Amongst his chief observations, Smith (2003) identified that the role of the sponsor is pivotal in positioning culture change as part of the business strategy and building support among key executives.įinally, the implementation plan should provide for replacement of key players given the lengthy time span associated with cultural change and turnover rates associated with senior and middle management. Alvesson (2002) is proponent of this view, as the overwhelming majority of managers do not manage entire cultures “Instead they manage within cultures and affect or negotiate the meanings and values of their subordinates, peers or immediate superiors” (p172). Their sponsorship was perceived as more related to successful outcomes than sponsorship by the C-suite. Smith identified that one key to successful culture change is to recognise the crucial role of the middle rank of leadership. The principal factors correlated with failure involved breakdowns of leadership, communicating with employees and project management failures. Kotter and Heskett found that the timespan for major cultural change ranged from 4-10 years and averaged six, and the longer the change process, the more opportunities for things to go wrong.Ī study by Smith (2003) into 59 organisational changes found that culture change usually occurred in combination with other types of change. Another problem is the timespan to accomplish change. Leadership may also lose confidence early in the change process when business results are disappointing. Furthermore, senior managers may lose touch with the needs of their organisation, fail to support the change efforts of mid-level managers and even make decisions that frustrate change efforts.Īlternatively, leaders who sponsor change efforts may fail to communicate a compelling need for change. Organisations that have been successful in the past may persist in their cultural values, even though these inhibit the organisation from adapting to a changing environment. Why is culture change so difficult? Kotter and Heskett (1992) studied 207 firms and identified several factors. Deal and Kennedy (1982) considered the environment as the single biggest influence in shaping a culture.īeer and Nohria (2000) state that 70% of all change initiatives fail and Smith (2003) cites a range of studies which found that only between 10% to 32% of companies reported success in changing their “vision, values and culture”. Other scholars claim that cultural change is difficult to control because of the influence of the environment on the organisation, which is uncontrollable by nature, such as financial crises (Davis, 1971). This involves not one change, but many changes so that together they “reflect a new pattern of values, norms and expectations” (Kanter, 1984, p196). Trice & Beyer (1993) posit that whether creating or changing cultures, leaders inevitably need to replace some prevalent ideologies, symbols and customs with new ones. Scholars largely concur that culture change is difficult, complicated and demands effort that may not succeed. Alvesson (2002) calls this the ‘pragmatic’ approach, as culture change takes place through intentional effort and can be controlled by means of leadership and management. Harris and Ogbonna (2002) explain that despite consensus that cultural evolution occurs, approaches to culture interventions tend to be revolutionary in nature. This centres on the premise that as new organisational members are socialised, they are inculcated with the organisation’s culture, which is further reinforced by dynamic interaction. The most established evolutionary approach is that of Sathe (1983). Models of culture change focus on either ‘natural’ evolution or ‘forced’ revolution. What prominent scholars say about the challenges of culture change.
0 kommentar(er)
