things of the

above mentioned are rational choices, made by individuals, but this does not always mean that

it is rational choices in an organisational perspective – organisations change, but not

according to an implemented plan (Ibid.).

3.1.6. Different models – competitive or complementary? Practitioners implies that change has parts of all of the above mentioned aspects and

perspectives, but that the reason and explanation behind the different perspectives always will

vary from organisation to organisation, from phase to phase and on different levels of analysis

– some models are better suited for explaining change on a single organisation level, while

others are more used at an aggregated point of view (French & Bell Jr., 1999). Second, the

models differs in the way they give room for humanly, free action and thinking – on the one

hand they emphasize for individuals making their own choices and creating something new,

while on the other hand this is toned down. All of this can be summarized in the following

figure, which entails the different perspective discussed above:

Figure 3.1.6: Classification of different changes after change level and logic of change

(Jacobsen, 2004, pp. 35)

Evolutionary

Lifecycles

Dialectic

Technological and Coincedence

Non-deterministic Deterministic

Several Organisations

The single Organisation

Level of change

Logic of change


23

This discussion is important because it makes us aware that not all change has to be a result of

conscious and planned human choices and actions. Change is a complex phenomenon and can

appear in many ways. Further in this text we will focus on the term ”planned change”, which

you may find at the bottom-right in the figure above. This means that we will look more

closely at single organisations, and less at changes at an aggregated level. It is worth noticing

that ”change as contingency” is placed in the same square as ”planned change” – this implies

that there does not have to be a contradiction between the two perspectives. People are always

trying to change organisations, but this does not mean that they always succeed, and

sometimes changes can happen as a coincidence, all though the initiative were a planned

change – contingency and methodical are terms that naturally belongs together (Ibid.).

The literature on the aspect of change only describes techniques and processes on how to

achieve change in an organisation, as well as a lot of the models are normative, which means

that they tell us something on how things should be or how one should proceed in these

situations. One could also say that they are universal, which implies that the models are valid

in every organisation and situations. However this is in large contrast to the more ”normal”

demands from a scientific point of view, where the foundation of literature is based upon

empirical description as to understand why change happens, and also where the importance of

context, plays a central role when defining which opportunities one have to generalize the

empirical research compared to other situations. Through empirical research on the processes

of change and those features that is close to them, one can make some constructive

conclusions, and this means that one can achieve a certain knowledge on how to execute a

process of change, how one should proceed in the different contexts and situations and also

how likely one is to succeed using different models for change in different situations. A

theory on planned change has to be complex, because the units one are trying to change,

organisations, are complex (Jacobsen, 2004).

In the section above I have tried to explore further the underlying reasons for change and its

outcome, were this can be seen as a lifecycle, as an evolution, as a dialectic process and

power battle between different parties, and also as a coincidence. These different models and

theories contain and say something about what is it that makes people do the change in the

organisation or unit they are involved in? Thus, what are the powers behind the change, and

how do these powers affect the different organisations. These models needs to explain the

change, what it entails and also the magnitude of the change, and one should also expect that


24

these models uses the same terms and understanding frames as the theories on organisational

stability. It is important to include the context and the situation surrounding the planned

change, and its field and culture needs to be defined. One must explain the change process,

both in time and which parties that are involved in the change, and also it could be crucial to

be open for the fact that there is not necessary compliance between intentions and the actual

result of a change (Ibid.).

CHANGE MODELS AND MANAGEMENT

3.2. The two main models

3.2.1. Kotter’s eight step model The first model come from functionalism and the classic rational approach to strategic

management, where John P. Kotter have developed a eight step model, which needs to be

executed in the specific order mentioned below, for the implementation to be successful.

The eight steps are as follows:

Establish an experience of necessity: Investigate the marked and the situation of

competition. Identify possible and potential crisises, and significant opportunities. Provoke

any emergency or set unreachable goals, if this is necessary. Change does not happen until at

least 75 % of the management in the organisation are convinced that business-as-usual are not

acceptable.

Create a governing coalition: Establish a group of people with sufficient competence,

knowledge and power, to execute the change. The group conduct several meetings and

workshops, where the problems are analyzed and the opportunities are explored. The top

manager is always a part of the team.

Develop a vision and a plan: Create a vision which can manage the work of change. The

vision should be easy to communicate and attractive to the stakeholders. Formulate plans that

can make the vision a reality.

Convey and communicate the change vision: Use every term and conditions to

communicate the new vision and the strategies. Use the controlling coalition as role models.


25

Create a fundamental for action on broad basis: remove obstacles in systems, structure

and humans, which may block the change. Encourage risk taking and action.

Generate short term benefits: Plan and realizations of fast and visible victories. Reward

them who made the victories possible.

Consolidate the results and produce more change: Use the change increased credibility to

change all systems, structure and policies that does not harmonize with the vision. Hire and

promote employees that live the vision.

Anchor the new approaches in the culture: Achieve new results through successful

behaviour and more effective management. Clarify the connection between new behaviour

and results. Recruit and develop management after the vision.

Kotter’s eight step model clearly has relations to Lewin’s model for planned change and

rationalism, as well as to the functionalism rational approach to strategic management. In this

way Kotter’s first four steps can relate to Lewin’s first phase, and Lewin’s next phase can be

found in Kotter’s step five to seven, whereas the last eight steps in Kotter’s model covers the

last phase in Lewin’s model. At the same time many of the fundamentals of the rationalism

are found in Kotter’s model: Change as a planned process, ”Top-down” approach, change

agent ( the controlling coalition), data and rationality as basis for decisions. Kotter’s book

were seen as the first qualified text on how to handle ”resistance to change”, which were

considered one of the most challenging aspects for leadership in the 90`s. He also introduced

new terms like: The burning platform – creating a feeling of necessity, the power of the

vision, walk the talk – management`s visible and symbolic actions, and pick the ripe fruit –

generation of short term results. Thus, he did not only develop a continuous model, but also

development of a new language in relation to change management. At the same time Kotter

used culture as an important function to see if the change was in fact a sustainable and

persistent change and his view on culture takes basis in the modernistic instrumental

approach, where culture is seen as a component which relatively easily can be influenced.

Even thought this part of Kotter’s eight step model were in some degree criticized, especially

of the Scandinavian management circuits, his model were still considered as the model of

change management (Ibid.).


26

The second model and the visionary / ideological approach to strategic management seeks to

be inspired by ”best practice” from other organisations and with this create an attractive

vision for the future, which can be the driving force in the organisations strategic

development (Guldbrandsen, 2010). The thought of using an ideal or a vision when one

creates the future, also influenced the theories on change management, so a new school raised

– the school of vision. This school seeks to create and develop a vision that attracts

stakeholders and the subsequent ”sale” of the vision. The changed focus from the rational to

the ideological approach to change is to find in Kotter’s book ”Heart of change”, where he

still holds on to the eight step model and the linear approach it builds on, but he emphasise for

that the biggest challenge when change happens, is to get the people to change behaviour. The

solution to this is to transfer the focus from rational analyze approach to a more emotional

see-feel approach, where the primary source to change the employees behaviour is to create

positive feelings. The most important tool to do this is to create a vision with great appeal and

a burning platform, which is to feel and touch and that clearly illustrates the seriousness of the

situation The important thing in relation to this school of vision, is to be able to sell the

change and create assumptions such that the new behaviour can unfold. The model can be

used to explain the different phases in a change course and also as inspiration in relation to

facilitations to practical measures that can be implemented to support the process of change

(Ibid.). The first prediction for support from the employees is that the change makes sense,

and for the change to make sense one need to create something that is better than what already

existed. How does it look like when the change has become a reality? What do the

stakeholders get out of it? And what`s in it for me? In the rational approach to strategic

change one emphasized hard analytic thinking and a small dream, whereas in the school of

vision it is 80 % the dream that gives the change meaning and that dream creates positive

feelings and that positive feeling again is the way to create new paths and changed

behavioural patterns. After the vision and the ”burning platform” are conveyed, the next step

is to create a safety net so that the employees dare to take the first step into the new an

unknown. This contributes to give the employees a good gut feeling and a good safety net

could be an education plan, a parent project plan, a study trip or maybe a pilot project. The

fourth and last element in this theory is a good audience which are aware of the change

process, someone that cheers the first initiatives in the process and that can give feedback

when things are not going as planned according to the change plan and schedule. In practice a

visible and committed management is an important step in securing an enthusiastic audience,


27

while other important elements are internal change agents with a license to act, celebration of

targets and successes which have been reached along the way and ongoing dialogue meetings

where one share different concerns. This model is called the trapeze model and is often used

as inspiration in change situations (Ibid.).

3.2.2. The Appreciative Inquiry (AI) model The second model, or third if one also includes the visionary model to strategic management,

is the model based on social constructivism and the AI model. The last years Appreciative

Inquiry (AI) has been more and more widespread as a method within social constructivism,

which can be used in several classic management tasks – including change management.

Appreciative stands for the attitudinal foundation or basic principle within the method and

symbolizes that what we are focusing on are what we really appreciate and care about, and

thereby one can create enthusiasm about the change – our successes, strengths and potentials.

The principle has its background from the generally recognized and in some degree empirical

well-founded psychological principle – the Pygmalion effect. Behind this principle there is an

assumption which says that the expectations we seek to meet others with, contributes to do

them to what they are. For example will positive expectations towards our employees bring

out the best in them, and yet the positive expectations are confirmed. In the same way, our

negative expectations will influence our actions towards the employees and it will become

difficult for them to their positive sides. The conclusion is that; ”our expectations contributes

to create our reality” .

The word Inquiry is based on a wish to create a better world – for example increase the

efficiency, improve the cooperation and/ or increase the quality of the work. The road from

the challenge to the action is widely different from the classic approach to problem solving. In

the classic problem solving method one uses the basis of past sins to find an optimal solution,

by using proven and well documented solutions. In AI one seeks to find a model that uses

situations that has worked best and our dreams about the future. The five steps in the 5D

circle and AI model, could entail the following elements:

Definition: What is it that we want to promote? The change is being given a motivating

headline.

Discovery: In this phase the best moments are explored. When are we closest to achieve what

we want to achieve? What do we do when it works best? Which circumstances promote the


28

best moments?

Dream: What is it that we dream about? How does it look like when we have reached the

goal? How can we be able to determine that this is it? What do we say, feel and do? Can it be

measured in some way and what is the first thing we will see when we have reached it?

Design: What can we do to make the dream a reality? How can we create several of the

circumstances that form the framework of the best moments? Every possible solution shall be

included

Delivery: What do we like to do together – and by ourselves? How will we be able to see if

we succeeded? When and how should we make up a status, learn and find initiatives?

(Guldbrandsen, 2010).

3.2.3. Change Management Organisations and working places are in continuous change, and these changes occur because

of external powers, which are making the organisations adapt to the environment, or internal

organisational challenges may appear. Organisational Change can be the result of decreasing

productivity, changes in the core production or organisational structure. It is natural to

separate between planned change and change as a reaction to the surroundings or internally

within the organisation. A common model for change management is to see the process

dynamically, like a conceptual business model (Busch & Vanebo, 2003). The models point of

view is that the company consists of different subsystems;

1. The Behavioural System,

2. The Transformation System

3. The Leader System, and

4. The Coalition System

In addition to this it lays institutionalized and technical surroundings, such as regulations and

practice, related to the Coalition system. Change within a subsystem, will effect and create

change in the other systems. Change Management as a term conception and ideology lays in

the breaking point between these systems. Jacobsen (2004) uses a coarse bisection in type of


29

change strategy, which is likely to be used in change situations, where strategy E and strategy

O are the two in focus. The authors imply that the different situations of change have different

elements and features and that the situation may appear differently in each case (Jacobsen,

2004).

Beer and Nohrias, the authors of ”Breaking the Code of Change”, represents two fundamental

different strategies for change - strategy E represents economy and has a economic rational

ideology, where a formal structures and systems are in focus, and also the rate of return to the

owners. At the opposite end one find strategy O, which goals are to develop the organisations

human resources in a way that they are capable to execute strategies and learn from the

experiences one has from earlier change initiatives. Strategy E is a ”top-down”-oriented

model for change management, where the management give clear and formal instructions,

guidelines and directives during the whole change process. The process is seen as linear and

as a fundamental rational process, where one begins the process of change with an analysis of

the situation and evaluates the possibilities and limitations. It is important to set clear and

defined goals on what the organisation wishes to accomplish / achieve with the change(s),

followed by solutions and efforts one wants to use, to gain these specific goals, through the

implementation phase (Cummings & Huse, 1989).

Strategy O is, in contrast to strategy E, a ”bottom-up” strategy, which is seen as a

development process and the change in this perspective is not necessarily a onetime

occurrence including the linear elements one finds in strategy E. However this is a

continuously process of development and adaption in a wanted direction to achieve the

defined goals. Organisation Development (OD) as a traditional aspect within organisational

theory, can be placed in this category. The strategy emphasize for learning and participation

from all levels in an organisation and the management does not have to be absent in these

situations, but rather delegate responsibility and create commitment amongst the employees

on lower levels in the organisation. Legitimacy and influence are in this strategy one of many

criteria of success, for achieving the most wanted result (Jacobsen, 2004).

One can further take a look at a third strategy, which can be seen as a more Scandinavian

oriented direction, where one finds the tradition of cooperation. This trend has its origin from

the 1960`s in Tavistock and the foundation behind the strategy is sosio- technological theory,

which builds on a principle on how to see social and technical systems in relations to each


30

other. If one of the systems changes without considering the other, this may imply lower

efficiency, degenerate quality and increased absence due to sickness etc. To find an optimal

solution to a change, both systems needs to be taken into consideration – participation and

involvement in a process of change are one of the most elderly principles to counteract

resistance (Cummings & Huse, 1989).

It could be interesting to compare these strategies with the different sciences we just

mentioned in chapter 2.0. Strategy E could be compared to the rational approach, where an

economic and rational ideology and approach is in focus, and where one emphasize on

structures and systems distributed from a “top-down” access. Also, since Kotter’s eight step

models clearly has relations to Lewin’s model, one could also assume that strategy E has in

some degree aspects from the classic rational functionalism, where John P. Kotter is seen as

one of the most well known authors within change management. The ideological visionary

approach within functionalism is harder to place within these strategies, but one could maybe

recognize some aspects within strategy O. The vision model seeks to change the employees

behaviour with creating positive feelings, whereas this could in some degree be assigned with

strategy O`s “bottom-up” approach, were the management may create commitment amongst

the employees and include all parts of the organisation. However it is important to mention

that strategy O is seen as a continuous process of development and adaption in a wanted

direction, while the functional vision model still holds on to the linear approach it builds on,

but it emphasize more for that the biggest challenge is to get people to change behaviour.

Maybe this could be achieved or obtained by involving and committing people to the change?

Finally the social constructivism approach is considered, and one can try to identify aspects

which can be recognized in the third strategy mentioned above. This strategy is maybe more a

combination of strategy E and O, rather than similar to the social constructivism model.

However, the strategy is originated from the sosio-technological theory, which seeks to find

and recognize social and technical systems in relations to each other. Could this be seen as “in

organisations there is not only one reality”, which are described in the theory of social

constructivism? Can it be seen as “we create our own reality”, by combining the two aspects

of social fundamentals and technical systems. Could this be seen as one way of thinking about

the social constructivism model, in practice? If it is the right way or not is difficult to know,

however, it could be seen as a suggestion on one way of looking at it, and further it is up to

other researchers to validate the interpretation of the term social constructivism.


31

3.3. Comparative models

3.3.1. Organisation Development and Change There are several definition of Organisation Development (OD), but one could be:

” Organisation development is a planned process of change in an organisation`s culture

through the utilization of behaviour science technologies, research and theory” (French and

Bell Jr., 1999, p. 25).

Several authors agree upon the fact that OD applies behavioural science to achieve planned

change, that the target of change is the total organisation or system and that the goals are

increased organisational effectiveness and individual development (French and Bell Jr.,

1999). Organisation culture and processes are high-priority targets in most OD programs and

several authors emphasize achieving congruence among the components of the organisation

such as strategy, structure, culture and processes. Porras and Robertson suggest that OD is a

”package” of theories, values, strategies and techniques, and this package gives OD its

distinct character compared to other improvement strategies. Bennis calls OD both a response

to change and an educational strategy intended to change beliefs, attitudes, values and

organisation structure – all of these directed toward making the organisation better able to

respond to changing environmental demands (Ibid.).

Beer`s definition mentions ”developing the organisation`s self-renewing capacity” – a central

goal in al OD programs – but all the authors agree with the desirability of creating self-

renewing ”learning organisations”. All together the different definitions of OD convey a sense

of what organisation development is and do, and they describe in broad outline the nature and

methods of OD. It is interesting to mention that there is no set definition of OD and no

agreement on the boundaries of the field, that is, what practices should be included and

excluded, but these are not serious constrains given that the field is still evolving, and that

practitioners share a central core of understanding (Ibid.).

Wendell L. French and Cecil H. Bell Jr. have made their own definition of OD, which

includes characteristics that they think are important for the present and future of the field;

Organisation an development is a long-term effort, led by top management, to improve an

organisation`s visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing,

collaborative management of organisation culture – with special emphasis on the culture of intact


32

work teams and other team configuration – using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and

technology of applied behavioural science, including action research

(French and Bell Jr., 1999, p.26).

By long-term the authors mean that organisational change and development takes time –

several years in most cases. There are no ”quick-fix” when it comes to lasting organisational

improvement, rather the opposite where one describes ”improvement” as a never-ending

journey of continuous change (French and Bell Jr., 1999).

The phrase led and supported by top management indicates an imperative: Most OD

programs that fail do so because top management were ambivalent, lost its commitment, or

became distracted with other duties. To avoid this, top management must lead and actively

encourage the change effort. Organisational change is hard, serious business; it includes pain

and setbacks as well as successes, and the top management must initiate the ”improvement”

journey and be committed to seeing it through (Ibid.).

Visioning processes are these processes through which organisation members develop a

viable, coherent and shared picture of the nature of the products and services the organisation

offers, the ways those goods will be produced and delivered to the customers, and what the

organisation and its members can expect from each other. Visioning can be defined as

creating a picture of the desired future that includes salient features of the human side of the

organisation and then working together to make that picture a reality (Ibid.).

Empowerment processes in this definition is meant as those leadership behaviours and human

resource practices that enable the organisation members to develop and use their talents as

fully as possible toward individual growth and organisational success. By empowerment, they

mean involving large numbers of people in building the vision of tomorrow, developing the

strategy for getting there, and making it happen – it is crucial that the empowerment must be

built into the very fabric of the organisation, this means its strategy, structure, processes and

culture (Ibid.).

The newt aspect of the definition is learning processes, which are those interacting, listening

and self-examining processes that facilitate individual, team and organisational learning. Peter

Senge describes learning organisations as:

”..organisations where people continually expand their capacity to create the result they truly desire,


33

where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and

where people are continually learning how to learn together”


As Argyris advises, people and organisations must avoid the trap of ”defensive routines”,

those habitual reactions that prevent embarrassment and threat, but also prevent learning.

By problem-solving processes they mean the ways organisations members diagnose

situations, solve problems, make decisions, and take actions on problems, opportunities, and

challenges in the organisation`s environment and its internal functioning. Further they believe

that solutions to problems are enhanced by tapping deeply into the creativity, commitment,

vitality and common purposes of all members of the organisation, in contrast to having only a

select few involved. To create the best climate for effective problem solving by all the

organisation`s members they suggests a compelling, widely shared vision of a desired future

and empowerment means involving people in problems and decisions letting them be

responsible for results (French and Bell Jr., 1999).

By ongoing collaborative management of the organisation`s culture they mean, first, that one

of the most important things to manage in organisations is the culture: the prevailing pattern

of values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, expectations, activities, interactions, norms,

sentiments and artefacts. Secondly, managing the culture should be a collaborative business

with widespread participation in creating and managing a culture that satisfies the want and

the needs of the individuals at the same time that it fosters the organisation`s purposes.

Collaborative management of the culture means that everyone, just not a small group, has a

stake in making the organisation work. In the same way that visioning, empowerment,

learning and problem-solving processes are opportunities for collaboration, so is managing

the culture. Including culture prominently in the definition, affirms our belief that culture is

the bedrock of behaviour in organisation and the reciprocal influence among culture, strategy,

structure and processes makes each important, and each influences the other. However,

culture is of primary importance and Edgar Schein defines culture as follows:

”Culture now be defined as (a) a pattern of basic assumptions, (b) invented, discovered, or developed

by a given group, (c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaption and internal

integration, (d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore (e) is to be taught to


34

new members as the (f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”


In short, culture consist of basic assumptions, values and norms of behaviour that are viewed

as the correct way to perceive, think and feel – that is why culture change is necessary for true

organisational improvement (Ibid.).

The definition place further consideration to organisational processes, how things get done,

where they highlight the importance of visioning, empowerment, learning and problem-

solving processes. Processes are relatively easy to change, so they are the place OD often

begin – getting people to change the way they do things, but change becomes permanent

when the culture changes and people accept the new ways as the ”right” ways. So when the

culture promotes collaboration, empowerment and continuous learning the organisation is

bound to succeed (Ibid.).

Intact work teams and other configurations recognize that teams are central to accomplish

work in organisations – teams are the basic building blocks of an organisation, and when

teams function well, individuals and the total organisation function well. To ensure

effectiveness team culture can be collaboratively managed and the most prevalent form of

teams in organisations is intact work teams consisting of superior and subordinates with a

specific job to perform. Team building and role and goal clarification interventions are

standard activities in OD programs directed toward intact work team. However, in many

organisations today the intact work teams operate without a boss in the traditional sense – the

teams manage themselves. These self-managed teams assume complete responsibility for

planning and execution of work assignments and the different members are trained in

competencies such as planning, maintaining quality control, and using management

information. One can see that over time, self-directed teams control performance appraisals,

hiring, firing and training, and the results are highly gratifying both for the team members and

for the organisation (Ibid.).

One can see an increase in use of ad hoc teams that perform a specific task and disband when

the task is completed, and the method for getting this complex task done is to assemble a

cross-functional team comprised of members from all the functional specialities required to

get the job done, such as design, engineering, manufacturing and procurement. The old

method for solving these particular tasks has been to have functional specialists work on the


35

problem sequentially – when one function is finished with its part of the project they pass it

on to the next functional unit. This method resulted in loss of energy, wasted time, much

rework and considerable antagonism among the separate functional specialists. Tom Peters

uses the terms multifunctional projectization and horizontal systems to describe these teams

and their work and further he predicts that temporary, multifunctional, constantly shifting

teams will be the dominant configuration for getting work done. His thesis Liberation

Management describes that contemporary bureaucratic structures with their functional

specialities and rigid hierarchies are all wrong for the demands of today`s fast-paced

marketplace. The phrase using the consultant –facilitator role implies that leaders can benefit

from seeking professional assistance in planning and implementing OD initiatives. The

services of a third-party consultant-facilitator are desirable in early stages of the OD and its

role is powerful; that person is typically seen as bringing objectivity, neutrality and expertise

to the situation. Also the third party is not captive to the culture of the unit undertaking the

program and this need for objectivity does not mean that the third party cannot be a member

of the organisation, rather it means that he or she should not be a member of the particular

unit initiating the OD effort (Ibid.).

By the theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences they mean insights from the

sciences dedicated to understanding people in organisation, how they function and how they

can function better. OD applies knowledge and theory and therefore in addition to behavioural

sciences, such as psychology, social psychology, sociology, applied disciplines such as adult

education, psychotherapy, social work, economics and political science make contributions to

the practice of OD.

The last comment is about action research, whereas the participative model of collaborative

and iterative diagnosis and taking action in which the leader, organisation members and OD

practitioner work together to define and resolve problems and opportunities.

This extensive applicability of this model in OD could contribute to another definition, such

as: ”organisation improvement through participant action research” (French & Bell Jr., 1999,

p.29).

All of the above mentioned characteristics of organisation development depart substantially

from traditional consultation models; this can be illustrated below where Schein identifies

three basic models of consultations:


36

1. ”Purchase of expertise model” – in this model a leader or a unit identifies a need for

information or expertise the organisation cannot supply, and hires a consultant to (a)

survey customers or employees about some matter, (b) find out how other

organisations organize certain units, or (c) search out information such as the

marketing strategy of a competitor, and then the consultant makes recommendations.

2. ”Doctor-patient model” – in this model a leader or a group detects symptoms of ill in a

unit, or in the organisation, and employs a consultant to diagnose what is causing the

problem or problems. The consultant, like a physician, then prescribes a course of

action to remedy the ailment.

3. ”Process consultant model” – in this model the consultant work with the leader and

group to diagnose strengths and weaknesses, and to develop action plans. The

consultant assists the client organisation to become more effective in diagnosing and

solving problems.

The first two of these models depict traditional management consulting and the third model is

more typical of OD consulting, whereas the clients receive help in the way they think and

how they are solving problems. The consultant suggests general processes and procedures and

helps the clients generate valid data and learn from them – in short, the OD consultant is an

expert on process – how to structure effective problem solving and decision making (French

& Bell Jr., 1999).

In this section i have tried to define the term organisation development and change. There

exists several definitions, but the one explained here is from the authors W.L. French and C.

H. Bell Jr., where they have sought to find a well suited definition that could be used for

today`s and future organisations, seeking to understand the process of change and

organisation development. They involve terms like visioning, empowerment, learning and

problem-solving processes, which are all processes that needs to be seen in a long-term aspect

and also led by the top management. They emphasize for the importance of managing the

culture, and that this should be a collaborative business with widespread participation, that

satisfies both the needs of the individuals as well as the purpose and goals of the entire

organisation. They recognize that the work teams are the building blocks of an organisation,

and when these function well, so does the entire organisation. To achieve this one may use

team building, but also role and goal clarification for each individual or team, even though in

some organisations today there exists self-managed teams, which also could function well.

Theory and technology of applied behavioural sciences, together with action research helps us


37

to understand the people in the organisation, how they function and also how they can

function better, and how they can work together to define and resolve, both problems and

opportunities. At the end of the section, some models for managing change are displayed,

where Schein seeks to give us an understanding on the differences between the traditional

approach to organisation development and change, and the OD approach to this, whereas we

can see that in the traditional approach the consultant or the ” outsider” only makes

recommendations, while in the OD approach he or she works together with the a group to

solve problems and be more effective (Ibid.). Further this can be compared to the AI model

and Kotter’s eight step model, whereas one may say that some of the terms in the OD

definition could be linked to Kotter’s model, while other aspects are more similar to the AI

model. The long-term aspect, even the time aspect in general, is absent in both Kotter’s model

and the AI model, while the aspect where the change should be led by the top management is

more similar to Kotter’s model. This could also be the case with aspect like visioning and, to

some degree, the learning an problem-solving processes, whereas Kotter’s model focus on

finding problems and obstacles in the past, so that one may avoid these in the future, and also

that the top management or a group of the top management together with the a change agent

should lead the change process. Also the vision aspect is to be recognized in Kotter’s model,

but maybe even more in the second model of functionalism, the ideology - visionary approach

/ model. However, there is some features that are more similar to the AI model, such as where

they emphasize for that the work teams and the employees are the building blocks for the

organisation, they want to let everybody participate in the change, and they focus on

understanding how the people behave – this could be a key component to implement the

change, both in the AI model and within OD, because one understand people’s emotions and

may use them in a way that could make them understand the change better, with no or less

resistance. Compared to the traditional models described above, one may think that the OD

approach is more similar to Kotter’s eight step model, however, when one look at an overall

view of the definition of OD, done by French and Bell Jr., one might get the impression of

that this is more similar to the AI model, whereas human aspect, team involvement and

cultural aspect are taken more into consideration.

3.3.2. Total Quality Management (TQM) Quality management has a resultant impact on organisational behaviour, where one needs to

redefine quality programmes as a major determinant of organisational change. The

implementation of quality programmes often leads to major change within an organisation,


38

and this change may be studied at a variety of levels (Almaraz, 1994). At an organisational

level this implementation could represent a strategic move to be more competitive. And at a

unit level, one can see that different units or teams are made to maintain the different goals on

quality and that these units or teams are empowered through the quality paradigm. The key

determinants for success, from top managers and down to the various employees, are the issue

of resistance to change and the institutionalization of quality concepts, and at all levels, the

successful implementation of a quality programme requires top management commitment

(Ibid.). The authors hope that sampling of quality management research, both conceptual and

empirical, will focus our attention on the magnitude as well as the profound relevance of

organisational research possibilities within the quality management paradigm. They

emphasize that such research is needed to show the relationship between quality management

programmes and organisational behaviour and change – this information has great value for

both those practitioners trying to implement quality programmes and also for those

researchers trying to focus their effort on the most relevant issues in their organisational

research (Ibid.).

The evolution and development of the quality management programmes is not typical of a

traditional organisational research issue and the result is that many organisational researchers

have ignored the behavioural side of the quality phenomenon. Operations researchers have

provided some valuable insights into the degree of implementation of quality programmes, as

well as some instrument and theory development. However, the issues of organisational

behaviour (top management commitment and the impact of organisational change) receive

only cursory attention in this research (Ibid.).

One can often find resistance to change when new ways of thinking and doing things occur,

and this is a phenomenon often studied in organisational research. It is also ironic that this

phenomenon is to be found among the organisational researchers themselves and the support

for research on quality comes from a surprising source – the business community.

A second factor inhibiting research on quality is the fact that the implementation of quality

programmes on an organisational level represents a paradigmatic shift, from the traditional

form of management to a new a more team based leadership version. The need to work

together in teams, at all levels of the organisation, including cross functional, is vital to

organisational survival. Change of such kind and magnitude is not incremental, but rather a

frame braking change in organisational functioning and organizing, making it both difficult to


39

implement and study (Ibid.).

One aspect that could make this implementation process easier could be to define the quality

construct. It inhibits the research on quality, because the term quality has a multi-faced nature,

where there are two cognitive definitions, based on perceptions of individuals assessing

quality of a product or service, and three definitions are concrete in terms of operationalising

the meaning of the quality and the ease of comparison with other organisations. The value

based definition of quality is viewed in terms of cost and prices – the provision of a product or

service at acceptable cost or price. The determination of value is a subjective judgement on

the part of the consumer and this is the anchor of the majority of research in the service sector

– exploring the gaps between perceived expected value and actual value. The last three

definitions, mentioned above, are most heavily utilized in the writings of the operations

management literature and quality ”gurus” such as Deming (1986), Juran (1998) and Crosby

(1984). The three definitions are more specified below:

(1) User-based definition – Quality is measured by the degree to which the wants and needs of

customers are satisfied.

(2) Product-based definition – Quality refers to the amount of desired attributes obtained in

the product.

(3) Manufacturing-based definition – quality is measured by the percentage of scrap or

rework required during the production process.

(Alamaraz, 1994, pp.8-9)

Given these different definitions on quality the generalisation of research on quality is very

low and whenever researchers talk about improving quality it is most likely that they refer to

different aspects of quality (Ibid.).

Another aspect of the quality term is that, while quality programmes have existed in

organisations for quite some time, research on quality issues has lagged far behind. The

authors suggest that the implementation of quality programmes invariably leads to changes in

the organisation, affecting people, tasks, technology and structure. The question is whether we

can infer a causal relationship between quality management and organisational culture? What

is the relationship of management to organisational change? This discussion of quality

management in the context of organisational change theory is to be discussed further below in

the text (Ibid.).


40

Total Quality Management (TQM) refers to a management process directed at establishing

organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone in an organisation

in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level (Alamaraz, 1994).

There are a lot of organisations which have experienced that their survival is dependent on

making major changes now, but to achieve the level of cultural change required by TQM is

not an overnight process, such a change must be planned and carefully implemented. It is

said that change of this magnitude and complexity is not adequately defined by traditional

stage models of change, so there is a great need for more research on this matter. Earlier,

change theory focused on only one organisational subsystem, such as the human and

technological subsystems. However when we now have reached the twentieth century,

organisations and their environment have become increasingly complex, as well as the types

of changes that occur. The text implies that:”The study of TQM in organisations provides a

valuable opportunity for research on the complexity of change and the chance for theory

development on frame braking change” and, further it defines major organisational change

as:”non-routine, non-incremental, discontinuous change which alters the overall orientation

of the organisation and / or its components” (Alamaraz, 1994, pp. 10). These components

depict the interconnection of people, task, technology and structure, where a major change

can happen in any of these four components. The magnitude of the change will be such that

all components will make some adjustments to the change, and may in fact incur major

changes as a result. Again these changes will affect the culture of the organisation – the

values, the beliefs, and the expectations of organisation members, and will transform the

organisation. There is a great need for focusing on change theory research on the radical,

transformational changes occurring in organisations and both scholars and practitioners have

a need to know what the implications of such changes are, how to design and implement such

changes and what leadership qualities are required for success (Ibid.).

As we have mentioned earlier, it is well known that people are, for the most part, resistant to

change of any kind and this is especially true when it comes to transformational change.

There are a lot of new factors that must be included, such as fear for the unknown, habit, the

possibility of economic insecurity, threats to social relationships, and failure to recognize the

need for change. In these situations organisation leaders must step in to facilitate acceptance

for the change (ibid.).


41

One can also question how the organisation looks at present situation and how it is expected

to look after the change and the importance of identifying organisational parameters prior to

the change is a vital aspect of the process in total. Depending on the existing culture and the

degree to which a change, such as TQM, differs from that culture, an organisation may be

more or less ready for such a change. It is important to create a need for change; in effect,

opening up the organisational culture to be receptive to the change. This is particularly

difficult when there are no apparent crises or reason for the change, but rather the long-range

vision of a leader who anticipates the time it takes to implement organisational change. If the

vision of a leader differs from the values and beliefs of the existing organisational culture,

resistance to change is especially relevant, and this part of the process is easy to overlook in

major change efforts. If the organisational culture fails to assimilate the vision and its

implications, desired change will never become accepted by the organisation members, and

will ultimately fail (Ibid.).

It is further important to look at the aspect of leadership when discussing transformational

change, which often occur in the implementation of quality programmes. Traditional change

theory focuses on the manager of the day-to day operations, while newer theories emphasize

for focus on the leaders of transformational change. However, researchers have not

implemented or incorporated leadership theories into their discussion (Ibid.).

Another important aspect on this matter is the commitment from the top management – it is

them who allow quality improvements to occur in an organisation. Sometimes it is important

to address the manager’s beliefs and values, in order to support and nourish a new cultural

reality represented by quality. The authors say that as quality moves from a process of

inspections of finished products to a continuous process, which permeates all facets of the

organisation, the importance of these to aspects, top management commitment and issues of

organisational culture, cannot be underestimated. If one present quality management as a

determinant of organisational change, many questions arise which address change theory,

organisational behaviour and organisational research. One can say that the quality

management paradigm easily fits within the bounds of organisational research and lends itself

neatly to questions suited for theoretical exploration and empirical testing. The outcome of

this could greatly advance our knowledge and could provide practitioners with something of

true value (Ibid.). Further one would define quality programmes as determinants of major

organisational change, and in this way we can address some of the challenges the organisation

can face when dealing with quality programmes, whereas three issues are mentioned below:


42

1. Quality as a strategic choice.

The goal of these programmes is to have a positive impact in the areas so designated for

improvement and they are implemented in many different forms – in terms of process,

product and customer satisfaction. The decision of quality implementation has moved from

the quality assurance level of inspections into the boardroom of top management and

executives, who seek to integrate quality into the strategic game plan of the organisation and

in this matter it is important to consider the organisational context in which quality

management decisions are being made (Alamaraz, 1994). Further definition on strategy will

be described in section 3.4.2.

2. The team concept.

The Total Quality Programme (TQM) in U.S. organisations, can be described as frame

breaking change, because quality facilitates a move from the more traditional, individualistic

structure of American organisations to one in which emphasis is placed on teamwork.

However, to achieve this level of culture change needed by TQM is not an easy and overnight

process, and needs to be planned and carefully implemented. Several authors points out the

systemic orientation of quality programmes, arguing for the need to align performance

management systems with the team-based philosophy of quality programmes and also a

special technique, namely self-managed work teams, where they discuss the benefits ( and

problems) which may result from these choices (Alamaraz, 1994).

3. Implementation of Quality programmes.

One can say that implementation refers to the front-end effort to operationalise some aspects

of quality, where this could be in terms of the product or service itself, the process of creating

such a product or service, or even the perception customers have regarding the product and or

services. The implementation of such quality programme focused on any of these dimensions

may be short term and immediate and such efforts can easily be measured and recorded. A

former study, made by Steven Sommer and Deryl Merritt, presents an empirical study of

TQM in health care and this study is indicative of the professional’s empirical research that

quality programmes may produce, and shows the value of TQM possible even in the short

term (Almaraz, 1994).

From these lines, mentioned above, we know that the issue of quality exists in most


43

organisations in some degree and the decision to implement a quality programme has become

a necessity for many organisations and firms. In relation to this drive or necessity, the way in

which the top management chooses to support such a new programme will determine its

ultimate success. The issue of quality management and change place quality management in

the realm of organisation development, and even within organisational behaviour (Ibid.).

Development and adaption of a new reality implies implementation skills and management of

new actuality politics and structure. This is part of the core in the change management

discipline and formulations of new goals, acknowledgement of actual state / condition and

plans for how one can achieve the new and wanted reality are important aspects in this

process. One can use the change as a tool for redefining and implementation of the new

reality and the main task for the management is to realize new intensions for the future and

implementation of new ideas in the organisations (Hennestad, Revang, & Strønen, 2006).

One of the main points emphasized by Hennestad, Revang og Strønens is the inadequate

reliance on implementation in practical “good” executed change management. The authors

implies that many good change projects begins with good intensions and lustily courage, but

often fail when this is not followed–up in a correct way after the start-up. There are a lot ways

on how to approach change, some changes can give large organisational changes, while others

can be of a less size and character. Information regarding why and how one intend to change

to reach the goal are things that needs to be clear early in the process and should be valid in

every change situation. Information and communication to all affected / involved members of

the organisation, is a postulation if the process should go smoothly and efficiently. In most

change processes it is usual to put up a time line for planning, execution / implementation and

a finalization or closure, where this time limit is a hypothetically wanted scenario for the

process. However, a few of all change processes begins and ends at a certain point in time and

it can be difficult to visualize the entire process before it starts, which again emphasize for a

competent management. The ability to predict, react and take action during the process plays

a central role and can be defined as change competence (Hennestad, Revang, & Strønen,

2006).

3.3.2.1. Strategy There is not a simple, easy and accepted definition of strategy and the practitioners uses the

term in different manners and situations. Some include goals into the definition of strategy,

while others separate strategy and goals, and further one will try to explain what strategy is,

more than making a correct definition of it (G.Roos, G. Von Krogh, J. Roos & L. Fernström,


44

2007). In normal terms, one can say that a strategy is a continuous line of planned actions,

planned and executed to reach a certain goal. The strategy is always made on advance and is

often documented in a plan. Different tools and framework have been used during the last

years to help understand the development of strategy and how it affects the daily operations of

the organisations. Henry Mintzberg is one of the most known researchers within this area, and

he emphasizes strategy not just as a plan, but also as a continuous process. He means that just

to focus on the plan can mislead the organisation and give a wrong picture of the total

situation (Ibid.). Mintzberg has developed a framework which is called the five P`s within

strategic theory and includes:

Plan

Ploy

Pattern

Position

Perspective

One can also look at strategy as generic approaches, whereas we have four very different ones

to consider further on. These four approaches have different perceptions on what strategy is,

what it contains and predicts, together with implications for practical management

(Whittigton, 2002). The classic and traditional approach represents a rational, objective and

sequential approach, predicted as a universal norm. It seek to maximize profit and focus on

internal planning, the process is analytic, the main influence is economic and / or military

systems and it has its origin from the 1960`s. Both the evolutionary and processual approach

are more sceptic and doubt the strategists’ abilities to control and manage the strategy

effectively in an rational and hierarchical way. According to the evolutionists changes in the

environment are too fast and unpredictable, so that the strategy is to survive and try to have

every possibilities open. The approach appeared in the 1980`s and focus on the external

marked with a Darwinistic process and where it has its influence from economy and biology.

The processual approach one can find in the opposite end, whereas they seek a patient

strategy with incremental adaption and maintenance of core competencies. They focus on

internal politics and knowledge, the process consists of negotiation and learning and their

main source of influence is psychology. The last approach is the system theoretical

perspective which has more relativistic perceptions where they mean that the strategies goals


45

and terms depends on the social systems characteristics. They focus on the external society,

whereas the process is social, the main source of influence is sociology and it has its origin

from the 1990`s (ibid.). From these approaches one can better understand the different choices

countries and cultures have made, when considering business strategy. The different

contradictions, such as the capitalistic America and the communistic Middle East can

contribute to a wider understanding of the different structures in marked economies and their

several connections to the rest of the society. Both success and failure, for example for the

Asian countries have made us aware of the different social structures that are the foundation

of their business systems and strategies. Even in the Western countries, with the privatization,

different approaches has made organisations compete more with each other, while they are

being driven by social and economic motives and also dependent upon resources outside the

marked. The profit maximizing entrepreneurs and high-competition markets are not the only

thing the strategists need to handle and struggle with, whereas a strong and competitive

strategy in complex environments demands a system theoretical sensitivity for the magnitude

and diversity in today’s economic practice (Ibid.).

In this section I have looked at Total Quality management (TQM) as a way of making and

implementing change, where this implementation seek to help the organisation be more

competitive, and that the quality is maintained and increased through different units or teams

on different levels of the organisation. Resistance to change and the institutionalization of

quality concepts, and top management commitment are the key determinants for success, and

different authors emphasize for more research related to the relationship between quality

management programmes, and organisational behaviour and change. The reason for this

enthusiasm for the quality management programme is the lack of research and interest within

the behavioural side of the quality aspect. There are several definitions of quality that are

being used, but the question is whether we can make a causal relationship between quality

management and organisational culture? This discussion of quality management in the

context of organisational change theory leads us to TQM, which is a management process

directed to establish organized continuous process improvement activities, involving everyone

in an organisation in a totally integrated effort towards improving performance at every level.

This is a large change, and with the complexity of both the today`s organisations and its

environments, this is not something that comes easily. We therefore seek to find quality as a

strategic choice, as a part of a team concept and where implementation of quality programmes

may foster both short and long term results (Ibid.). If one should further link the TQM to the


46

main models, one could start with mentioning that there is a similarity to Kotter’s model

concerning the change as a strategic choice, where a strategy could be seen as a clear goal and

that there is a meaning with the change, which is the third step of Kotter’s model. However,

considering change as a part of a team concept is more similar to the AI model, whereas

Kotter’s model seems to emphasize more for individuals who support the change and ”live”

the change. The last concept of TQM concerning change focus on the implementation of

quality programmes on a long and short basis. This is an aspect that separates a bit from the

two main models, whereas quality is something that have not been brought up, and also the

time aspect is just mentioned i Kotter’s model, where the focus in on a short term basis, while

the AI model does not mention the time aspect at all.

THE CULTURAL ASPECT

3.4. National cultures and demand of management It is the rapid pace of change that makes us aware of different cultures and fundamental

management theory, where new technological changes result in unforeseen consequences and

where the different cultures and organisation don’t change values and beliefs united (Strand,

2004). The inter connections with strangers can create confusion and unexpected

contradictions, which may not be surprising considering the different and underlying values,

beliefs and behaviour that the different cultures and nationalities represents. The culture gives

an implication on how we understand and approach things, both regarding communication

and how organisations are being structured. In addition, we find different types of

management and leadership, and how these are implemented and executed. It is this question

together with cultures one wants to examine further on this text, where one can take a look at

different frames of interpretation, that is, different national cultures (Ibid.).

The phenomenon of culture is difficult to handle and the practitioners do not agree upon the

contents of the term. One can say that culture is a common expression for a fundamental set

of perceptions, which in great terms is common for, for example a nation, and affects the

behaviour of the people included – in this case, an organisation and its management. As a

careful definition on can say that features of culture is presumptions and understandings,

which is common for the majority of the nation, where they are being learned and transferred

and in this term are relatively continuous and permanent. There can also be an emotional side


47

to culture and especially when it’s being challenged , and it is very often not spoken of, but a

useful understanding is that it says something about the communication between the members

of the nation. One understand the spoken words and the meaning behind it, one act in ways

that is understandable for other members, it gives implications on what’s ”good” and what’s

”bad” and, it gives the possibility to draw a line between members, where one have ”us” and

”them”. Cultures are also connected to professions, regions and gender and one will further

try to explain cultures and the differences between them. In this attempt one want to try to

find dimensions where one can measure abilities, which can be called characteristics for each

culture. Some anthropologists suggest that there are fundamental problems in every society

which needs to be handled and made a common attitude towards, whereas the sum of this can

be called culture (Ibid.). These are as follows:

The individual: Does one presume that the individual is good or evil, or both? Do they have

the possibility to choose freely and are they to be trusted?

The relationship to nature: Do the human beings have a dominating relationship to nature, or

do they live in harmony and partly submission? Are there powers which shouldn’t be

challenged and are there destiny determined lifelines?

The relationship to others: Does one relate to people like they are individuals or members of a

group? Can decisions be made by individuals or does one need an agreement from a group?

Can people be hired because of documented experience and competencies or due to family

relations or friendship? Are the members of the society worth the same or is it an apparent

hierarchical structure?

Activity: What is the fundamental set of activities – working to achieve goals or working as a

limited and natural part of life? Is the meaning with life to do something or to be someone? Is

it possible to achieve results with extra effort and is it possible to control the universe?

Space: Is the physical space around us limited, or is it for everybody, public? Is this united, or

are there several mixed and shifting forms? In Western cultures it is normal to have meetings

in large rooms behind closed doors, while in other cultures decisions are made in less formal

surroundings with a larger set of openness regarding space.

Time: Are one oriented with the past, present or future? In some cultures one can experience

resistance to long-term goals and commitments, where as profits gain on a short basis seems

more reasonable. Others could have long-term goals and plans, or be strongly occupied with

the past. The attitude towards time as a regulating dimension of behaviour, also varies

between cultures. Timely precision and punctuality are seen as polite in the North of Europe,


48

while in the Latin countries and Africa one will experience a whole different attitude towards

time (Ibid.).

Research on culture does not show us a systemised picture, but instead show some contrasts

and one can illustrate culture as a sort of pattern of society deposits in three phases – The

traditional – the modern or industrial – and the post modern. These forms of culture will vary

with the different dimension mentioned above, and one can with this, characterize states of

cultures in societies, both in geographical space and time. Geert Hofstede has made an effort

in characterize and classify national cultures based on four chosen, statistical determined

dimensions: Individualism, distance of power, uncertainty avoidance and feminism.

Stabile and common frames of performances, which we call cultures, exist in several levels:

1. A national level considering which country one comes from. Not every country has a

united culture

2. A regional and ethnical / religious / language level, whereas most countries exist of

regions and other different groups of people.

3. A level of gender if one are born female or male

4. A social class level related to the level of education possibilities and the persons

profession.

5. An organisational level for those in labour, and that has responsibility for the way

employees are being socialized where they work.

One can also identify features of culture in different levels and depths, where at the bottom

one can find continuous presumptions that are not spoken of just know to members of the

certain culture. This could be trust, relations to others, time and the meaning of other

surrounding elements, like values. The next level, closer to the surface, one can find the ways

in which we communicate, this could be buildings, rituals, heroes and other symbols

representing the culture. These features can be difficult to interpret depending on if one

knows the deep lying features of the culture, or not (Ibid.).

3.4.1. The four dimensions Geert Hofstede has made an effort to classify and measure different cultures against each

other, where he has done two surveys with at total of 116000 schemes in 53 countries, spread


49

all over the world (Strand, 2004). It is the personnel at the sales and service department at

every level, that have answered the questions and due to the control over the technology,

procedures and the set of genders on the respondents, one could find the national differences.

With help from factor analysis Hofstede could identify four fundamental dimensions which

can contribute to separate between the different national cultures. These dimensions are:

1. Distance of power

2. Uncertainty avoidance

3. Individualism versus collectivism

4. Masculinity versus femininity

Further, one will try to give a closer description to the four dimensions, whereas the first one

is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much the culture allows a

superior to execute power. In cultures with high distance to power it is fundamental and

normal to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be looked at

with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position. Domination

and dependency are the fundamentals for co-operations. High distance to power is typical for

countries like Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. However, in a culture with low distance of

power, like Norway and Israel, one will have a more collegial relationship and a common

perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for cooperation, and

leaders cannot show others the power they posses. This culture is typical for the Northern

European countries (Ibid.).

The uncertainty avoidance dimension describes to which degree a culture encourage taking

risks. All organisations have to deal with changes and uncertainties in the environment and try

to learn and adapt to these. This happens in every country, but Hofstede has found that there

are some variation to which the different countries cope with this. Countries where one

strongly avoids uncertainties, like Greece and Portugal, people feel threatened and nervous

towards uncertain situations. This state of mind can be defined by hard work, job safety and

intolerance for aberrancy. One seeks to honour absolute values and show great respect for, for

example, age and one has a strong need for formal rules. In countries that has a lower need to

avoid uncertainty, like Norway and Denmark, one does not need the same amount of formal

rules to avoid experiences of anxiety (Ibid.).


50

Individualism versus collectivism is a dimension which measures how cultures emphasize for

individualists compared to collectives or group needs. In individualistic cultures, like USA

and Great Brittan, identity is often strongly connected to what the individual are and what

they do. It is expected that they take care of themselves and the family, and that effort and

performance are being rewarded. Everybody has the right to their opinion and private life, and

can only have one determined, calculated relationship to work. In collective cultures, like

Pakistan and Peru, the social relations are closer and the people are members of big families,

which protect them i exchange for loyalty. They emphasize for affiliation and the goal is to be

a good member, while in the individualistic perspective the ideal is to be an outstanding

individualist (Ibid.).

The last dimension is regards to masculinity and femininity. In the masculine cultures, like

Australia, Japan and Italy, performance is the only thing that counts. Money and material

standards and ambitions are the driving force. It is beautiful to be big and fast, manliness is

sexy and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitudes. In

feminine cultures, like the Netherlands and the Northern countries, life quality is the most

important aspect, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is a

motivational factor. Small-scale and unisex are attractive. In masculine cultures gender roles

are separated, the men are dominating and ongoing, while the women are set to be caregivers.

A dominating woman is not seen as feminine. In the feminine cultures gender roles are more

flexible and one beliefs in similarity between the genders, in principal. The men can also be

caregivers and the state should be more oriented towards inner and outer help tasks, and less

towards power assertion (Ibid.).

Hofstede groups the 53 cultures in clusters, which means groups of countries which are most

alike regarding some factors, and different compared to other factors. He makes a world map

over the different cultures, where he claims to find eight groups. In Europe there are three;

one Germanian, one Anglo-saxian and one Nordic group. In the Asian countries he also finds

three groups, whereas Japan might be a special case. Within the Latin countries, but also

Europe, he establishes two groups. Later studies give an additional two groups, East- and

Vest-Africa. Hofstede`s dimensions are expressed, in the different culture, through school

systems, relations at the work place and how the governmental organisation reduces or

increases, for example, the distance of power. The Scandinavian countries, together with the

Netherlands, have very low distance to power, average collectivism / individualism, a high


51

degree of ”feminism” and average low degree of uncertainty avoidance (ibid.).

As it is described above, it is difficult to explain what culture could be and is in relation with

organisation forms and management styles, and it is difficult to give an exact connection

between the different aspects. However, as some organisation forms are more typical or

”normal” in certain national and regional cultures, one can say that there is coherence

between culture and which organisational structure that is preferred. Cultures probably gives

some fundamental ground stones on how one should organize and structures a company, and

also how management and authority are executed within the organisation / country. One can

see this due to the different organisation forms emerging and operating in the different

geographical areas and by minorities that bring their traditions and ”way of living” into

foreign cultures. As an example, this could be the Chinese bringing their family oriented

structure into businesses in San Francisco and Montreal, where they live. French small

bakeries, Japanese car manufacturers, Norwegian cooperatives within agriculture and

American large enterprises must be understood as a phenomenon within the culture they are a

part of (Ibid.).

Further, if one wants to find out how culture effects organisations and management, one has

to select some dimensions which are considered important and vital to the situation. A good

beginning towards this is to imagine where the society and organisations are situated on a

scale or dimension from traditional to post modern culture. However, this is not an

unambiguous way to characterize an organisation or culture, but with the help of Hofstede`s

four dimensions, one gets a map of different organisational and management cultures.

Possible examples on how these dimensions are combined can be as described below:

Where there is large distance of power and little tolerance for uncertainty an

organisation will have many layers and rules, and one example of this could be the

French bureaucracy, both in public and private sector. It could be that with this there

exists an obesity of such organisation forms, and the management is likely to perform

and operate through formal structures, but may at the same time keep distance and

retain the privileges.

Slightly less distance of power one may find in Germany, but the need for order and

rules are still apparent. This gives some conditions for what one may call the German

emphasize for expert organisations or professional bureaucracy. Order and quality


52

characterize such organisations, and the professional is primarily the one that has the

authority to lead and manage.

In Nordic countries the less formal leader, who also accepts the women’s role, is more

typical than in France and Germany. There exist a less need for rules, and

organisations will have a more informal character. The last aspect also goes for

England, and something that can be compared to group organisations or cooperatives

in England, ”the village market”, will be an ingrediance in the organisation life. The

management styles are less obvious and clear.

In USA the strong individualism is prominent, where the strong leader gets mandate to

lead and the masculine qualities are emphasized. The attitude is to handle and deal

with much uncertainty. For other reason than mentioned here, American organisations

may also be large, but there is room for leadership and management at the same time

as there is bureaucratic arrangements and systems.

Cultures seem to contingent not only valid authority forms, but also how economic rational

business can or may be executed. Some cultures are closer than others, with many and stabile

formal and informal norms. This also gives the basis for exercising authority and the

membership in the culture or group can be virtually mandatory. This will, for example, apply

to many of the Asian countries, including Japanese business organisations. However, one can

imagine cultures and situations where there are fewer and less binding general features of

culture that provides a basis for organisation and leadership. A variation that probably occurs

occasionally, but usually not referred to in texts about organisation and management, the

situation where there are many standards, but it has not formed groups that influence and are

included in the standard system. The individuals are fatalistic. Cultures may be, more or less,

close and have obvious consequences for the organisation and management style one get, but

in general, one perceive it in a way that the culture is not something that surrounds the

organisations and management, rather it is within the organisations and management (Ibid.).

We have now seen how the phenomenon culture can be understood as a, more or less, visible

connection for organisation and management:

Cultures can be understood as basic fundamental common assumptions, values and

orientations which are typical within a national area, but does not always apply for all


53

and may sometimes have competitors through professions and regions etc.

Cultures gives the basis for that particular organisations and leadership forms are the

most likely or are preferred by the culture.

Cultures can in different scale be controlling for these organisations and leadership

forms, and they may also have varied conditions within a culture.

The organisations and leadership forms are characterized by the culture – the culture

lies within them.

Examples on how the culture and the environment, in different scale, affect the organisations

are illustrated by combinations of the dimensions institutionalized environment and technical

environment. The table below illustrates possible outcomes.

Table 3.4.1 Norms in the environment and organisation forms (Strand, 2004, pp. 212).

This is a way of perceiving cultures or the environment surrounding the organisations in a

way that separates between the norms that are incorporated in the environment and the

technical solutions that are available and applicable (Ibid.). A hospital will, for instance, be

characterized by strong, institutional norms, such as health, care and the patient’s best

interest. At the same time the hospital will practice techniques for diagnosis and treatment.

Biochemical and radiographic tests, together with complex technology for treatment

constitute a close technological environment. In the other corner of the table, one can find for

example day care for children, who are loosely organized with regards to the norms that

apply, and not much of technical equipment characterizes the organisation.

Institutionalized environment

Close Looser

Technical

environment

Close Banks

Hospitals

Courts

Industrial

Looser Schools

Social offices

Churches

Wellness clinics

Cafes

Day care


54

A particularly interesting subject for further studies are the question regarding how different

organisations creates links between their own organisation and the network surrounding them,

such as suppliers, clients, resources and information, and stakeholders and supporters.

Normally, one will find that these connections are rather close and that the organisations

cannot exist as something that differs from the norms and the normal possibilities that exists

in the environment. An important task for the management will be to find these codes for

transaction between the environment and organisation, and negotiate and administrate

relations.

3.4.2. Practical differences of culture - a Norwegian perspective. Culture will be the basis for communication - the possibility to keep stable and sensible

towards each other. One chooses to see the things that are important to us and one excludes

information, which we not perceive as right and important. In this way, culture becomes a

way of distinguish ourselves from others and the differences one may see when travelling to

other countries, as a part of a student exchanges, trying to co-operate with other states and / or

trading across borders. Further, one will try to give some examples on experienced culture

features and differences, based on a Norwegian way of thinking ( Strand, 2004).

In Norway, it is a virtue to be as similar to everyone else as possible, and the picture below, is

a perfect example of this. This picture show King Olav of Norway taking a trip with the tram

during the oil rationing in 1972, whereas he pays a ticket and sits down together with

everybody else on the tram (Ibid.).


55

Picture 3.4.2: King Olav takes a ride on the tram in 1972 (NRK, 2005).

Compared to other countries and cultures, like France, Germany, Spain and England, this is

quite abnormal, and they use in their language a polite speech form, which has a clear

language of expression, such as ”Sir” or ”Madame”. This could create some problems in

cultures where one emphasize for such polite name calling, especially when it is virtually

absent in modern Norwegian. In France it is normal to use the polite speech form ”vous” for

people who one wishes to show a minimum of respect. The personally form ”tu” is only used

by very young people and within the family. It is important to keep the formal distance

sufficiently big, and especially in France, face-to-face contact is seen as not very desirable.

Problems may occur when Norwegians in the face of foreigners do not select the authority

they should have had by virtue of their position or power. If for instance a Norwegian with a

leader position tells a Pakistanian employee to do a certain thing whenever he has got the time

for it, one may experience that the task will not be executed, due to a misunderstanding

between the different cultures. The Pakistanian may perceive the weak endorsement as a kind

of conversation, and implicit as an expression of weakness, and not as a binding order. The

author also confirms that this could be the case for interaction with certain African students,

whereas friendly guidance and minimising the rank difference between the professor and the

student may be seen as an opportunity to bargain – the students see this as a possibility to


56

achieve benefits, while the professor thinks he have paved the way for improvement and

logical solution of the task. A Norwegian leader may face problems if his communication

about duties and tasks are unclear towards Norwegians as well as foreigners. Norwegian will

think that a clear voice, rank signs and expression of privileges are inappropriate selection of

differences in rights, duties and rank, while this is something that the foreigners are used to

and expect. In this way the power of distance dimension would create problems, both at home

and away from home (Ibid.).

If one take a look at individualism and collectivism, one can see that there is a major

difference between Norway and for example USA, whereas being outgoing and the person of

the situation is considered as positive in USA, while in Norway it is more important to be

considered, not taking a chance to insult someone or make a fool out of one self. Earlier in the

oil industry when Norwegian oil workers worked under American leaders, their methods were

seen as direct and though, which in a way could insult the Norwegians. This can be

understood and explained by the American values of culture, individualism and a higher

degree of masculinity in the way they work. However, in Eastern cultures one can see

examples of the opposite, whereas Norwegians are more individualistic oriented and have

difficulties with understanding the collective orientations. In collectivistic cultures age is

honoured and is being used as characteristic as the most honourable form for membership and

must not be defended – this applies for most of the non-Western cultures. To change

profession or leave a company, we see as a normal thing to do, but in Eastern cultures, with

family oriented work structures, this is seen as abnormal and in many cases reprehensible. In

Japan, lifelong loyalty to the company is also seen as honourable and obvious, although

young Japanese seem to move away from this tendency and more towards individualistic

orientation. Likewise, the basis for social inclusion – a collective attitude, in some cultures

may be expressed by rarely given off on either request. In the East it is normal to smile and

express consent, even in cases where the answer would be ”no” in the West. In Arabian

societies and in the East Scandinavia one may experience very long preambles before doing

business. They talk about family, literature and seemingly irrelevant topics, forever. While the

Scandinavians wants to get down to business, the counterpart wants to provide security to

create trust between the two parties, and to make sure that the two parties make the business

relationship as fruitful as possible. This is done by committing like friends commit to each

other, and in this way if one can create close and personal relationship, it is possible to do

business. One has then developed its own group and included new members, and a majority


57

of people all over the world lives under these circumstances, where this is a natural approach

to doing business (Ibid.).

Further, one will talk about uncertainty avoidance in a Norwegian perspective, but indeed

compared to other cultures and countries. This is a dimension where Norway separates from

other countries, also the other Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, which are

generally more influenced by the continental forms of rank expressions. Japan is a country

which has a high degree of uncertainty avoidance, and when they buy Norwegian fish, they

send their own inspectors for quality assurance. They have a big need for documentation and

confirmation. In Austria one needs to be prepared to document ones status and competency,

and also show that one acknowledges others` status. This is also the case in Germany and

France. In United Kingdom one may experience that there are other ways to reduce the

uncertainty, whereas they look at how people dress, their language and signs on social

affiliation. This is the basis for trust and advancement in many circles. Sometimes it is more

important which University one has gone to, than your grades and which courses and subject

you have taken (Ibid.).

At last we want to discuss masculinity versus femininity orientation and take a closer look at

some examples of features in the different cultures. In some Arabian countries it is very

difficult to have female representatives in business and / or scientific delegations. Women

needs to be protected or controlled and cannot think as individuals, in the same way as men.

As an example of this one can mention when a conference in Saudi Arabia were moved to

Dubai, because the authorities found out that there were women participating without their

father, brother and husband present. Another example is when highly educated women from

Pakistan came to Norway on an introduction of a Norwegian University, and the Norwegian

professor wanted to shake their hands, but they backed off and did not want to touch the

strange man despite their high education and status. They had not adapted to the Western

culture, where men and women mingle freely and even touch each other. The Norwegian

gender equality policy where fathers may have granted leave in connection with childbirth, is

unique in the world context. The normal is that house, children and cooking are the women’s

domain and this is extreme in the advanced industrial nation Japan, where the proportion of

married women employed is low for the industrial nations and where the man lives out his

role as family provider and protector of hard work while requiring that he show his manly

strength by participating in the company's competitive behaviour and parties. Japan is, not


58

surprisingly, on top of Hofstede’s masculinity index (Ibid.).

Our next question is how to meet other cultures and does this have any affects on organisation

development and implementation of change?

The short and few examples mentioned above shows some of the difficulties and challenges

one has to face when people from different cultures meet. The basis for communication is not

necessarily present. What seems correct and fruitful behaviour in one situation, seems strange

and repulsive in another. To try to make meetings between individuals and organisations from

different cultures fruitful, and make it possible to communicate, it is nearby to recommend

language skills and tolerance. Language skills do not only give the technical ability to

communicate, but also an opportunity to a deeper understanding of terms and ways of

thinking, and thus knowledge of the other parties world. The experience with learning and

understand another language, normally makes you humble, and this is a good basis for a

tolerant and experimental approach. Surveys and interpretations about what is mentioned

above, may give you the assumption that one could learn a strange culture by reading books

and studying statistics. General insights might be to some help, but may also lead to hasty

conclusions, which could result in barren behaviour. A survey of managers, who were

characterized as little / much international oriented, by themselves and other observers, shows

some interesting differences between the two groups (Ibid.). An important difference was that

the international oriented group had described, impression-based and almost private

perceptions of other people. They did not base their answers on general theories or widely

recognized stereotypes. They were careful with generalizations and draw experiences from

one situation to another. They put emphasis on observing and listening, experiment and make

trials, and above all, active involvement with their contact parties. The other group had more

of a tendency to explain their procedures and their experiences, based on analytic categories,

both theoretical and even distant. The international oriented group used stereotypes, but only

as tentative and fluid categories, and they were highly aware of their own use of them. The

non-national oriented group perceived the other group as extremely adaptable, even as

chameleons. Another feature with the international oriented group is that they acknowledged

their own stress and possible culture shock when confronted with other people. They used

their experience and were taking in to account the differences among the employees and

realized that it may process the experiences. They may also withdraw to more stabile areas,

such as think brakes, diaries and other forums for reflection of experiences. The main


59

differences seems to be what we may call learning style: the ones that succeed the most in the

international environment may have general assumptions about other cultures and groups, but

fails to let it have a direct impact on the behaviour (Ibid.).

In this section I have tried to explain some of the different aspects of the term culture, and

what it contains. We want to take a closer look at the fundamental set of perceptions, which in

great terms are common for a nation or a group of people. Culture is the common

understandings and presumptions that exist within a unit, and further one tries to give some

characteristics of some of the different cultures and behaviours that may occur in an

organisational setting. Aspects like individuals, the relationship to others and the nature,

activities, space and time are only some dimensions, which can contribute to explain or

characterize certain cultures or cultural features. Culture can exist at different levels, from a

national level to an organisational level. Geert Hofstede is a well-known author within this

field, and he has managed to find some national differences, and with the help from factor

analysis he could identify four fundamental dimensions, which can contribute to separate the

different national cultures. These four are: Uncertainty avoidance, distance of power,

individualism versus collectivism, and masculinity versus femininity. He groups the 53

different cultures in to clusters – groups that are alike in relation to some factors, and different

compared to other factors. It is likely that cultures give some fundamentals on how one should

organize and structure a company, and also how management and authority are being

executed in the different organisations or even countries. France is a country that has a large

distance of power, while Germany has a more need for order and structure. The Nordic

countries are more feminine, and have a bigger tolerance for women as leaders and partners,

while in the US one can see a strong tendency to an individualistic culture. It is important to

understand that in a situation where people do business with each other, either within an

organisation or between different organisations, culture can be the basis for communication.

This could be the breaking point to which one cooperates well with one another, and also to

get a potential client to trust and have faith in the negotiations and business deals that you are

planning to do. We have tried to look at the different features and aspects of culture in a

Norwegian perspective, because this is a natural base to execute comparisons with. I also

assume that the Nordic countries like Denmark and Sweden are countries with almost the

same similarities. These cultures are typical feminine, has a low degree of distance to power

and uncertainty avoidance, while Norway also seem to be a collective culture compared to

USA, but a more individualistic culture compared to Eastern countries. Further one will try to


60

look at the challenges and differences that one have to face when working with people from

other countries, and also one wants to try to relate this to the process of change, which is

something that happens in many organisations and countries all over the world, today.


61

4. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION In this section one wants to look at the different change management theories compared to

different cultural contexts, and one may ask the question if there could be some theories that

are better suited for some cultures, or does this vary in accordance to the different situations

and organisations?

One could start with comparing Kotter’s eight step model with the Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

model 5D, where Kotter starts with creating an experience og necessity and discovering

potential crises and opportunities in the market. Further he suggests creating a governing

coalition, which means a group of people with sufficient competency, knowledge and power,

to execute the change (Guldbrandsen, 2010). The AI model starts with definition – what is it

that we want to promote? In this phase the change is given a motivating headline, and further

in the discovery phase, one seeks to find the best moments. When is this? What do we do

when it works the best, and which circumstances promote the best moments? Already here

one can see a difference between the two models, were the functionalism and Kotter seek to

find both the negative – the crisis, and the positive – the opportunities, the social

constructivism and AI seek only to find the positive, the best moments and the best

opportunities for the organisation.

The third step in Kotter’s model is to convey and communicate the change vision, where he

suggests to use every term and condition in the organisation to communicate the new vision

and the following strategies, where the controlling coalition are used as role models. He wants

to create a fundamental for action on a broad basis by removing all obstacles in the system,

structure and humans, which may block the change, and further encourage risk taking and

action amongst the employees. In the AI model one looks at the dream, what is it that we

dream about? How does it look like when we have reached the goal, how and when can we

determine this? The model emphasize for what we do, say and feel, and wonders if this state

can be measured in some way, and what is the first thing we will see when we have reached

the dream? (Ibid.). When comparing the above mentioned steps of the different model one

may get a picture of Kotter’s model as somewhat cynical, whereas the obstacles that could

block the change should be removed. Does this mean that if a person doesn’t like or resist to

the change, that it will be moved, or worse, dismissed from the organisation? In contrast one

could get a feeling when considering the AI model that they are including everybody in the


62

process of change, whereas they are asking the question; ”What is it that we dream about?” .

The phrase gives an impression of and including and collective point of view, where all

parties of the organisation are involved. Another aspect is that in the AI model it is not

mentioned who execute the change – is it everybody, like suggested above, or is there a

certain group, like in Kotter’s model, that has the responsibility of doing this? It could also be

interesting to see that one express the word goal in the dream phase, and immediately one

could think of rationalism and its beliefs, which is characterized as a goal-seeking machine.

Could this mean that social constructivism and AI have some similarities with rational theory

of management? Maybe it could be important to say that both the models and sciences have a

goal, but what exactly the goal is, could be different in the two aspects.

The sixth step of Kotter’s model is to generate short term benefits, where one plan and realize

fast visible victories, and also reward the ones that made these victories possible. Further the

model next step is to consolidate the result and produce even more change, by using the

change increased credibility to change all systems, structures and policies that do not

harmonize with the vision. One should hire and promote employees that live the vision

(Ibid.). The first thing I wish to question about this is the increased change credibility – to

achieve even more change one have to rely on that the change credibility has in fact

increased. If, for example, the credibility has not increased and the scepticism and resistance

to change holds the change back, the entire model could fail, and this step cannot be

conducted and completed as scheduled. It could and may be risky to the process, if one just

assumes that the credibility will increase – it is not always the things we plan to happen,

happens, and it could be crucial to take this into consideration. The second thing is based on

comparison with the design phase in the AI model, where they ask what to do to make the

dream a reality? How to create the circumstances that forms the framework that captures the

best moments? It is emphasized that every possible solution should be included, and

compared to Kotter’s credibility step this could give the impression of a more human

approach to the way one implement change, whereas Kotter’s models seem to want to get rid

of everything and everyone that is not in harmony with the new vision. One could question if

this is the best possible way to implement change and get people to breathe and live the

vision? Maybe this way of implementation only creates the opposite of what they want to

achieve – more resistance to change and less actually living the vision.


63

The last step of Kotter’s models is about anchor the new approach in the culture, whereas one

shall achieve new results through successful behaviour and more effective management and

leadership. One seeks to find and clarify the connection between new behaviour and results,

and one should recruit and develop management after the vision. The last step or phase in the

AI model is the delivery phase, where they focus on what they like to do together, and also

what they like to do by themselves. They question how they will manage or be able to see if

and how they succeeded, and they wonder when and how they are going to make up a status,

learn even more and find further initiatives (Ibid.). It could seem like the focus in Kotter’s

model is more result oriented than process oriented, the important thing is that the change

process bring both short term and long term results and that this should be brought upon with

successful behaviour. What is successful behaviour? Who and what determines what

successful behaviour is? Is it something everybody has to feel, and does in fact everybody

behave like this? Is it the top management which decides what successful behaviour is, and if

so what and how have they made for this to happen? Is successful behaviour one determined

behaviour or could it be different from person to person? Do we want to manage robots or

machines that think, speak and do exactly the same, or do we want do manage individuals that

in their own special and unique way contribute to the success of the organisation? These are

questions that come to mind when examining and comparing these two models. It seems like

the AI model in a larger degree thinks of everybody in a team spirit – how can we cooperate

and contribute to this change process to make sure that both the organisation succeeds, but

also in a way that the employees are content with the consequences of the change and the new

state it brings. However, it is important to see that the model also ask what the individual likes

to do by themselves, so the individual is also in focus, as well as the organisation as a whole. I

think that this could be a major factor that people actually believe and want to change, it think

it creates less resistance to change and people are more motivated to make an effort towards

the change because they that they are a part of it and may benefit from it. This is maybe were

the most significant difference between the two models evolves, because I think where the AI

model motivates people to participate in the change, Kotter’s model could struggle with

reaching the same level of motivation at every part of the organisation.

However, it is worth mentioning that were Kotter’s model could seem a bit cynical, the AI

model can be perceived as in some degree vague and a bit too tangible, there is nothing in this

model that one can physically see or get your head around, and it could also be that some of

the employees are more result oriented than process oriented and need to see that this gives a


64

higher profit or reduced costs, or even better working conditions for the employees. Although

the word Inquiry stands for a wish to create a better world, such as increasing the efficiency,

improve the cooperation, and also uses situations which have worked well or even best before

and also dreams for the future, it may be somewhat diffuse and it could be difficult to reach

all of the employees to believe and participate in the change process.

In general it could also be worth to mention that neither of the models mentions the time

aspect within the different steps or phases. It could make a difference to the process if one

knew exactly what to do at what time, and who were involved in this. Then again, it is

important that the theory are open for the possibility where the intentions not come out as the

wanted and actual result – there could always happen things one cannot predict, and that’s

when it could be important to a plan or at least be ready in case this happens.

Another aspect to this is that I have not compared it to the second approach which also

underlies functionalism – the visionary / ideological approach. However, Kotter emphasize

for that he maintains the eight step model and the linear approach it builds on also in this

approach so I will therefore only describe some small and general comparisons. Even though

the visionary model builds on the eight step model of Kotter it is at the same time inspired of

the ”best practice” from other organisations, where one seeks to create an attractive vision to

follow in the future (Ibid.). This could be a similarity to the AI model, where they both focus

on the future and also on something positive, something that has worked in other situations.

However, while the AI model seeks to look at something which was a good situation for the

organisation, the visionary looks at other organisation and wishes to follow their example.

The visionary model could also be seen as more human than the classic rational approach to

strategic management, where one look at the biggest challenge as changing the behaviour of

the employees, where one further seek to do this by focusing more on a see-feel approach,

where the primary source to change the behaviour is to create positive feelings. This could

also relate to the AI model, however, as we have discussed earlier, the AI model could seem

to lack some steps of definition and clarity, whereas the visionary model builds on Kotter’s

eight step model and in addition takes more into account the humans feeling, behaviour and

sense-making towards the vision and change. In this model it is 80 % the dream that gives the

change meaning, the dream creates positive feelings and the positive feeling creates new paths

and new behavioural patterns. The model also creates a safety net for the employees, so that

they could dare to take the first step into the unknown. This is something that separates from


65

both the AI model and the classic rational approach, and it could be seen as a positive adding,

for securing the employees. The model also emphasize for someone or somebody to give

feedback, either if it positive or if is not going as planned. This clearly has a parallel to the

classic rational approach, where there is described that a group, together with the top

manager, leads the change. This is not described in the AI model and supports the argument

of lack of clear steps and definitions in the process of change.

Further I want to look at these models mentioned above compared to the different culture and

dimensions of cultural features, which we have described in section 3.5. The basis for the

analysis and discussion will be the four dimensions, described by the author Geert Hofstede;

Masculinity versus femininity, individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and

distance of power, but one will also include some of the aspect like individual, the

relationship to nature, the relationship to others, activity, space and time if and when this is

suitable for the discussion. It could also be sensible to include the level to which culture can

exist in some sections of the analysis.

The first aspect of the theories of change management that one discussed were the difference

in focus, either on the positive and future, or the past and both the possibilities, but also the

negative and threats. If one compare this to the cultural dimensions, such as for example the

dimension of uncertainty avoidance. Could one draw a parallel where one assume that

cultures that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance would both analyze the threats and

the negative incidents from the future, just to make sure that this would not happen again.

However it could also be likely that they focus on the opportunities for the future, but just to

be sure also find potential crisis’s just to avoid this and avoid the uncertainty of not knowing

what might happen. Could this mean that a country like France would use Kotter’s eight step

model to implement change, where there exists many hierarchical layers, rules and structures?

Opposite, would a country like Norway, which have a low degree of uncertainty avoidance,

use the AI model to implement change, whereas the only thing is in mind are the future

dreams and how one together can create our own reality. Because we tolerate uncertainty and

don’t avoid it, are our perceptions more positive and future minded? If one should say that

Germany is a country that lies more or less in between France and Norway, could this mean

that they could benefit from using the visionary model when implementing change in an

organisation? It entails both structure and clear steps and definitions on the process of change,

but at the same time it focus on a dream and other ”best practice” examples as role models for


66

implementation. In addition it could be worth mentioning that such cultures as Germany

emphasize for order and quality and that maybe a total quality management, where the quality

aspect in focus, could be a well suitable program and management style for them to follow.

One could also mention the time aspect in relation to this, where one question if one are

oriented with the past, or the future? Considerations about long term goals and commitments

are in some cultures meet with resistance, where profit gains on a short basis seems more

reasonable, while other organisations in other countries or influenced by other cultures, may

have long term goals and be satisfied with this. The attitude towards a regulating dimension of

behaviour, may also vary between cultures. For example is timely precision and punctuality

seen as polite in the North of Europe, while in the Latin countries and Africa on may

experience a different attitude towards time, whereas sometimes people comes and goes as

they wants, even though meetings are planned and scheduled with others (Strand, 2004).

The next aspect is where Kotter’s model could seem a bit cynical in relation to the people

within the organisation, whereas the AI model seems more considerate towards the people

working in the organisation. Kotter wants to promote and reward those who contributes to

victories through the change process and those who lives the vision, while the AI model seeks

to include everybody and seek to find what they together do best, but also what they like to do

separately. Could this be seen in relation to the dimension individualism versus collectivism,

where more individualistic cultures would chose Kotter’s model, where they strongly

connects to what the individuals are or what they do. Effort and performance are being highly

rewarded in such cultures, and everybody has the right to their own opinion and private life,

and can only have one determined and calculated relationship to work. At the opposite end

where more collective cultures occurs, the social relationship are closer and the employees are

seen as members of a big family within the organisation or the unit they are a part of, where

protect each other in exchange for loyalty. Could this mean that organisations in the US

would chose Kotter’s model, where individuals are rewarded after effort and performance,

and if one don’t manage to deliver at the standards that the organisations or top management

demand, one could risk getting dismissed. In Pakistan and Peru, which are collective cultures,

could one expect that they would use the AI model, where the collective is in focus and where

everybody should contribute and be considered.


67

It could further be interesting to include the characteristics like individual, the relationship to

others, and activity, in this section, where the dimension of behaviour of the individual asks if

the human beings are good or evil, or even both. Do they have the possibility to choose freely

and are they to be trusted? These are aspects one might have to consider when working with

different cultures in an organisation, also when implementing change? When combining

different cultures in an organisation the individuals may have different perceptions of this and

act in accordance, so the management task could be to give clear guidelines towards this so

that there wouldn’t be any misunderstandings. The relationship to others is another dimension

of behaviour one has to consider. Does one relate to others like they are individuals or

members of a group? Are the decision making based on and made by individuals or based on

an agreement from a group? These are aspects that every organisation or business unit need to

consider when planning a change process with different cultures – people from individualistic

cultures could be used to that it one person, maybe the leader, who makes the decisions, while

an employee from a collective culture is more used to that decisions are made together within

a group. Also, when looking at employment one could experience some challenges where in

some cultures it is normal to hire a person based on that he or she either is family or a good

friend, while in other cultures this is considered highly unprofessional and demands that

employment should be based on documented education and experience. This probably

depends on the organisational structure within the organisation as well, where strongly

hierarchical organisations may not tolerate family or friendship hiring, while more flat,

unstructured and collective cultures would maybe not have a problem with this.

The next dimension of behaviour is activity, where one needs to consider if the employees are

working to achieve goals or just as a natural part of life. Id the meaning with life to be

someone – that could easily be compared to the individualistic cultures, or is it to do

something meaningful – which could compared to all types of cultures, either one do

something together in an collective view, or separately within an individualistic approach.

The third aspect is related to the treatments of the human being in the different models, as we

have said before Kotter’s eight step model could seem both cynical and cold whereas to how

one treat the employees, while both the visionary and the AI model seem to take the

employees into more and careful consideration when implementing the change. One could be

able to draw two parallels to this, whereas the first one could be to a masculine culture, where

performance and effort is the only thing that is important, and where money and material

welfare and ambitions are the driving force. These could be seen as a cynical world, where


68

good human relations sometimes might be though to achieve. It is attractive to be strong, big

and masculine and there is a clear distinguish between male and female activities and attitude.

Could this mean that masculine cultures like Australia, Japan and Italy would be most

compatible with Kotter’s eight step model, and that the more feminine cultures, like the

Netherlands and the Northern countries, would be more compatible with the AI model, where

one takes the whole human into consideration. Life quality is predicted as the most important

thing, together with people and environment, and the relationship to others is seen as a

motivational factor. One believe in similarity between the genders, where both men and

women can be care givers, whereas in a masculine culture gender roles are separated, where

the men are dominating and ongoing, while women should only be care givers. The models

does not say anything about genders in their phases or steps concerning the change process, so

one could only speculate that a masculine culture would fit better to the classic rational

approach, while a feminine culture should be better suitable for the AI model as care givers in

an professionally way.

The second parallel in this matter and also concerning the last dimension of Hofstede`s

cultural characteristics, is distance to power. This dimension is an expression for how much

the culture allows a superior to execute power. It could be reasonable to think that the classic

rational approach containing Kotter’s eight step model could be the model for implementing

change that would fit the cultures with a high level of distance to power. In these cultures it is

fundamental to empower and protect the role of the powerful ones, while others will be

looked at with suspicion because they could be a possible threat to the powerful position.

Domination and dependency are the fundamentals for cooperation, and with some similarities

to other cultures, like the masculine and the individualistic, Kotter’s eight step model could

seem like a compatible match, where it could seem like there exist somewhat hierarchy, order,

structure and where results and performance are rewarded and in focus. Organisation or

situation containing these circumstances, could experience a battle between the different

positions within the organisations, both internally and externally. Typical countries where this

could appear are Asia, Africa and the Latin countries. Opposite, one has countries that have a

low level of distance to power, where one operate with a more collegial relationship and a

common perception that the differences should be minimal. Trust is the fundament for

cooperation, and leaders and management cannot show the power they posses. Countries

where this culture is typical are Norway, Israel and also the Northern European countries, and

it could be likely that organisations in these countries would chose or be most compatible


69

with the AI model when implementing change. This is due to the nature of the model, where

one could get an impression that it takes all employees into consideration in the process of

change, where every solution shall be brought to the table and also where trust could be one

of the main fundamentals of the model, whereas everybody has something to contribute with.

When looking at these models and the comparison with the different cultures, and the

dimensions we have characterized them with, it could seem like there are a lot of possibilities

on how to implement change. One could also get an impression of that there are several

similarities between masculine, individual, and cultures with a high level of distance to power

and a high degree of uncertainty avoidance. Opposite, collective, feminine and cultures with a

low level of distance to power and a low degree of uncertainty avoidance, could seem more

alike, then the other cultures describes above. This is not something that is empirical tested

and adopted, just a possible observation when executing the analysis above. Which of these

cultures and models that are considered most suitable to use in an change process is not clear,

and it could be that the best and optimal way to implement change and organisation

development, are not only dependent on the culture and model, but also the entire

organisational situation, and the scope and depth of the change.

It is important that one also include the comparative models, OD and TQM, into this analysis.

When considering OD, the definition done by French and Bell Jr., have many aspects to

consider, but an overall picture seem to emphasize towards a more collective and AI model

approach, but at the same time it have some features related to Kotter’s model. In relation to

the different cultural aspects, one may assume that a collective culture would use an OD

approach to change. However, since we also have mentioned that this approach have some

similarities with Kotter’s model, a culture which is combined with both collective and also

feminine, masculine and individualistic features may use this approach. It is also a model that

emphasize for top management commitment and leadership, whereas a culture with a high

level of distance to power could prefer this approach, even thought it entails collective

features. According to the uncertainty avoidance aspect of Hofstede`s cultural dimensions it

could seem like the OD approach lies on a middle range as to this concern, where one both

wants to consider the problems or challenges which have happened i the past, but also with a

focus on the possibilities ahead. One aspect, barely mentioned in the theoretical framework of

OD, is that there is slightly different focus concerning the definition of OD and the actual

”Process consultant model”, which represents an OD approach to implementing change,


70

whereas the model takes a more comprehensive access to what OD is about, while the model

is more narrow in it descriptions. It could be that the model is just in some degree described in

the text, and that it could be further divided in to further sub-steps which allow one to take

more consideration to the whole aspect of OD.

TQM is another aspect, which also could be used as an example for implementing change

with focus on quality, rather than a model. Either way, it is important that we take it into

discussion related to the four cultural dimensions addressed by Hofstede. The first thought is

that TQM could be a compatible model or approach to implementing change in collective and

feminine cultures, whereas the quality programmes are team oriented, however, as mentioned

in the theoretical framework of TQM, it have also some parallels to Kotter’s model, which are

more masculine oriented. Considering the quality aspect one may connect that to a somewhat

high degree of uncertainty avoidance, where as one in this model seek to implement, maintain

and sustain quality throughout the whole process, which could be something that is linked to

uncertainty avoidance. If the quality is maintained at all levels and at every point in time, one

may also think that the organisation could avoid any uncertainty along the way. Does this

mean that TQM would be suitable for countries like Portugal and Greece, and not a preferable

choice for a country like Norway? This could be a fact, but it is also important to consider that

maybe quality is an aspect that is important to maintain in every culture and organisation, so

this model could be an options for everybody to consider, not just the cultures that find it

compatible with the culture and organisation. The last dimension; distance to power related to

TQM could be difficult to define, but one may think that cultures with a middle to a high level

of distance to power would appreciate the TQM model, because the top management is such a

central role in the change process. However, this is not a guaranteed assumption because it the

management could also be involved in a culture or organisation with a low distance to power,

but in this paper one choose the first assumption based on the following argument. This could

for example be countries in Asia and Africa, as well as the Latin countries, while opposite one

find Norway and Israel.

I have further tried to summarize the different change models with Hofstede`s four culture

dimension in a figure to create a comprehensive and general overview of the similarities and

differences of the different theories aligned.


71

Change Theories

Hofstede`s four

cultural

dimensions

Kotter OD TQM AI

Masculine vs.

feminine

Masculine More feminine,

but with

masculine

features

More feminine,

but with

masculine

features

Feminine

Individual vs.

Collective

Individual Collective

inspired

More collective

than

individualistic

Collective

Uncertainty

avoidance

High degree of

uncertainty

avoidance

Middle range of

uncertainty

avoidance

Somewhat high

degree of

uncertainty

avoidance

Low degree of

uncertainty

avoidance

Level of

distance to

power

High level of

distance to

power

Middle range

level of distance

to power

Somewhat high

level of distance

to power

Low level of

distance to

power

One can further look at two models when analyzing different features on how to implement

change, which gives a basis for the depth of the change and suggests that this is an important

matter to consider when facing change. It is important to know that the models are just a

support to the important intuitive perceptions one may have, and the models do not take the

history of the organisation into account. The first thing one may look at is how change should

be managed, and with inspiration from the contingency schools, one may illustrate three

management styles which are often used in change processes;

1. The narrator

2. The seller, and

3. The facilitator


72

Their management styles can, in short, be described as the following. The narrator informs of

the new terms of change, the seller sells, listens and adjusts after needs, and the facilitator

change and learn together with the other employees.

To support the parent management style one need to look at the depth of the change, where

the degree of concreteness is something that separates the changes from one another. These

changes could be illustrated in an iceberg, where the different changes are situated on three

different levels of the iceberg, one on top, one in the middle, and one at the bottom (Ibid.).

Figure 5.0: The depth of the change (Guldbrandsen, 2010, pp. 35).

First you have tangible changes in the physical systems, which lays above the less tangible

changes in the organisational design, such as structure, processes and systems, and at the

bottom, one have the more intangible changes, where the focus is directed towards the mental

model, such as the culture (Ibid.).

The point is that changes in sub systems, design changes and changes in the mental models

have very different consequences for the employees. For example if one have to deal with

tangible changes in sub systems, there are seldom demand for new ways of thinking and take

action. When there are changes in the organisational design, the consequence and the goal for

Tangible changes in sub systems

Less tangible changes in organizational design

Intangible changes in mental models


73

the future is that the tasks and actions are being handled and resolved in a different way.

Changes in the mental models includes both changes in the action pattern and also has a goal

to change the way people look at the world, which means changed attitudes, perceptions and

emotions (Ibid.).

From the terminology of the two models, The AI model and the linear model of problem

solving (define the problem, find reasons, find solutions, implement), intangible changes goes

in the direction, when putting the organisations norms and values at stake, of the management

style number 3, the facilitator. If one also use the three isms, social constructivism have more

to offer when dealing with the challenges one have to face in the social universe. One cannot

order or market themselves to a new culture. An attempt to this could for example lead to

headaches for the employees and loss of management credibility. However, if it concerns

changes in the organisational design, management style number 2 – the seller – could be a

good base to start. If the possibilities for actions are limited, and there is no room for

listening, it is important that this model is not overdone. This could for example mean that if a

bigger company made changes on a management level and if the decision is made and there is

no room for involvement, one should not try to give another impression. Finally, emergency

situations will draw in the direction of management style 1, also when the changes are

intangible (Ibid.).

However, if the changes in the organisational design also want to make a solid imprint in the

culture, an advice could be to use management style 2 – the seller – but move over to

management style 3 – the facilitator – when the changes have been conducted. This means

that there will be room for negotiation and a common opinion formation in the communities

of practice, during the process. If for instance, the changes happen in the physical universe,

management style 1 with a touch of management style 2, would be comprehensive for the

start of the process (Ibid.).

Based on the three isms, social constructivism has the most to offer when dealing with

intangible change and mental models, where cultural attitudes, moral, behaviour and emotions

need to change. At the opposite end, modernism, has its strength when dealing with changes

situated on top of the iceberg, tangible changes in sub systems. This is where the linear

mindset can be best established, and where the modernism and the metaphor of the machine

are at home (Ibid.).


74

A potential explanation for the many change processes that do not live up to their potential

and expectations, can be found in the linear mindset and the following rational problem

solving method, which are being used outside their context, the physical universe, and instead

are applied in the social universe, where this model has nothing to offer. Most changes comes

from changes on an organisational design level, but have derivative effects in the mental

models, which result in that the classic approach to change management fall short. However,

when this have been said, it is important to underline that the choice of management style

should take the base in the situation, where circumstances like the organisational history and

culture, should play a significant role.

If for example it is a tradition for a linear mindset and management style 1 and 2, it is not

certain that the organisation is mature enough for the AI model and management style 3, also

when one are dealing with intangible changes. Correspondingly, management style 1 could be

a bad choice for an organisation that are used to management style 3, also even though one

have to deal with tangible changes (Ibid.).


75

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion and analysis above, it is difficult to find or conclude that one model is

better for implementing change, or even that one culture due to their cultural features may

adapt the change better or easier, with less resistance. One could suggest that it seems likely

that the AI model and social constructivism are concepts and sciences which are more

appealing to feminine, collective and cultures with a low level of distance to power, whereas

soft values like team spirit and performance, belonging, unity, prosperity and work

environment are seen as aspect that are important to perform well, also in change situations.

However, this is also dependent on the organisational culture within the organisation, even

though a company is situated in Norway, it could be an American owned company, which

means that there could be a mix of different cultures working there, maybe in large

Norwegians, but also Americans and other nationalities. The model of change one wants to

use in this matter, is then dependent on the choice of the management, how do they think the

new change will be implemented and adapted in the best possible way for the entire

organisation? The choice of change model is then based on the specific situation of the

organisation, both concerning the different cultures involved, and also the method of

implementation that should be taken in to use in this matter.

Opposite it could be valid to suggest that Kotter’s eight step model would be preferable to use

in masculine and individualistic cultures, and also cultures with a high level of distance to

power, and the last dimension of Hofstede, which in this case could be cultures with a high

degree of uncertainty avoidance. The validation to this suggestions lies in the cultural features

where one seek to emphasize for rules and regulations, honour the ones or the one that

contributes the most to a certain task, and where one seek to find both former risk and future

possibilities before implementing the change. However, the same as for the above mentioned

cultures, one could have a mix of different cultures, even though the company are situated in a

country with a strong cultural dimension. One could further suggest that organisation that are

situated in their own country, with most of their employees from the home country, would

choose a model that are comparable and compatible with both the organisational and the

international culture, whereas this could be seen as based on a generic evaluation and choice,

which assumes that this choice relies on a common perception of all the involved parties in

the organisation and culture that this is the right choice to make. In the other case mentioned

above, it could be slightly different, where one could have a situation where an organisation is


76

situated in one country, but the employees working there are from all over the world and from

all different cultures – what is then the right choice to make, and will everybody agree upon

this choice? This is difficult to answer and I don’t think there is one way that is the best and

optimal to do it, rather that the optimal and best way of implementing change would depend

entirely on the entire situation and the organisation, and even case to case. It is up to the

management to decide which tactics and models to use when trying to reach and commit all

involved parties of the organisation in the process of change. In this situation it is not given

that all of the employees and even the management group are unified in which model to use

and even have the same perception of what would be the best model to use, because of their

different cultural values and beliefs. In it not a matter of a generic choice, but rather a

situational evaluation of the specific situation the organisation is in, whereas one seek to find

the best an optimal way to implement change in this situation, and for this organisation.

Another thing to consider in the process of change, is that one meet the organisation and

culture where it is, and change should take into account the unique history of the organisation,

the challenges the organisation experience and the possibilities that occurs, also including

resources (Guldbrandsen, 2010).

One may further take OD and TQM into consideration, whereas both of them can be seen as

more feminine than masculine, and also more collective than individualistic, which could give

an assumption that both of these models could be more compatible for implementing change

in countries like Peru, Pakistan and also the Netherlands and Northern countries. However,

one may also suggest that TQM could be a suitable model for cultures and organisation with a

high level of uncertainty avoidance and distance to power, such as Asia, Africa and the Latina

countries, as well as Greece and Portugal. When looking at these dimension and the OD

model, one may find a culture that have a middle range of both of these aspect, because one

may suggest that these dimension does not stand out as particular strong or weak related to the

OD approach.

Based on the analysis, the three isms, rationalism, functionalism and social constructivism,

and a fourth ism applied by Klaus Guldbrandsen - pragmatism, one may conclude with the

fact that the choice of which approach and access to use to change management, should be

situational. The things that should determine which management style to chose, is partly the

subject field of the change, tangible to intangible, and partly the organisations history and

management culture. The most important points when considering change management, is


77

that the choice of management style and school, should be a conscious choice. Too often, one

experience that leaders and change agents uncritical reproduces the approach that themselves

have experienced. If one just reproduces the existing approach to change management, one

may instead risk that the culture lead you, whereby you will be the biggest obstacle to your

own success. A prerequisite for the choice one makes in relation to the change management

approach is to have solid knowledge of the different schools and the tools, which you may

support and relay upon, in the process of change.

A quote from the cultural theory`s father, Schein, states an important message for the future;

”As a leader you have one, and just one, important choice: - will you lead the culture or will

you let the culture lead you” (Guldbrandsen, 2010, pp. 39).

5.1. Further research Further research should be enrolled around making awareness of these theories, so that the

right decisions are made in each individual case of change, and also at the beginning of the

process. One may question what kind of change are one dealing with, what is the history of

the organisation, how should this change be managed and which change theory approach

should one use, to achieve the best result, both considering efficiency and quality, but also the

organisations as a whole, with its contributing and committed employees. The cultural feature

and the organisational culture or the mix of cultures, could also be comprehensive to have

knowledge of, before the implementation of the change starts. Making awareness and

information of these matters could contribute to make change processes in the future and all

over the world, more effective and successful.


78

6. REFERENCES

6.1. Books and articles: Almaraz, J. (1994). Quality management and the Process of Change. Journal of

Organisational Change Management, Vol. 7 No 2, pp.6-14. MCB University Press,

Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: the logic of anticipation. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Brannen, J. (1992). Mixing methods: qualitative and quantitative research. Aldershot:

Avebury.

Busch, T., & Vanebo, J. O. (2003). Organisasjon og ledelse: et integ[r]ert perspektiv.

Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design, Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand

Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications , Inc

Cumming, T.G., & Huse, E.F. (1989). Organisation development and change. St. Paul: West

Publishing Company.

Ellefsen, B (1998). Triangulering – eller hvorfor og hvordan kombinere metoder? I Lorensen.

M. (red) (1998). Spørsmålet bestemmer metoden. Forskningsmetoder i sykepleie og

andre helsefag. Universitetsforlaget. Oslo.

French, W. L., & Bell, C. H. (1999). Organisation development: behavioural science

interventions for organisation improvement. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Guldbrandsen, K. (2010). Den fjerde isme – Fire Veje til forandringsledelse, Strategi &

Ledelse, Børsen Forum A/S

Hennestad, B. W., Revang, Ø., & Strønen, F. H. (2006). Endringsledelse og

ledelsesendring: endringslæring for praktisk orienterte teoretikere og

reflekterte praktikere. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Jacobsen, D. I. (2004). Organisasjonsendringer og endringsledelse. Bergen:

Fagbokforlaget

Jacobsen, D. I. (2005). Hvordan gjennomføre undersøkelser?: innføring i

samfunnsvitenskapelig metode. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforl.

Morgan, D. L. (1998). Practical Strategies for Combining Qualitative and Quantitative

Methods: Application in Health Research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(no 3), 362-

376.

Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for


79

accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. Vol 23, No. 6,

pp. 733-758. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Roos, G., Krogh, G.V., Roos, J., Fernström, L. (2007). Strategi – en innføring. Bergen:

Fagbokforlaget.

Skog, O.-J. (2005). Å forklare sosiale fenomener: en regresjonsbasert tilnærming. Oslo:

Gyldendal akademisk.

Strand, T. (2004). Ledelse, organisasjon og kultur. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Weichel, J., Buch, M., Urban, D., & Frieling, E. (2009). Sustainability and the ageing

workforce: Considerations with regard to the German car manufacturing

industry. I P. Docherty, M. Kira & A. B. Shani (red.), Creating sustainable

work systems. London: Routledge.

Westenholz A. (2002). Cross-Hierarchical Management, Inaugural Lecture.

Westenholz, A. (2009). Institutional Entrepreneurs Performing in Meaning Arenas:

Transgressing Institutional Logics in two Organisational Fields, Research in the

Sociology of Organisations, Vol. 27.

Whittington, R. (2002). Hva er strategi? Og spiller den noen rolle? Oslo: Abstrakt Forlag AS.

6.2. Internet sources: NRK (2005) : Picture of the Norwegian King Olav the Fifth:

http://www.nrk.no/programmer/radio/norgesglasset/1.896748 (Reading date:

20.11.10).

research question: change management theories - studenttheses

Documents