A%20new%20framework%20for%20managing%20change%20across%20cultu

involved in achieving or sustaining thechange, and (ii) they tend to want todiscard the current situation in favour ofa new future, thus throwing out the bestof what already exists.

After an extended period of researchover many years and developing dilemmatheory with Hampden-Turner (1992), theauthors have come to a different viewbased on extensive evidence collected

INTRODUCTIONMany researchers have suggested modelsfor change which seek to embraceculture change within organisations(corporate culture), while others havealluded to issues of change across(national) cultural boundaries. Mostmodels, however, can be criticised fortwo principal and recurring reasons: (i)they tend to underestimate the difficulty

� Henry Stewart Publications 1469-7017 (2003) Vol. 3, 4, 361–375 Journal of Change Management 361

A new framework for managing changeacross culturesReceived: 18th February, 2003

Fons Trompenaarsis founder of the Centre for International Business Studies, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,Director of THT Consulting and Van Russum Professor at the Solvay Business School,Brussels, Belgium.

Peter Woolliamsis Professor of International Business, Ashcroft International Business School, AngliaUniversity, UK; Visiting Research Fellow at THT Consulting; and Faculty Member ofManagement Centre Europe, Brussels, Belgium.

KEYWORDS: dilemma theory, corporate culture, change transformation, cross-culture,opposing values

ABSTRACT A new paradigm for the management of change is proposed. Most existingframeworks tend to want to discard the current situation in favour of a new corporateculture, thus discarding the best of what already exists. The authors argue that changing anorganisation’s culture is a contradiction in terms. This is because cultures act to preservethemselves and to protect their own living existence. So rather than seeing change as a‘thing’ opposing continuity, it is considered as a difference. The authors believe organisationsseek change to preserve the company, profitability, market share and core competence. Thereason for changing certain aspects is to avoid changing in other respects. In short,organisations must reconcile change with continuity in order to preserve an evolving identity.The new methodology is centred on diagnosing the tensions between the current and idealcorporate culture. These tensions manifest themselves as a series of dilemmas. The newapproach for the management of change is to reconcile these dilemmas. Compromise alone isinsufficient. The authors demonstrate with examples and offer a new conceptual frameworkon how seemingly opposing values deriving from the tensions arising from changeimperatives can be integrated to achieve a ‘win-win’ outcome.

Fons TrompenaarsTrompenaarHampden-Turner, Culturefor Business, A. J.Ernststraat 595-D,Amstelveen 1082 LD, TheNetherlands

Tel: �31 20 301 6666;Fax: �31 20 301 6555;e-mail:[email protected]

methodology is neither simply throwingaway the past nor seeking to change awell-embedded, resistant, self-preservingcorporate culture.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUNDAs Senge (2001) noted, the word‘change’ means several, oftencontradictory, things. Sometimes itrefers to the external world oftechnology, customers, competitors andsuch like. Sometimes it refers tointernal changes such as practices, stylesand strategies. The authors will refer tochange as the changes in sharedassumptions, values and practices oforganisational actors as they arestimulated by changes in theenvironment. Although executives oftenintervene because the pace of internalchange is not keeping up with that ofthe external world, it will not beassumed that all change needs to beled from the top down. The authorsstrongly believe that change processeswhere leaders are not involved are likeup-hill skiing: it is possible, but oneneeds to be a very good athlete.Because the focus is on culturalchange, the role of the leader is crucialbecause he or she is symbolising theculture and is the main creator ofculture. The authors believe, like PeterSenge, however, that cultural change isnot simply the responsibility of the‘Hero-CEO’. It is striking how theAnglo-Saxon model of change hasdominated the world of changemanagement. It is based too often ona task-oriented culture and the ideathat traditions need to be forgotten assoon as possible. What is thealternative? The approach needs to beamended from a ‘what’ and a ‘why’process into a ‘through’ process whichtakes the existing culture to bereconciled with the new culture.

across the world from a large number ofdiverse organisations. The authors believethat changing an organisation’s culture isa contradiction in terms. This is becausecultures act to preserve themselves and toprotect their own living existence. Sorather than seeing change as a ‘thing’opposing continuity, the authors see it asa difference. The authors believeorganisations seek change to preserve thecompany, profitability, market share andcore competence. The reason forchanging certain aspects is to avoidchanging in other respects. In short,organisations must reconcile change withcontinuity in order to preserve anevolving identity.

Thus the authors offer a new approachto change. The overall core frameworkrequires an assessment of the differencesbetween the current corporate culture andsome envisaged ‘ideal’ future corporateculture. But established models for changethen develop a change strategy based ontransforming the organisation from thecurrent to an ideal culture. In contrast,this approach considers the contrastbetween these extremes. All organisationsneed stability and change, tradition andinnovation, public and private interest,planning and laissez-faire, order andfreedom, growth and decay. These are theopposites that leaders wrestle with and puttensions into their world, sharpen theirsensitivities and increase theirself-awareness. The problem of changingfrom the ‘current’ to the ‘ideal’ situationcannot be ‘solved’ in the sense of beingeliminated but can be wisely transcended.Successful leaders get surges of energyfrom the fusing of these opposites.

Thus these differences that generatetensions are the source of a series ofdilemmas. Managing change in thismethodology is therefore aboutreconciling these dilemmas. In this way,the limitations of current change modelscan be overcome because this

362 Journal of Change Management Vol. 3, 4, 361– 375 � Henry Stewart Publications 1469-7017 (2003)

Trompenaars and Woolliams

of rules and methods which a society ororganisation has evolved to deal with theregular problems that face it.

Countries and organisations facedilemmas in dealing with the tensionbetween the existing set of values andthe desired ones. While cultures differmarkedly in how they approach thesedilemmas, they do not differ in needingto make some kind of response. Theyshare the destiny to face up to differentchallenges of existence. Once the changeleaders have become aware of theproblem-solving process, they willreconcile dilemmas more effectively andtherefore will be more successful.

All change processes have in commonthe need for a diagnosis of the values inuse (the existing values system) andmapping the espoused and desired values(the ideal value system). The changeprocess is energised by the tensionbetween the two. Note again that it isnot simply the replacement of theexisting with the desired.

THE PLACE OF CORPORATECULTURE IN IMPLEMENTING A NEWDESIGNIt is becoming more frequently recognisedthat change initiatives have failed becauseaspects of (corporate) culture have beenignored. Simply ‘adding’ the culturecomponent, however, does not suffice.This explains perhaps why culture is veryoften ignored. Values are not artefacts thatcan be added. They are continuouslycreated by interactions between humanactors and not ‘just out there’ as solidrocks. As such, culture is only meaningfulin the context in which the changeprocess unfolds.

This approach therefore seeks tointegrate culture in all the steps that needto be taken in the change process. Eventhe sequence of steps is affected by thedominant culture at hand.

A NEW UNIFIED MODEL FORMANAGING CHANGE AS A‘THROUGH’ PROCESSConventional approaches frame thechange problem in terms of ‘what’, ‘why’and/or ‘how’. To focus solely on ‘why’may not translate effectively to ‘what’and/or ‘how’. ‘How’ questions place theeffort on means where diagnosis isassumed or not even undertaken at all andtherefore the ends sought are notconsidered. To focus on ends requires theposing of ‘what’ questions. What is onetrying to accomplish? What needs to bechanged? What are the critical successfactors? What measure of performance isone trying to achieve? Ends and meansare relative, however, and whethersomething is an end or a means can onlybe considered in relation to somethingelse. Thus often, the ‘true’ ends of achange effort may be different from thoseintended. In this regard, the ‘why’questions are claimed to be useful.

According to Lewin’s force-field theory,organisations are in dynamic tensionbetween forces pushing for change andforces resistant to change. Establishedchange management practice hasinterpreted this on the basis that it ismanagement’s task to reduce the resistanceto change and increase the forces forchange. But under the dilemma theoryapproach, this is only a compromisesolution. It ignores the fact that increasingthe force for change may increase people’sresistance, for example. The authorstherefore offer a new approach whichrequires a whole new logic. By applyingan inductive analysis to the evidence andresearch data, they offer a ‘through’question approach.

CULTURAL CHANGE AS ATHROUGH-THROUGH PROCESSBasic to understanding cultural change isthe understanding that culture is a series

� Henry Stewart Publications 1469-7017 (2003) Vol. 3, 4, 361– 375 Journal of Change Management 363

A new framework for managing change across cultures

from two related dimensions:

— Task or Person (high versus lowformalisation)

— Hierarchical or Egalitarian (highversus low centralisation).

Combining these dimensions gives fourpossible culture types.

While the authors could havecategorised these orientations usingCameron and Quinn’s (1998) competingvalues framework, or Charles Handy’s(1993) early ideas on corporate culture,they found their adapted model morediscriminating (see Table 1).

In their diagnostic phase, the authorssought to compare the current corporateculture, as perceived by an organisation’smembers, contrasted with what theyeach would consider to be the idealcorporate culture. Exhaustive data miningand correspondence analysis of 55,000cases on corporate culture models revealstensions derived from the followingscenarios. (In Table 2, the top six areranked from the most frequent to leastfrequent.) In fact, all combinations arefound in the extensive database, butthese are the most significant.

Following the proposed methodology,the management of change thereforeinvolves answering:

1. What are the dilemmas that will befaced when seeking to change fromthe ‘current’ to the ‘ideal’organisation?

2. How can these dilemmas bereconciled?

For each of the above scenarios, differentdilemmas can be expected. UsingWeb-based ‘interview’ techniques(WebCue), the authors have also invitedmembers of a large number of clientorganisations to elicit and delineate theirdilemmas. Over 5,000 such responses

Much of the authors’ inductivethinking has its origin firstly in theirportfolio of effective diagnostic andanalytical tools and models, and secondlyin the large and reliable databaseestablished which was based on datacollected from these. This enables themeither to facilitate or let organisationsthemselves make a diagnosis of thetensions they are facing.

Structure is a concept that isfrequently used in the analysis oforganisations, and many definitions andapproaches are to be found. Theinterest here is in examining theinterpretations employees give to theirrelationships with each other and withthe organisation as a whole. Culture isto the organisation what personality isto the individual — a hidden yetunifying theme that provides meaning,direction and mobilisation that canexert a decisive influence on theoverall ability of the organisation todeal with the challenges it faces.

Just as individuals in a culture canhave different personalities while sharingmuch in common, so too can groupsand organisations. It is this pattern that isrecognised as ‘corporate culture’. Theauthors can distinguish three aspects oforganisational relationships whosemeaning is dependent on the largerculture in which they emerge:

1. the general relationships betweenemployees in the organisation

2. the vertical or hierarchicalrelationships between employees andtheir superiors or subordinates inparticular

3. the relationships of employees in theorganisation as a whole, such as theirviews of what makes it tick and whatare its goals.

This model identifies four competingorganisational cultures that are derived





Table 1 The extreme stereotypes of corporate culture

The Incubator The Guided Missile

This culture is like a leaderless team. Thisperson-oriented culture is characterised by alow degree of both centralisation andformalisation. In this culture, theindividualisation of all related individuals is oneof the most important features. Theorganisation exists only to serve the needs of itsmembers.

The organisation has no intrinsic valuesbeyond these goals. The organisation is aninstrument for the specific needs of theindividuals in the organisation. Responsibilitiesand tasks within this type of organisation areassigned primarily according to the member’sown preference and needs. Structure is looseand flexible control takes place throughpersuasion and mutual concern for the needsand values of other members.Its main characteristics are:— person oriented— power of the individual— self-realisation— commitment to oneself— professional recognition

This task-oriented culture has a low degree ofcentralisation and a high degree offormalisation. This rational culture is, in itsideal type, task and project oriented. ‘Gettingthe job done’ with ‘the right man in the rightplace’ are favourite expressions. Organisationalrelationships are very results oriented, based onrational/instrumental considerations and limitedto specific functional aspects of the personsinvolved.

Achievement and effectiveness are weighedabove the demands of authority, procedures orpeople. Authority and responsibility are placedwhere the qualifications lie, and they may shiftrapidly as the nature of the [task] changes.Everything in the Guided Missile culture issubordinated to an all-encompassing goal.

The management of the organisation ispredominantly seen as a continuous process ofsolving problems successfully. The manager is ateam leader, the commander of a commandounit, in whose hands lie absolute authority. This[task] oriented culture, because of its flexibilityand dynamism, is highly adaptive but at thesame time is difficult to manage. Decentralisedcontrol and management contribute to theshortness of channels of communication. Thetask-oriented culture is designed for a rapidreaction to extreme changes. Therefore, matrixand project types of organisations are favouritedesigns for the Guided Missile.Its main characteristics are:— task orientation— power of knowledge/expertise— commitment to (tasks)— management by objectives— pay for performance

The Family Culture The Eiffel Tower Culture

The Family Culture is characterised by a highdegree of centralisation and a low degree offormalisation. It generally reflects a highlypersonalised organisation and is predominantlypower oriented.

Employees in the ‘family’ seem to interact

This role-oriented culture is characterised by ahigh degree of formalisation together with ahigh degree of centralisation and is symbolicallyrepresented by the Eiffel Tower. It is steep,stately and very robust. Control is exercisedthrough systems of rules, legalistic procedures,



Table 1 The extreme stereotypes of corporate culture (continued)

The Family Culture The Eiffel Tower Culture

around the centralised power of father ormother. The power of the organisation isbased on an autocratic leader who, like aspider in a web, directs the organisation.

There are not many rules and thus there islittle bureaucracy. Organisational memberstend to be as near to the centre as possible,as that is the source of power. Hence theclimate inside the organisation is highlymanipulative and full of intrigues. In thispolitical system, the prime logic of verticaldifferentiation is hierarchical differentiation ofpower and status.Its main characteristics are:— power orientation— personal relationships— entrepreneurial— affinity/trust— power of person

assigned rights and responsibilities.Bureaucracy and the high degree of

formalisation make this organisation inflexible.Respect for authority is based on the respectfor functional position and status. The bureauor desk has depersonalised authority.

In contrast to highly personalised Family,members in the Eiffel Tower arecontinuously subordinated to universallyapplicable rules and procedures. Employeesare very precise and meticulous. Order andpredictability are highly valued in the processof managing the organisation. Duty is animportant concept for an employee in thisrole-oriented culture. It is duty one feelswithin oneself, rather than an obligation onefeels towards a concrete individual.

Procedures for change tend to becumbersome, and the role-orientedorganisation is slow to adapt to change.Its main characteristics are:— role orientation— power of position/role— job description/evaluation— rules and procedures— order and predictability

Table 2 Top six ranked tension scenarios

Current Ideal

Guided Missile Incubator Scenario 1Eiffel Tower Guided Missile Scenario 2Family Guided Missile Scenario 3Eiffel Tower Incubator Scenario 4Family Incubator Scenario 5Incubator Guided Missile Scenario 6

easily be challenged. In an ideal world,the authors would go back andchallenge the implicit values behindeach of these explicit constructs inorder to check whether they were stillthe best way of delivering andreinforcing those values. When theproducts of culture become ‘sacredcows’, they can inhibit change. This isespecially important when importingsacred cows to new cultures.

As the culture of an organisation isoften ‘owned’ and lived at the highestlevel, managers can feel they have littleability to influence or change the realculture of the organisation in a materialway without some top-down action.

These extremes might be summarisedby saying:

‘On the one hand, we need to change thecorporate culture to be convergent with our

have been collected, but they can beclustered into a number of recurringdilemmas. The authors are therefore ableto review these aspects of the changeprocess based on what they have foundwith actual clients. Each of the modelchange scenarios discussed is an attemptto generalise from real change processesfrom these clients and avoid issues ofconfidence and ethics.

In each of the separate descriptions,particular steps are highlighted to providea good sense of how this works inconsulting practice. Figure 1 is arepresentation of the process, but theentry point one chooses is culturallydependent.

In some respects, the pervasivenature of implicit culture can make itdifficult to change. Even at the explicitlevel, traditional practices becomeenshrined as ‘sacred cows’ that cannot


Figure 1 Thechange process


Envisioned future

Currentorganisational

culture

Implementing

new design and

define actions

Core values �

Key purpose

Leadership

competence

Idealorganisational

culture

Reconciliation

processBusiness dilemmas

DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDEDMISSILEThe challenge is obviously what to dowhen the surrounding culture is notcompatible with this type of changelogic. The authors remember anAmerican manager of Eastman Kodakwho had launched a very successfulchange programme in Rochester, NewYork, and after launching the formula inEurope, he cried on their shoulders. Ingreat despair, he said:

‘These French and Germans are unbelievablyinflexible. I have done a whole round inEurope and within each of the countriesmany seemed very much supporting ourvision. Okay, the Germans had someproblems with the process. They wanted toknow all details of the procedures and howthey were connected to the envisionedchange. The French, in turn, were so muchworried about the unions and how to keeptheir people motivated. But good, we asinternal consultants and management haveleft with the idea that we agreed on theapproach. When I came back some threemonths later to check how theimplementation was going, I noticed inFrance and Germany nothing had startedyet. Nothing! What a disappointment!’

Anyone with a little sensitivity forcross-cultural affairs would have predictedthis.

The authors collected and analysedsome 4,000 examples of such criticalincidents. The principal findings aresummarised in Table 3 in terms of thefrequently repeating dilemmas fordiffering scenarios.

THE NEW METHODOLOGY INPRACTICEIrrespective of where one chooses tostart, the authors distinguish thefollowing steps for a change intervention:

new business mission. Or, on the otherhand, to develop a new business mission thatis compatible with our existing corporateculture.’

In their research and work with clients,the authors have found that the changeprocess of an organisation is the essence ofa leader’s raison d’etre (discussed inTrompenaars and Hampden-Turner,2002). In the change process, a leaderessentially is facing dilemmas he or sheneeds to reconcile in the areas of people,time and nature. Successful leaders do notchange from one horn of the dilemma toits opposite horn. They are not trying tocompromise between extremes of valueorientations, from extreme individualismto teamwork, from universal rules tolearning exceptions, from performanceexpectations to the respect for seniority.The leader with success tries to integrateseemingly opposing orientations into aprocess that changes the qualities of eachof the orientations.

TYPICAL DILEMMA ORIGINATINGFROM THE QUEST FOR THE GUIDEDMISSILEIt is striking how the Anglo-Saxonmodel of change has dominated theworld of change management. Acompany formulates a set of new goals,preferably in the context of a clearvision, hires some managers for amarginal $300,000 a year (excluding thebonus obviously) and dumps the onesthat do not believe in its clearly definedgoals. In this Guided Missile-drivenmodel, the organisation is interpreted asa task-oriented instrument at the disposalof shareholders (remember, people whonever share) and where managers havean MBA and employees are calledhuman resources. With that namebrainwashing, it hurts less when one iskicked out: ‘Gee, I was just a resource.’



to develop a sense of what one standsfor

4. defining the ideal corporate culturewith CCAP embedding core valuesand key purpose

5. defining major business dilemmascaused by the tensions between

1. developing an envisioned future inorder to develop a sense of what togo for

2. diagnosing the current corporateculture with the cross-culturalassessment profiler (CCAP)

3. defining core values and key purpose



Table 3 Repeating dilemmas found for the different scenarios

Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Incubator

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Depersonalised authority versus development of creative individualsReconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have innovation

and learning as prime critera in their goalsManagement Consistent goal-orientation around task versus the power of learningReconciliation Make learning and innovation part of the task descriptionRewards Extrinsic reward job done versus intrinsic reward self-developmentReconciliation Describe task in terms of clearly stated innovation outputs

Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Family

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Depersonalised authority versus authority is personally ascribed to theleader

Reconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have madeinternalisation of subtle processes a prime criterion in their goals

Management Consistent goal-orientation around task versus the power of politics andknow-who

Reconciliation Makes political sensitivity part of the task descriptionRewards Extrinsic reward job done versus reward long-term loyaltyReconciliation Describe task in terms of loosely stated long-term outputs

Current: Guided Missile Ideal: Eiffel Tower

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Depersonalised authority versus authority ascribed to the roleReconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have made reliable

application of expertise a prime criterion in their goalsManagement Consistent goal-orientation around task versus expertise and reliabilityReconciliation Make reliable expertise and long-term commitment part of the task

descriptionRewards Contribution to the bottom line versus increasing their expertise in doing

a reliable jobReconciliation Describe task in terms of expertise and reliability in its application



Table 3 Repeating dilemmas found for the different scenarios (continued)

Current: Incubator Ideal: Guided Missile

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Development of creative individuals versus depersonalised authorityReconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have innovation

and learning as prime criteria in their goalsManagement Versus consistent goal-orientation around taskReconciliation Make learning and innovation part of the task descriptionRewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus extrinsic reward job doneReconciliation Describe task in terms of clearly stated innovation outputs

Current: Incubator Ideal: Family

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Negation of authority versus authority is personally ascribed to theleader

Reconciliation Get the support of the leaders so they underline themselves theimportance of learning and creativity; they become servant leaders oflearning

Management The power of learning around innovation versus the power of politicsand know-who

Reconciliation Celebrate the achievements of the present learning environment, totake the best practices from them, personalise them and make themhistorical events

Rewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus reward long-term loyaltyReconciliation Members are personally held accountable for the long-term

commitment to the company

Current: Incubator Ideal: Eiffel Tower

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Negation of authority versus authority is ascribed to the roleReconciliation To hold the innovators responsible for the reliability of their outputManagement The power of learning around innovation versus power of expertise

and reliabilityReconciliation Decentralise the organisation into more learning centres where roles

are described in a very sharp way and aimed at learning andinnovation

Rewards Intrinsic reward self-development versus increasing their expertise indoing a reliable job

Reconciliation Use creativity and knowledge to build reliable systems and proceduresenabling them to become even better in their creations



Table 3 Repeating dilemmas found for the different scenarios (continued)

Current: Family Ideal: Incubator

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to leader versus development ofcreative individuals

Reconciliation To get the support of the leaders so they underline themselves theimportance of learning and creativity; they become servant leaders oflearning

Management The power of politics and know-who versus the power of learningReconciliation Take the best practices from the past, codify them, and apply them to

the present learning environmentRewards Long-term loyalty versus intrinsic reward self-developmentReconciliation Members are personally held accountable to motivate creative

individuals and create learning environments

Current: Family Ideal: Guided Missile

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to the leader versus depersonalisedauthority

Reconciliation Attribute the highest authority to those managers who have madeinternalisation of subtle processes a prime criterion in their goals

Management The power of politics and know-who versus consistentgoal-orientation around task

Reconciliation Makes political sensitivity part of the task descriptionRewards Reward long-term loyalty versus extrinsic reward job doneReconciliation Describe task in terms of loosely stated long-term outputs

Current: Family Ideal: Eiffel Tower

Typical dilemmas

Leadership Authority is personally ascribed to the leader versus authority ascribedto the role

Reconciliation Management needs to understand the technical aspects of the activitiesthey manage; they become servant leaders of experts

Management The power of politics and know-who versus expertise and reliabilityReconciliation Get the support of management for the implementation of crucial

systems and proceduresRewards Reward long-term loyalty versus increasing expertise in doing a

reliable jobReconciliation Members apply their power to the advantage of increasing the

expertise of their colleagues

dilemmas their leader(s) are facing inbusiness. So an Incubator culture isoften the result of a leader who strivesfor a core value of entrepreneurshipand innovation while having anenvisioned future of becoming themost path-breaking organisation in thefield of cross-cultural managementthinking and consulting. A GuidedMissile culture is a much better-suitedcontext for leaders who want to helpclients gain the highest return on theirinvestments in the financial servicesector while holding a core value ofintegrity and transparency.

But business environments andchallenges are changing continuously.Once an organisational culture hasestablished itself, it creates newdilemmas (or its changing environmentwill) on a higher level. For example, adominant Incubator culture can createa business environment where manyinnovative ideas are born but wherethe management and commercialisationof these fails on aspects of a moremarket-sensitive Guided Missile culture.Conversely, a dominant Guided Missileculture can lead to an environmentwhere employees are so much guidedby their market price that it needs aFamily culture to create a necessarylonger-term vision and commitment.

By asking leaders of organisations tophrase the major tensions they feel as ‘onthe one hand . . . on the other . . .’, theauthors linguistically programme them tosee both sides of the equation. In orderto facilitate this balance in the approach,as well as the link to business, a numberof pro-formas are used to elicit the basicdescription of their current and idealorganisational culture profiles,components they want to retain anddiscard, as in the basic framework shownin Table 4.

It is ensured that the various listscomprise those that are most crucial to

envisioned future and key purposeand between current and idealcorporate cultures

6. reconciling four or five major businessdilemmas

7. diagnosing the current leadershipcompetence to reconcile major valuedilemmas

8. implementing new design anddefining concrete action points to betaken as defined by the change agents.

The fifth step is crucial because itintegrates business and culturalchallenges. The authors do not believethat a change process can be genuineif strategic business issues and culturalvalues are disconnected. Unfortunately,this is often the case in changepractice. But the key proposition isthat, from the inputs of the envisionedfuture, core values and key purpose,and between current and idealcorporate cultures, all the ingredientsare available to stimulate managementto think about what basic dilemmasthey need to resolve from their actualbusiness to the desired one.

The dilemmas are best phrased as‘on the one hand . . . on the other . . .’.Participants are often invited to phrasethe tensions they feel in actual businesslife and then relate them to thetensions they feel between current andideal cultures. So, for example, as anactual business tension ‘I feel that ourorganization is so much focused onnext quarter results, we don’t haveenough time to be creative and comeup with our next generation ofinnovations’. This would be consistentwith the scenario in which the currentcorporate culture is a Guided Missileand the dominant espoused profile isan Incubator.

It is often found that a certainorganisational culture has developedbecause the context best suits the main



axis in order to invite participants tohave the current values and behaviourdialogue with the ideal ones. Thisdialogue is essentially stimulated byasking the question: ‘How can we,through the current value or behaviourthat we want to keep, get more of theideal value or behaviour we want tostrive for?’. To stick to the previousexamples, the essence of reconciliation isachieved when one can answer thequestion: ‘How can we, through focusingon our reliable technology, get betterinformed by our customers?’ or ‘Howcan we, through coaching our younggraduates, increase the income of thisquarter?’. Note that one needs to changethe ‘natural’ mindset quite fundamentally.The traditional change processes oftenenquire about how one can change fromone (current) value or behaviour toanother (desired) set of values orbehaviour. The creative juices that areflowing from the integration ofseemingly opposing values is astonishing.But also from a process standpoint,resistance to change is often broken (atleast conceptually) because of the need tokeep and further develop the values thatare positively graded about the existingstate of the organisation. It is a processof enriching values through changerather than replacing one value or

reconcile in view of the envisionedfuture. It is ensured that the formulationof the horns of the dilemma are bothdesirable and are linked to businessissues. Examples are: ‘on the one handwe need to focus on reliable technology(typical for a dominant Eiffel Towerculture) while on the other we need tobe constantly informed by our maincustomers (typical for dominant GuidedMissile)’, or ‘on the one hand we needto constantly mentor and coach ouryoung graduates for constant learning(Incubator) while on the other hand weneed to focus on the income of thisquarter (Guided Missile)’, or ‘on the onehand we need to develop and sustain aloyal workforce and thrive on rapport(Family) while on the other hand weneed to be able to judge theirperformance based on report (GuidedMissile)’.

RECONCILING THE CHANGETENSIONSThe introductory and overview nature ofthis paper does not allow all the detailedsteps of the reconciliation process to becovered, but Figure 2 shows the basictemplate used to represent the dilemmagraphically.

Essentially, this template uses a dual



Table 4 Basic pro-forma framework

On the one hand, we want more and/or keep thefollowing values and behaviour of our currentorganisation:

On the other hand, we need to develop the followingvalues and behaviour for supporting our envisionedfuture and core values:

1.2.3.4.5.

1.2.3.4.5.


Figure 2 Thebasic dilemmatemplate


Table 5 Guidance template for action to be taken

I. In order to reconcile the first dilemma we need to be taking the following steps in the following areas ofattention:

The Market (think about what you could do inareas of customers, time-to-market response,flow of information from and to customers)

Structure and design (consider what could bedone in areas of the design of yourorganisation, both formally and informally, basicflows of materials and information)

Human Resources (consider areas such asmanagement development, staff planning,appraisal and rewards)

Strategy and Envisioned Future (review vision ofleaders, mission statements, goals, objectives,business plans and the like)

Business Systems (what can you do in areas ofIT systems, knowledge management,manufacturing information, quality systems etc)

Core Values (think about action points thatcould enhance the clarity of values, how tobetter translate them into behaviour and actionetc)

II. Who is taking action and carries responsibility(consider for each of the possible action points who isresponsible for the outcome)

III. How to monitor the change process (considermilestones and qualitative and quantitative measuresof genuine change)

1.2.3.4.5.

1.2.3.4.5.

10/1Value/behaviour taken too far

Reconciled value/behaviour

1/10Value/behaviourtaken too far

Ideal value/behaviour that one needs to further develop

Cur

rent

val

ue/b

ehav

iour

that

one

wan

ts to

kee

p

proactively to ‘fill the gaps’ in theirenquiry. The extensive data from thesemultiple sources serve to providetriangulation to the evidence. Theauthors can claim high reliability fromthe volume quantitativequestionnaire-based studies and highvalidity from in-depth interviewing,consulting and coaching.

CONCLUSIONSThrough the above methodology, theauthors have helped many clientorganisations to reconcile such dilemmas.Of course, as soon as one is removed,another pops up. But in today’s rapidlychanging ever oligopolistic world, it is thevery essence of organisations. The aim hasbeen to raise the debate for a new logicfor the management of change.

REFERENCES

Cameron, K. and Quinn, R. (1998)Diagnosing and Changing OrganizationalCulture: Based on the Competing ValuesFramework, Addison-Wesley Series onOrganization Development,Addison-Wesley, Inc, Reading, MA.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1992) Charting theCorporate Mind, Blackwell, London.

Handy, C. (1993) Understanding Organisations,Penguin Business, Penguin Books,London.

Lewin, K. (1947) Resolving Social Conflicts:Selected Papers On Group Dynamics, Harper,New York.

Senge, P. (ed.) (2001) The Dance of Change:The Challengers to Sustaining momentum inLearning Organizations, Doubleday, NewYork.

Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C.(2002) 21 Leaders for the 21st Century,Capstone, London.

behaviour by another. Be aware that thespiral starts at the side of the currentvalue/behaviour axis and goes throughthe aspired value to an end somewhereat 10/10, where both values areintegrated on a higher reconciled state.Once this position has been achievedconceptually, it is time for the finalstages.

Once the leader or groups of relevantleaders are in agreement on the dilemmasthat need to be reconciled, the actionpoints to be taken evolve naturally. Veryoften, it is crucial to know the typicallevers that need to be pulled in anorganisation to increase the effectiveactions that need to be taken. This isvery often dependent on the type oforganisational culture that theorganisation currently holds. Infamily-oriented cultures, the function ofHR often plays a crucial role, whilemarketing and finance dominate in theGuided Missile cultures. The best leversto be pulled in the Incubator are oftenrelated to learning systems and intrinsicrewards, while, in the Eiffel Towersystems, procedures and manufacturingoften play a crucial role. The template inTable 5 has been used to give someguidance for looking at the action pointsto be taken.

METHODOLOGYThroughout this research, a broadlyinductive approach has been adopted— with both quantitative andqualitative data collection and analysis.Data have been accumulated over timefrom consulting, as and when it arosebased on client needs, but also theauthors have sought to collect data



A%20new%20framework%20for%20managing%20change%20across%20cultu

Documents

Transcript of A%20new%20framework%20for%20managing%20change%20across%20cultu