CULTURE, VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:Significance and Role of Values, Values Compete

<< CHANGE IMPLEMENTATION: OD MODELS:The Transactional Factors

ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES, CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:Issues in Change Management >>

Change Management MGMT625

Lesson # 44

CULTURE, VALUES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

In our earlier session, we had examined that Burke Litwin model and therein we had discussed the

relationship between performance and change by exploring the interplay between organizational

functioning and organizational desired goals. We also talked about first-order change or transactional

change and compare it with second-order change or transformational change. We had also discussed

that, only in OD framework we have large number of models for organizing and maintaining the

organizations in today's complex business environment. Similarly in today's session, first we go for

discussing a new `Marvin Weisbord's Six-box Model' and then we go over to discuss Culture,

Values and Organizational Change.

Marvin Weisbord's Six-Box Model

It is a diagnostic frame work, as to Burke Litwin model, often used for diagnosing organizational

problems since 1976 when it published. This model, according to Weisbord, is based on following

critical areas:

Purposes

Leadership

Structure

Relationships

Rewards

Helpful

So far we have dealt with different variables in various sessions with greater detail and depth. The

purpose of introducing variety is increasing our understanding. The purpose of introducing this

model is to diversify the students' frame of mind with greater verity of tools for cognitive mapping

and systematic examining the processes and activities in various models for identifying gray areas in

organizations.

Organizational Culture, Values and Change Management Process

Why values are so much critical in understanding change formulation and execution? How managers,

especially top managers are able to create the learning climate for the enterprise? Or the question is

whether an organization can survive without an appropriate set of values? These are the questions

over which a lot of research is going on since early stages of the evolution of modern management

literature. For instance, Emile Durkheim (sociologist) worked on "values and norms", Henri Fayol's

work on "social man" approach to management, Vilfredo Pareto's work on "social systems

approach" and in the recent times Peter F. Drucker's work on "social environment." Therefore over

the period of time, beside the scientific school of management we have seen a progress in the areas of

values, norms, and in organizational culture particularly in the context of developed countries.

While dealing with values one should know that, values are not the universal phenomena. These have

been varied across individuals, groups, organizations and, of course, across cultures. The value-

driven organizations work out more carefully in programming, evaluating and executing the values as

to form them into plan that permeates everyday decisions. Koontz defined the term "value" as:

"A fairly permanent belief about what is appropriate and what is not that guides the actions

and behavior of employees in fulfilling the organization's aims."

Enz defined values as: "The beliefs held by an individual or group regarding means and ends."

138

Change Management MGMT625

Other scholars define values in various terms such as:

· in terms of `beliefs'

· in terms of `actions, symbols'

· and in terms of social behavior and norms

By dealing with all these definitions, we see that the source of all values is human mind that is based

on perceptual construct or matrix which evolves over a period of time. This can be applied to

multiple levels of analyses. Another scholar named Rokeach defined values at more generic level as:

"Values work to provide systems of meaning and interpretation that filter environmental and

intra-organizational signals."

Here in this definition we found that, values drive peoples towards sense making and therefore it is

extremely normal that different people arrive or give different meanings to a single phenomenon. It is

because, according to modern research context, every individual is unique or has unique capabilities

and hence his value configuration and resource configuration are also unique. Therefore, according to

Rokeach, values structure receives signals form intra-organizational and environmental levels,

interpret them into new meanings or values, and then prioritize them.

Significance and Role of Values

"Values underpin the way in which organizations are designed and operated therefore

values are embodied in organizations' structures and system by implication we have to

revise our values instead of revision in structures and systems."

The statement mentioned above shows that values are built in phenomena in organizations. Nothing

is value free or valueless at any level of analysis. For instance, if an organization goes for introducing

technology then this decision also reflects values of a manager such as: its belief on clean processes,

efficient control and modernity. So, the imperative here is that, if organization seeks change then it

not only needs revision in strategy, structure, or technology but needs a revision in values, norms,

behaviors and ultimately attitudes. Most reforms failed in organizations because of their focus largely

on visibles rather then on invisibles like values and cultural elements. For handling this situation,

organizations needs effective training processes and transmission of new knowledge and values for

changing thought patterns.

While dealing with values at environmental level we study the relationship between organizational

values and the society. As Selznick, a well known figure about socio-technical system, noted this in

1949 that:

"Organizations are social systems"

He believes that technological development has greater impact on social environment of a society

and technological organization itself works in a society with some social entity. Therefore,

organizational values can never be considered inalienable to its societal values. On the other hand,

the traditional Western scientific management paradigm believed on such inalienability and

indifference. For instance, Max Weber, a German intellectual, whose empirical analyses of church,

government, the military, and business led him to the belief that organization should be clear about

rules, definitions, tasks, and disciplines and employees should work in politically and socially neutral

ways just like a machine. Therefore by this way, he assumes organizations will be more productive.

This seems to have very little validity in the present times or organizations will be faced up with

serious consequences.

At individual level, it is historically revealed that all humans are emotional beings. Then at

organizational perspective this must also be true that managers and workers are also emotional

beings. Now, recent literature suggests that managers are not only intelligence and emotional beings

139

Change Management MGMT625

but also, one degree forward, are considered spiritual being in line with their value structure. And on

the basis of this value structure, the degree of organization commitment is determined. Similarly, the

organizations are also exhibiting some rationality in addition to profit maximization. If organization's

values, norms, and rationalities must be compatible to the values, norms, and rationalities of a society

then this will allow least interventions and regulations from government otherwise large interventions

and regulations for organization. In management discipline, we can further discover this aspect as

corporate social responsibility concepts where organizations are considered as corporate social

citizens. In the contexts of both entrepreneurship and multinational corporations, the same level of

value alignment is required between values of an entity and its society.

Short case

Suppose there are two subordinates; one is loyal but incompetent vs. another, who is professional but

arrogant in behavior. The question then is as an HR manager which one would you wants to be

promoted to the next higher management tier? No matter what ever is your decision, the fact remains

that values compete in your behavioral choice or decision making process. Therefore, in this

particular case what is important is to look is the fact that how you prioritize your values. Whether

these are political or relationship oriented values that stay at the top in your preference as a decision

maker or otherwise. And as such there exist a trade off between the two. Most of the time

organizations have to face such a trade-off scenario like the one between task orientation or people

orientation which comprises of participative decision making versus quality authoritative decision

making.

Values Compete

Choosing an appropriate set of values is an art or a challenge for change management consultants,

strategists and academicians because values most often are also competing with each other. A

scholar, Quinn, who has been engineered this concept into a well-known paradigm entitled as

Competing Value Framework (CVF). It is an assessment tool which enables the higher management

to assess their current values and help to transform them into newly desired ones.

In organizations, we have different set of values which shapes the norms, conventions and cultures.

Most often, the organizations would deal with different trade-off between various choices like

between task culture and support culture, participative decision making and unilateral decision

making, and between quality and quantity as we have seen in case study. Then this must be depend

upon the priorities of the dominant culture that how can organization prioritize its values. For

instance, we have a very well familiar approach to defining leadership styles is the Managerial Grid,

where a manager having concern both for production and for people. Through this trade-off, it is easy

for a manager to determine his compromised leadership style. Similarly in real life, there also exists

number of trade-off scenarios among various values which compete with each other.

How these various kinds of trade-off scenarios could be resolved particularly in organization

context? The answer lies to the establishment of a strong normative system which means a system

which could have the ability to sense about good or bad. Without an effective normative system,

organizations cannot move in the right direction. In short, values are part of a normative system

which plays a decisive role in organizational decision making and communication. Unfortunately, we

can observe that the normative system is in weakening or declining in this modern age. This is

because the information which is coming from various channels is diffusing or blurring our view

about good and bad. Therefore, we tend to have a degenerating normative system. Consequently, the

successful organizations go for revisualization, restructuring, reorganizing of values known as

cultural revitalization over a period of time.

140

Table of Contents: