Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx

Week 6 Assignment Resources/A storys impact on
organizational-culture change.pdf
A story’s impact on
organizational-culture change
Elizabeth Briody
Cultural Keys LLC, Troy, Michigan, USA
Tracy Meerwarth Pester
Consolidated Bearing Company, New Vernon, New Jersey,
USA, and
Robert Trotter
Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to explain the successful
implementation of organizational
applications, and ensuing organizational change, based on a
story from a GM manufacturing plant.
Design/methodology/approach – The approach involved
collecting and analyzing the Hoist Story
as part of a multi-year ethnographic research project designed to
identify the key attributes in an ideal
plant culture. Through a cooperative process of co-production,
the authors worked in tandem with
organizational members on issues related to organizational-
culture change.

Findings – The findings emphasize both the Hoist Story’s
process impact and outcome impact. The
Hoist Story was a catalyst for the change process, resulting in a
high level of buy-in across the
organization; as such it contrasts with much of the management
literature on “planned change.” It also led
to the development of several “packaged products” (e.g. a story
script, video, collaboration tools) which
propelled GM manufacturing culture closer to its ideal – a
culture of collaboration. Using employee
stories as a means to understand and drive culture change is a
largely underdeveloped area of scholarship.
Originality/value – This paper provides value by bridging the
gap between theory and praxis. It
includes the documentation and cultural analysis of the story,
but illustrates how the story evolved
into specific organizational-culture-change applications. This
“soup-to-nuts” approach can serve as a
model for organizational researchers and change agents
interested in spearheading or supporting
organizational-culture change.
Keywords Organizational culture, Organizational-culture
change, Cultural applications, Collaboration,
Organizational stories, Ethnography, Manufacturing industries
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Organizations are continually in the process of change, with the
hopes of becoming
more productive, efficient, and effective in their mission. At
General Motors (GM), the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is

available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
The authors appreciate the willingness of so many GM
employees to speak with them about their
views of the ideal plant culture. Their statements, examples, and
stories, along with their
enthusiasm and spirit of cooperation helped the authors to frame
the key cultural issues and work
towards the creation of tools for organizational-culture change.
The authors thank the plant
engineer for sharing the Hoist Story with them. They thank the
members of the training staff for
their interest in working with them to create the various
applications for organizational-culture
change. Several plant managers, members of GM’s
Manufacturing Managers Council, senior GM
leadership, GM-UAW Quality Network leadership, and the
leaders of some UAW locals have been
very supportive of this work. The authors thank Perry Kuey who
designed Figures 1 and 3. They
also appreciate the helpful comments offered by the journal
reviewers.
A story’s impact
on change
67
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 25 No. 1, 2012
pp. 67-87

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/09534811211199600
Ideal Plant Culture Project was initiated to gather employee and
managerial input on
organizational-culture change within GM’s manufacturing
function. As applied
researchers, we were asked to gather data from several existing
US manufacturing
plants on desired improvements in the culture of those plants.
The anticipated outcome
was a set of best practices and applications that GM plants
could use as they sought to
improve their overall effectiveness.
Over a period of several years, we conducted anthropological
fieldwork in a variety
of manufacturing environments. We discovered a strong desire
among all
organizational members to move away from an “old way”
viewed as directive and
authoritative, to a more collaborative approach to production
work characterized by
team-based cooperative activities, individually-suggested
improvements on work
practices and processes, and plant-wide problem solving.
Perceptions in the form of
statements and stories, along with the behaviors we observed in
manufacturing
environments, helped us to construct a model of this
collaborative “ideal.” In this paper,
we focus on one particular story – the Hoist Story – as a

window onto the evolution of
plant culture. Because this story presented the contrasting case
of the “old way” and
the “ideal,” and because it became a catalyst for future changes
within the plant, it
reinforces the notion that stories have the potential to create and
sustain
organizational-culture change.
Literature review
There is general consensus among organizational scholars that
stories represent an
“exchange between two or more persons during which a past or
anticipated experience
[is] referenced, recounted, interpreted or challenged” (Boje,
1991a, p. 8). The
organizational literature surrounding stories and narratives is
wide ranging – with
diverse areas of focus: understanding and sharing story content
(Mitchell, 2005),
examining organizational roles (Chreim, 2007), exploring the
organizational context in
which the story is embedded (Hansen, 2006; Bryant and Cox,
2004; O’Connor, 2000),
identifying the ways in which the story is interpreted (Fronda
and Moriceau, 2008),
examining organizational practices in cross-cultural settings
(Soin and Scheytt, 2006),
and using stories to “make sense” of organizational changes
(Chreim, 2007; Reissner,
2005; Brown and Humphreys, 2003; Gabriel, 2000; Boyce,
1995). Much of this literatures
specifies how stories and narratives are “socially constructed”
as people interact (Stacey,
2001; Boje, 1991a). Indeed, much of the research on
storytelling (Adorisio, 2008; Mitchell,

2005) and “storyselling” (Lapp and Carr, 2008) emphasizes the
motivations of those
conveying the story (Steuer and Wood, 2008) as well as the
collective interactions
between the teller/seller and the organizational audience
(Boyce, 1995).
Stories represent one mechanism through which organizational
culture and
organizational-culture change can be described and explained.
Stories can be used to
promote a particular point of view – sometimes referred to as a
“hegemonic” narrative
(Vickers, 2008). Such stories tend to exhibit a singular, uni-
dimensional orientation
toward the issue at hand (e.g. a management perspective
concerning a set of
organizational changes, Steuer and Wood, 2008). Stories can be
used to reinforce core
cultural ideals much like the reinforcement produced by urban
myths for adults and
fairy tales for children. The stories represent attempts to plan
for and control the
ensuing organizational changes, though some have called into
question managerial
abilities to direct such change (Beech, 2000). An alternate view
is that all organizational
JOCM
25,1
68
members, including management, have their own explanations

for the emerging
changes (Brown and Humphreys, 2003). These explanations
often appear in the form of
stories and offer listeners new ideas and strategies for coping
with the uncertainties
(Czarniawska, 1997; Orr, 1996; Orr, 1986).
Some differences in the literature emerge when we compare the
work of
organizational researchers with the practitioner community.
Researchers are more
likely to be involved in diagnosing areas undergoing change
(Boje, 1991a) and
explaining the persuasive value of storytelling to foster change
(Suchman, 2003). By
contrast, practitioners are more likely to be proscriptive –
pitching change through
“coaching advice” using “steps” “keys” and “training” related
to story use (Silverman,
2006; Armstrong, 2002; Denning, 2001). Some have even
aggregated compilations of
diverse of stories that can be drawn upon by organizational
leaders to push for change
(Parkin, 2004). Gaps between scholarship and practice have
been identified by Boje
(2006, p. 223) who argues that they are “holding back the
development of story praxis”
as a mechanism for organizational-cultural change. Boje, as
well as our research team,
recognize the importance of capturing the perspectives of those
individuals linked with
the change process. Storytelling allows the transmission of
those experiences,
thoughts, and values “in their own words.”
Our paper is an attempt to fill in some of these gaps in story

praxis by examining
both the process impact and the outcome impact of stories on
organizational-culture
change. Of particular interest to us are the ways in which stories
become part of the
cultural fabric of the organization, and how they help to
“provide a framework for the
future” ( Jordan, 1996, p. 28). Our approach includes, but
moves beyond, the story or
narrative and its interpretations, to organizational action.
Connell et al. (2003, p. 159)
suggest that “stories become knowledge-flow facilitation
devices.” Such imagery was
useful to us as we conceptualized the path one story took as a
major
organizational-culture change was underway. Our ability to
capture a diachronic
view of the organizational-culture-change process led to the
implementation of a series
of independently-developed “packaged products” that
symbolized and reinforced the
ongoing organizational-culture change.
In addition, we were interested in the broader cultural context in
which the story
evolved. Our approach, like that of many other researchers
(Adorisio, 2008; Hansen,
2006; Jordan, 1996; Boyce, 1995), links the ethnographic field
data surrounding the
story, with the narrative content of the story. However, since
ours was a “real-time”
rather than retrospective study, we found that the researchers
were fully immersed in
the story-production and application-development processes,
akin or community
action research (see Wallace, 2005; Van Willigen et al., 1989;

Chambers, 1985). Indeed,
the roles of study participants and researchers were intertwined
over a period of
several years and involved repeated and direct interventions in
plant culture. We
describe this involvement as “co-production” in which study
participants and
anthropologists build on each other’s knowledge and skills to
create and put into
practice specific applications that fostered organizational-
culture change.
Background
We began the research portion of the project by conducting
ethnographic research in
four GM manufacturing plants in the US. Our guiding
ethnographic question was
intended to elicit views of an “ideal” plant culture. We phrased
it in various ways:
A story’s impact
on change
69
. What would make your plant the best possible place in which
to work?
. Describe what you consider to be the ideal plant culture.
. What characteristics make up an ideal plant culture?
. How do we reach the ideal? What are the barriers?

. What could be done to make this plant the best place to work
in GM?
We gathered the perspectives of a cross-section of
organizational members (i.e. over
400 hourly, salary, and executive employees during the field
period and validation
phases of the project) in various settings including along the
assembly or subassembly
lines, in skilled-trades areas, in break rooms, in offices, and in
the cafeteria.
Study participants typically responded by relaying examples or
telling stories of
their experiences at work – both positive and negative. These
stories described or
clarified a current or past situation and were typically followed
by an evaluation of that
situation. This pattern of response was our first indication that
organizational
members drew distinctions between what they considered the
“old way” of thinking,
behaving, and interacting, and a potential new or ideal way.
From these findings, we
created and subsequently validated (e.g. in conversations,
during formal presentations
to plant leaders) the Bridge Model of Cultural Transformation
(see Figure 1). It
illustrates a composite conceptualization of the organizational-
culture-change process,
a process that is situated within a broader cultural environment.
Cultural problem
solving occurs as employees recognize the necessity of change
(cultural adaptiveness)
and then respond appropriately (cultural responsiveness)[1].
Organizational members

encounter obstacles (e.g. resistance to change, cultural
contradictions) as they attempt
to change their culture. They may apply enablers (e.g. cultural
processes that support
the direction and pace of cultural transformation such as
empowering employees,
taking time for relationship building, and providing appropriate
and sufficient
training) to mitigate the obstacles and provide some direction in
moving away from the
old way towards the ideal.
We then turned our attention on the particular statements,
examples, and stories,
finding that the field data was directly linked to the cultural
theme of collaboration.
Organizational members were able to articulate a strong desire
for a more unified,
cooperative, and harmonious work culture than what they were
currently experiencing
Figure 1.
Bridge Model of Cultural
Transformation
JOCM
25,1
70
or had experienced at some point in the past. Indeed, the
overwhelming preference was
for a congenial set of co-workers and supervisors who would
work together to achieve

plant goals – problem solving along the way. Thus, a culture of
collaboration
represented their ideal. Indeed, study participants’ world view
could be summed up in
a simple message – “It’s all about relationships,” a statement
conveying the
importance of building and maintaining relationships as a
prerequisite to overall plant
effectiveness. Collaboration, cooperation, and unity cannot be
achieved unless strong,
healthy relationships are in place among organizational
members. A more detailed
content analysis (Bernard, 2000; Bernard, 1998; Schensul et al.,
1999; Trotter and
Schensul, 1998) revealed that the comments, examples, and
stories we collected could
be grouped into four topical categories:
(1) plant environment;
(2) work force;
(3) work practices; and
(4) relationships[2].
From this categorization we created the Ideal Cultural Model
(shown at the far right of
Figure 1). We illustrate the model with four equal parts to
highlight the importance of
balance among the four elements even though the Relationships
portion of the Ideal
Cultural Model contained more comments and stories than the
other three quadrants.
Documenting the Hoist Story

The stories we documented varied in content, character
development, complexity of
cultural themes, and length. We learned about the Hoist Story in
an interview with one
of the plant engineers. During the interview, the engineer used
the original blueprints
to explain some of the difficulties encountered by operators
when they tried to use a
hoist – an apparatus used for raising something into position.
About two weeks later,
we conducted a follow-up interview with the same engineer to
clarify and refine the
accuracy of our notes and gather additional detail. The engineer
took us out on the
plant floor to show us the hoist and introduce us to the
operators.
The text below represents a composite of the two interviews –
the only narrative
data we were able to collect because the plant was in the
process of ceasing operations.
Text concluding with the number 1 represents the first interview
while the text
concluding with the number 2 represents the follow-up
discussion.
I have to come in this weekend. There was a problem out on the
floor of people lifting the
hoods by hand. They weren’t using the hoist (no. 1).
There was a medical concern. We got a recordable (incident
which requires an investigation
per US Occupational Safety and Health Administration
regulations) (no. 2).
I asked them (the operators) to explain why they weren’t using

the hoist. They said, “It’s
cumbersome, it’s not fast enough, and it adds 16 steps to the
job.” I said that I would try to
work with them to help figure out a solution. I came up with
something and I said, “These are
my ideas.” [At this point the engineer pulled out a blueprint to
show how the original rail
supporting the hoist was configured and how the new rail could
be configured.] Then I came
up with a fix and went out and talked with the guys again. I
asked, “Do you think it will
work?” (no. 1).
A story’s impact
on change
71
I . . . got their input. As a group we came up with the most. .
.cost effective issue to solve the
throughput issue and then the ergonomic issue goes away. The
next step was redoing the
plan and getting management to buy in. After getting
management buy in, we placed the
order (no. 2).
The cost was about $5,000 (no. 1).
The normal process (from my experience in other GM locations)
is to have the operator,
Maintenance, Ergonomics, and Safety buy in prior to shipping
from the supplier to our
facility. That is called a buy off. That was something the (plant)
management saw as

unnecessary . . . We were not allowed to go down there (to the
supplier’s location even though
it was close by) . . . They (the supplier) shipped it (the ridge
rail) in and we had eight trades
people from two shifts and two operators to install it. After
installing it, we found out by
measuring the (physical) forces (needed when using the hoist)
that there was a problem with
(both) the design and the build (of the new ridge rail). They (the
forces) were just within our
ergonomic limits but not acceptable because we felt as a team
they should be a great deal
better. The forces were 22 to 24 pounds of force (no. 2).
We needed to get a new one (ridge rail). The (senior) manager
told me that he was dissatisfied
with what I had done. He said, “You told me that this tool
would satisfy their (the operators’)
problem but it hasn’t.” I replied, “But you wouldn’t let me go
down to do my buy off” (no. 1).
We got the supplier . . . (to come to the plant. Their design
engineer) came in with an
attitude that “We’ve built 100 of these (ridge rails) and there
has never been a problem.”
After the team convinced the design engineer to use it (the
hoist) for himself, after loading
three hoods he said, “This is too hard.” For me, . . . I gained
credibility with the team since I
didn’t leave it (the ridge rail issue) alone. Then the supplier
agreed that there was a problem
and that they would work with our design suggestions. They had
some major design flaws
. . . The supplier said they would build us a new one (ridge
rail). Actually they said they
would build some new components. I told them I wanted a

whole new one. They needed the
whole unit back so they could analyze what they did wrong . . .
After going through the
whole build process I asked the management staff, “Do we go
into an official buy off this
time?” The comment was, “Why wouldn’t it be right this time?”
The team responded, “The
first one (ridge rail) wasn’t right so do we want to take a
chance, or do we want to do
business the way we should and do a formal buy off? If there
are any issues or concerns,
they’ll be taken care of before it is shipped” (no. 2).
The manager said, “Go and do the buy off.” So I finally got
permission to go . . . I took nine
people with me, both day and night shift, salaried and hourly. I
took people who do
measurements etc. and we did go through the buy off. Each
person signed off. This kind of
thing will save money in the long run. It’s them (the team who
worked on solving the
ridge-rail problem) that are pulling the culture along. It turned
out that there were still four
items which were a problem (on the supplier’s second ridge
rail). I got them (the supplier) to
write down in writing that they would correct each of these
problems (no. 1).
After we got the new one (ridge rail), the force varied from four
to seven pounds and only
momentarily it jumps to seven pounds due to our design
suggestions. This helped them (the
supplier) improve their overall design . . . During installation
we had the actual Maintenance
and Production involved on the weekend. From what we learned
in the supplier’s facility, it

took half the time to remove and install it than the first one, and
with half the manpower. We
learned some tricks (from the supplier) and applied them here
(at the plant) . . . So (in the case
of this tool) we ended up with a 400 percent reduction in forces
to move it (the hoist) . . . So
therefore, it was not a throughput issue anymore and not an
ergonomic issue . . . (To
conclude) the only suggestion I’ve got is, there’s no “I” in team
. . . I’m just here to assist. They
JOCM
25,1
72
(the team) did it. It helped cement the marriage between
different groups like Production and
Maintenance . . . (no. 2).
Writing a script
Field notes, even when annotated, are not always usable by
others. Since our research
group was in regular contact with organizational members –
including manufacturing
leaders who participated in presentations where we shared our
findings – we needed
user-friendly ways of sharing what we were learning with them.
Therefore, we decided
to transform the field notes related to our stories into story
scripts.
We began the process of building a script by identifying the
“core components” of

the story as recorded in our field notes. We focused on who was
present, when and
where the story took place, what action(s) occurred, and what
behaviors followed. This
“sifting” technique enabled us to write the Hoist Story Script to
reflect the key issues,
behaviors, and outcomes as completely and accurately as
possible. Characters, their
interactions, and the eventual outcomes of the Hoist Story
formed the plot. All
verbatim quotations captured in the field notes were used in the
script. Characters were
always given pseudonyms because they were based on real
employees.
We used several script techniques to make the story as
understandable as possible.
First, our narrator served as a guide – to explain the context,
describe what was going
on, foreshadow actions, and offer insight into the characters’
perspectives. Second,
“stage directions” provided specific detail on character actions
(e.g. Dan: [standing in
the doorway of Ed’s office]; Ed: [clearly agitated]). We
suspected that some of the
stories would be “performed” by actors (e.g. as part of a
training class, work group
discussion); if so, the stage directions would help the actors
visualize the sequence of
actions and the importance of non-verbal communication. Third,
we divided the Hoist
Story script into six scenes based on the key events in the story:
(1) The Recordable;
(2) The Proposal for the Buy Off;

(3) Encountering a Technical Glitch;
(4) Soliciting
Solution
s;
(5) Permission for the Buy Off; and
(6) A Cultural and Technical Success.
Dividing the story into scenes enabled us to break down the
reported activity and
events in the story, highlighting character action and inaction.
Sometimes we had to create additional dialog to ensure that the
script would be
understandable. For example, we knew from the field notes that
a meeting occurred
with the supplier’s design engineer after the first ridge rail had
been installed.
(Their design engineer) came in with an attitude that “We’ve

built 100 of these (ridge rails)
and there has never been a problem.” After the team convinced
the design engineer to use it
(the hoist) for himself, after loading three hoods he said, “This
is too hard.” For me, . . . I gained
credibility with the team since I didn’t leave it (the ridge rail
issue) alone. Then the supplier
agreed that there was a problem and that they would work with
our design suggestions.
From the field notes, we created a named design engineer (Tad)
from the supplier, and
particular team members ( Jonathan and Susan) with whom he
interacted. Their roles,
A story’s impact
on change
73
actions, and non-verbal expressions were consistent with the
storyteller’s perspective.
The script, with stage directions in brackets, reads:

Tad: [sounding off to the team] “We’ve built 100 of these and
there has never been a problem.
We always do a job to spec.”
Jonathan: [to Tad] “We know you follow our specs. Go ahead.
Try it out. See what you think.”
Tad: “Oh well, OK.” [Tad puts on gloves and pushes the hoist
three times with increasing
levels of effort] “Uhhh! Man! Well, you’re right. This is too
hard. There is a problem” [He turns
and picks up his clipboard].
Susan: [to Tad] “We have some suggestions for you on how to
reduce the forces.”
Just as we validated our understanding of the hoist issue by
returning to interview the
engineer a second time, we also sought to validate our script.
Some feedback pertained
to the dialogue among the character – for those interactions that
were not well
documented in the field notes. One of the union leaders pointed
out, “They [plant

employees] don’t talk that way.” We worked with this
individual to make selected
wording changes in the script so that the script reflected the
general way in which
plant personnel communicate with one another (e.g. replacing
the word “you” by “you
guys”).
Performing a content analysis
We conducted a content analysis of the Hoist Story to identify
the key cultural themes
that emerged. The preliminary analysis revealed cultural
disconnects or breakdowns
as some of the characters engaged with each other in the course
of doing their jobs. For
example, the manager denied the engineer the opportunity to
conduct a buy off, and
then subsequently accused him of not solving the hoist problem.
The engineer blamed
the manager for not allowing the buy off in the case of the
initial ridge rail and later
shamed him into permitting a buy off prior to the installation of
the second ridge rail.
We also learn that the design engineer from the supplier arrived
at the plant “with an

attitude,” reflecting his initial opposition to engage in problem
solving with the team.
The interactions between the engineer/team and the manager
reflected, in part, the
theme of power as it manifested itself within the plant’s
hierarchical structure. The
poor quality of these interactions also can be attributed to the
engineer’s strong belief
in the notion of empowerment. The engineer’s belief was that
the team (employees and
the suppler), working together, would come up with the best
solution to the hoist
problem. These two opposing positions of hierarchy and
empowerment led both to
escalating conflict and long-term damage to plant relationships.
The Hoist Story also exemplifies the theme of collaboration. A
cooperative
orientation to the work was immediately evident in the way the
engineer worked with
the other plant departments (e.g. Ergonomics, Maintenance) and
engaged the operators
in problem solving. He took the time to solicit their input for a
re-design of the ridge
rail, and then used it to develop an appropriate engineering

solution. While the
engineer and team faced some initial difficulty due to the
“attitude” expressed by the
supplier’s design engineer, they were respectful, proactive with
their suggestions, and
persuasive in their approach. By asking the design engineer to
experience the hoist as
the operator might, the team was able to secure his agreement in
addressing all the
problems associated with the ridge rail. Though the potential
was present for the
JOCM
25,1
74
team/supplier interaction to lead to significant discord, a “can-
do” spirit pervaded the
exchange which ultimately leads to the installation of an
appropriate ridge rail.
Comparing the content analysis with the larger data set

Additional insights can be derived when stories are situated
within the larger data set.
In our case, we examined the story in relation to the four-
quadrant Ideal Cultural Model
and its associated cultural obstacles and enablers. The Hoist
Story revolves largely
around a disagreement about a particular work practice – the
buy off. However, we
know from our years of field work in manufacturing
environments that the cultural
breakdowns between the engineer and manager reflected
fundamentally different
orientations to getting the work done.
The clash that emerges in the Hoist Story illustrates the tension
plant personnel
were experiencing on their journey from a hierarchical and
authoritarian past to a
unified and cooperative approach in their “ideal” future. The
story indicates that
organizational members face key cultural obstacles in their
quest to get as close as
possible to an ideal plant culture including: cross-cultural
conflict (between the
engineer and the manager, each representing different

functional areas in the plant,
and initially between the engineer and the supplier),
ethnocentrism (the manager’s
conviction about buy offs and unwillingness to consider an
alternative viewpoint, and
the supplier’s view that there has never been a problem with his
ridge rails), and
resistance to change (in both the supplier’s initial response to
the ridge-rail problem,
and the manager’s subsequent response to conduct a buy-off
after the ridge-rail was
re-built).
The Hoist Story also is replete with enablers whose job is to
mitigate the obstacles
to organizational-culture change. The key Plant Environment
enabler is improving
ergonomic standards. Work Force enablers include exhibiting a
people-centered
orientation, demonstrating involvement and commitment,
serving effectively in a
given role, and responding to tasks quickly and effectively.
Work Practices enablers
encourage work-group problem solving, empowering employees,
sharing and using

lessons learned, setting clear expectations, sharing
responsibilities, and providing
support. Relationship enablers include proactive listening,
showing respect, and
creating a win-win orientation. All these enablers represent
opportunities for action
that can be taken by organizational members to accomplish their
culture-change goals.
Sharing the story script and content analysis
Next, we began sharing the Hoist Story script and its analysis as
part of
presentations within GM’s manufacturing function. In one
discussion, we framed the
Hoist Story in terms of “soliciting” vs “disregarding” cross-
functional input (see
Figure 2). The first column identifies those portions of the
script where advice and
input was sought. For example, the engineer solicited the views
of the operators.
Later, the engineer and the team asked that the supplier’s design
engineer try out
the hoist and provide feedback. Cooperation pervades these
cross-functional
interactions. The second column represents those portions of the

script where
cross-functional input was disregarded. It occurred first when
the engineer asked
production management for permission to do a buy off. It
occurred again when the
engineer petitioned a second time to conduct a buy off.
Ultimately the manager
granted the request, though he did so reluctantly. When reading
the story from start
A story’s impact
on change
75
to finish, the sequencing is as follows: top of the first column to
Insert A, followed
by Insert A (top of the second column), and then bottom of the
second column to
Insert B, followed by Insert B (bottom of the second column).
Engineering and production management appear on opposite
sides of the functional

divide. This pattern is consistent with GM’s longstanding
history of autonomy in
which organizational units such as functions are optimized at
the expense of the larger
whole – in this case the plant (Briody et al., 2004). Our goal
when sharing the Hoist
Story was to raise awareness of the pattern so that attendees
would be able to
experiment with solutions that might perforate such
organizational boundaries.
In a later discussion with a different group, we talked about the
importance of
securing consensus across functional and job classification
boundaries to ensure plant
effectiveness. This time we offered a “recipe” from the Hoist
Story consistent with the
overarching theme of collaboration emerging from the larger
data set. The recipe was
phrased as follows: Involve team members and other
stakeholders in problem solving
to increase the likelihood of a successful outcome – both
technically (e.g. a ridge rail
that works) and culturally (e.g. strong, healthy relationships).
We commented on the

benefits of following such a recipe: improving job satisfaction
while reducing
micromanagement, having a high confidence in the technical
outcomes, and building
and maintaining relationships within the work environment. We
also used this
presentation to reinforce collaboration as the single-most
important feature in an ideal
plant culture.
Figure 2.
The Hoist Story as a
symbol of the functional
divide
JOCM
25,1
76
Transforming the Hoist Story into specific applications
As we refined our analyses and presentations for study
participants, we started to

compile story materials and other data with a similar focus. The
result was the beginning
of a series of ten stand-alone “applications” that could be used
to address critical
organizational-culture issues (see Appendix). The broad
outlines of the Hoist Story
appeared first in the “Story Packet,” a tool that documents and
analyzes stories to provide
some explanation for the valued elements in plant culture. The
Hoist Story’s “recipe” as
reported above was included in an application called “Recipes
for Cultural Success.”
Over time, these applications became known as “Collaboration
Tools” since
collaboration was the dominant cultural theme in the data set.
The content, focus, and
problem-solving exercises associated with the Collaboration
Tools help plant
personnel develop, strengthen, or maintain a culture of
collaboration. The structure
and flow of the Collaboration Tools are similar. Background
material orients the user
at the start of each tool. For example, it introduces a cultural
problem that the tool can

address. Next, a general description of the tool appears, along
with the tool’s goals and
suggestions for how, when, and where the tool can be used. In
the explanation portion
of the tool the cultural problem is described and explained in
detail. Insights are offered
about ways of addressing the particular cultural problem.
Finally, a set of exercises
offering practice in cultural problem solving completes each
tool (see Figure 3). The
intent of the exercises is to reinforce the notion of working
collaboratively and
cooperatively with others in the work environment.
Adopting the script for use in plant training
About 18 months after we first heard the Hoist Story, we
learned about a three-day
training class that was intended to reinforce the concept of
teamwork on the plant floor.
One of the trainers contacted us and said his group had been
charged with developing
training material for employees who would be working at a new
GM plant. The
training built on the new plant’s mission in which the concepts
of empowerment and

support were embedded, and on some team leader training
conducted several months
earlier. The trainer indicated that he was eager to show us their
modules on building
relationships among co-workers – a theme they adopted from
the ideal culture project.
This was the first time we were aware that study participants
were actively integrating
our work into their own.
During that meeting, one of the trainers mentioned the Hoist
Story script.
You’ll see the Hoist Story as part of our training . . . Basically
we’re looking at interaction
skills, feedback fundamentals and conflict management. . . We
also have a whole section on
the Hoist Story. What makes this story great is that it is so
realistic. [The consulting firm
working with us] did have a few manufacturing examples that
they played out with
professional actors but most of their examples were from office
environments so this example
is much more appropriate for us . . . What we hope the Hoist
Story will do will be at least to

start the dialogue about behavioral expectations.
Later in the meeting he indicated that the Hoist Story had been
incorporated into their
“capstone exercise,” meaning that it would serve as the focal
point for the discussion of
team-related concepts and exercises. Interestingly, we
documented the Hoist Story at
another GM plant in the same region as this new plant.
Four days later, the first teamwork training on relationship
building was completed.
The following day we received this email from the lead trainer:
A story’s impact
on change
77
The Hoist Story was well received by the participants. A group
of folks are making a video
tape of the script at the Body Plant this Morning for use by
future training classes. People

could easily relate to the characters and behaviors which
provided the basis for some robust
discussion and learning. It should be interesting as other classes
are conducted. Thanks again
for your support and help as we tackle the challenges of
building a new plant and engaging
the work force.
For us, the receptivity of the training participants signaled a
validation of the cultural
issues emerging in the Hoist Story and the ways in which
organizational members
sought to cope with them, rather than simply the validation of
the story’s narrative
details.
Producing a video tape from the script
The email above indicated the plant’s intent to make a video of
the Hoist Story script.
Within two weeks, we received confirmation that the video tape
had been made and
incorporated into the training program. According to the lead
trainer, “It was filmed in
Figure 3.

Structure and flow of the
collaboration tools
JOCM
25,1
78
[the Body Plant] and is pretty good!” In a return email we
indicated how pleased we
were and asked for a copy. The video was a joint effort by both
GM salary and hourly
UAW[3] employees and had a running time of 14:56. Employees
played the roles of the
characters and performed the various pre- and post-production
functions
(e.g. narration, music).
Developing exercises for the video tape
The video was used towards the end of the training to gauge
how well participants
grasped the focus on relationship building. One agenda stated it
this way: “The Hoist

Story capstone activity will provide you with an opportunity to
apply newly acquired
skills in a case study situation.” The lead trainer indicated, “We
run the tape in scenes,
and have the class members look for various aspects of GM core
values . . . , [material]
on interaction skills, and effective feedback.” At the end of the
video, groups of
participants were responsible for completing three exercises:
(1) Step 1 involved evaluating interaction skills for success, the
use of GM core
values and enablers, or the use of feedback.
(2) Step 2 focused on examining how the Hoist Story
“interactions appear to be
impacting the situation.”
(3) Step 3 required a presentation summarizing issues such as
the core values that
were at risk in the Hoist Story, and conflict resolution tactics
that were used or
should have been used by the characters.
Feedback from the lead trainer indicated, “It (the video and

follow-up exercises) is a
good learning tool and is being received positively.”
Requesting conflict resolution material
Next, we received a request via email from the training staff for
new course material
from our data set. The email read:
We are planning on developing a stand along Conflict
Resolution training course . . . What we
are envisioning as a potential activity is a role play very similar
to the Hoist Story centering
on how conflict starts and escalates and then how it can be
resolved. Real world GM examples
are very well received and identifiable. Please give this some
thought and drop me a line.
Our initial response to this email was:
Yes, we have other stories we can send you. [We are] finalizing
a script for you . . . in which
employees were asked to select a spot for the team room area,
and then were told by
management it was not acceptable. The story illustrates how the
issue was solved.

This request opened up a new opportunity to encourage the
evolution of the
organizational-culture-change process in which this plant was
engaged. We sent of the
Marking the Team Room story script as promised. However, we
believed that the Hoist
Story script was the best example we had of both unresolved
conflict (with the
manager) and conflict resolution (with the supplier). We also
thought that we could
enhance the training exercises used after the Hoist Story video
was shown.
A story’s impact
on change
79
Creating the workplace disagreements collaboration tool
The centerpiece of the Workplace Disagreements Collaboration
Tool is the Hoist Story.
It provides a framework for plant personnel to analyze and

solve common conflicts
within manufacturing environments. Whether used by
individuals or groups,
including facilitated discussions, this tool can be useful in
learning about and
developing strategies to deal with different types of conflict.
Users of the tool can either
watch the Hoist Story video or read the story script to
understand the collaborative and
confrontational behaviors associated with plant-floor
interactions. The tool explores
the different sources of disagreement among the story’s
characters – including
divergent interests and expectations. It also examines the effects
of the unfolding
disagreements on plant working relationships, work practices,
and output.
Three sets of exercises complete the tool. For example, the
questions in Exercise B
emphasize the importance of maintaining healthy, professional
relationships despite
the disagreement (see Figure 4); the questions point users to
Appendix, which contains
the Hoist Story script. These questions also introduce the

technique of “what-if
scenarios” in which users imagine alternative outcomes in lieu
of what actually
happened in the story, and then discuss the implications. The
exercises, taken as a
whole, enable users to explore conflict from several points of
view and examine the
impact of conflict on organizational members and their work
culture. We passed on the
final version of the Collaboration Tool to plant and
manufacturing leaders as soon as it
was completed.
Evolving to organizational applications
Rarely do stories get told in coherent, linear progression from
beginning to end (Boje,
1991b; Czarniawska, 2004). Typically, stories undergo repeated
transformations as
they are told and re-told. We build on this perspective by
suggesting that a single story
can evolve into new cultural forms that include but are not
limited to the narrative
itself.
We label the cultural forms that emerged as applications or

packaged products.
They were developed largely in sequence, each one dependent
upon and reinforcing its
Figure 4.
Sample exercise from the
workplace disagreements
collaboration tool
JOCM
25,1
80
predecessors. The Hoist Story was the catalyst for the
development of all subsequent
initiatives – the story script, three Collaboration Tools, a video
tape, and training
exercises. The evolutionary course of the Hoist Story, from the
initial telling to the
resulting set of applications, is illustrated in Figure 5.
We call attention to the structural aspects of this evolution.

Notable about the
evolutionary structure is the way in which the elements are
sequenced and layered. A
certain linearity pervades the chain of actions (evident in the
single-sided arrows)
terminating when activities shift either from researchers to
study participants, or from
study participants to researchers. The structure mimics the “turn
taking” associated
with conversations (Boden, 1994; Drew and Heritage, 1992) or
the “action chains” or
sequence of events in which people participate (Hall, 1976).
Change is embedded in
these modifications in the conversational flow as the parties
move their dialogue
forward in unanticipated directions. Both researchers and study
participants are
necessary conditions for having a conversation, and both are
fully engaged in the
evolutionary process, reflecting the pattern co-production. Each
kept seeing
opportunities to shape the organizational-culture changes in
particular ways and
each played a distinctive role in contributing to that effort.
Researcher actions (in

bolded font) can be classified generally as analytical while
study participant actions (in
regular font) are largely pragmatic and resourceful. Some cross-
exchange (evident in
the double-sided arrows) appears at the turning points in the
structure, indicating the
saliency of those particular interactions as a new round of
actions gets underway. Just
as conversations switch from one party to the next, so too does
the structure of the
Hoist Story as it is transformed from a descriptive narrative to a
powerful set of
organizational-culture-change tools (Hall, 1976).
Organizational-culture change can result from and be sustained
by the power of a
story. The Hoist Story is strong evidence that stories not only
have an individual
Figure 5.
A story’s evolution to
organizational
applications

A story’s impact
on change
81
impact (Bryant and Cox, 2004), but an organizational impact as
well. It provides a point
of contrast with much of the management literature on “planned
change” where change
goals and processes are designed and delivered by top
organizational leaders (Beech,
2000). The Hoist Story is an example of interactive and
integrated change involving a
cross-section of organizational members. It represents change
“in the middle” or
change at the “organizational core.” The pattern of change,
described as organic,
serendipitous, emergent, and unplanned resulted in
organizational buy-in – a critical
ingredient in an organization’s readiness for and ability to
change (Fronda and
Moriceau, 2008; Chreim, 2007; Armenakis et al., 2001) – and
packaged products that

were developed and implemented. Rather than reflecting the
hegemony of a
managerialist approach (Vickers, 2008), the Hoist Story and its
sustained impact
actually reflected a consensus view of organizational members.
The sculpting of
manufacturing culture became a collaborative, participatory,
and reciprocal effort
between organizational members and researchers, while the
sculpture that resulted
symbolized the valued attributes of the ideal plant culture. This
story had the effect of
spearheading the change process so that that process was
viewed as credible, relevant,
and realistic – just as the story has been perceived.
Epilogue
Our research group has spent much of the last eight years on the
Ideal Culture Project.
In addition to research reports and a book (in preparation), we
completed ten
Collaboration Tools for use within GM’s manufacturing
operations. The tools,
described in the Appendix, have been copyrighted and released
for use outside of GM

by organizations, institutions, and communities.
We have disseminated the findings and recommendations from
the project
throughout GM. We have worked with the senior manufacturing
managers in the firm,
as well as senior UAW leaders, to gather their views on the
ideal culture project, raise
their awareness of the availability of the Collaboration Tools,
and garner their support.
Knowledge of the availability of the Collaboration Tools grew
during the validation
and pilot testing phases. The tools have been finalized and
delivered to manufacturing
process leaders for formal inclusion within GM’s manufacturing
system.
Notes
1. The cultural transformation process is discussed in greater
detail in Briody et al. (2010).
2. The Relationships quadrant focuses on healthy, positive
interactions that are the glue
cementing the organizational culture together. Work Practices

stipulates how the work gets
done by working together, recognizing success, and sharing
information. Plant Environment
consists of the location and inclusion of physical structures
(e.g. bathrooms, team rooms) and
technology (e.g. equipment) that nurture collaboration and
effectiveness. Work Force
emphasizes the people skills and technological competencies
along with appropriate and
sufficient training that reinforce a strong work ethic.
3. United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America.
4. The Collaboration Tools are described in detail in Briody et
al. (2010).
JOCM
25,1
82
References

Adorisio, A.L.M. (2008), “Living among stories: everyday life
at a South Western bank”, Journal
of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 610-
21.
Armstrong, D. (2002), Chief Storytelling Officer: More Tales
from America’s Foremost Corporate
Storyteller, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Field, H.S. (2001),
“Paradigms in organizational change:
change agent and change target perspectives”, in Golembiewski,
R. (Ed.), Handbook of
Organizational Behavior, Dekker, New York, NY, pp. 631-58.
Beech, N. (2000), “Narrative styles of managers and workers: a
tale of star-crossed lovers”,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 210-
28.
Bernard, H.R. (Ed.) (1998), Handbook of Methods in Cultural
Anthropology, Altamira Press,
Walnut Creek, CA.

Bernard, H.R. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Boden, D. (1994), The Business of Talk: Organizations in
Action, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Boje, D.M. (2006), “Pitfalls in storytelling advice and praxis”,
Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 218-30.
Boje, D.M. (1991a), “Consulting and organizational change in
the storytelling organization”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 7-17.
Boje, D.M. (1991b), “The storytelling organization: a study of
performance in an office supply
firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp.
106-26.
Boyce, M.E. (1995), “Collective centring and collective sense-
making in the stories and
storytelling of one organization”, Organization Studies, Vol. 16
No. 1, pp. 107-37.

Briody, E.K., Trotter, R.T. II and Meerwarth, T.L. (2010),
Transforming Culture: Creating and
Sustaining a Better Manufacturing Organization, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Briody, E.K., Meerwarth, T.L., Trotter, R.T. II and Randombyte
Software (2008),
ExplorePlantCulture, PC game, General Motors Corporation,
available at:
www.randombyte.com
Briody, E.K., Trotter, R.T. II, Meerwarth, T.L. and Sengir, G.H.
(2007), “Collaboration tools for
designing and implementing an ideal manufacturing culture in
the US”, US Copyright
Registration, TX 6-680-935, March 31, General Motors
Corporation, Detroit, MI.
Briody, E.K., Cavusgil, S.T. and Miller, S.R. (2004), “Turning
three sides into a delta at General
Motors: enhancing partnership integration on corporate
ventures”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 37, pp. 421-34.

Brown, A.D. and Humphreys, M. (2003), “Epic and tragic tales:
making sense of change”, Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 121-44.
Bryant, M. and Cox, J.W. (2004), “Conversion stories as
shifting narratives of organizational
change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
17 No. 6, pp. 578-92.
Chambers, E. (1985), Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide,
Waveland Press, Prospect
Heights, IL.
Chreim, S. (2007), “Social and temporal influences on
interpretations of organizational identity
and acquisition integration”, Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 449-80.
Connell, N.A.D., Klein, J.H. and Meyer, E. (2003), “‘Are you
sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin (to
transfer some knowledge’?) Narrative approaches to the transfer
and interpretation of
A story’s impact

on change
83
organisational knowledge”, Proceedings of the Knowledge
Management Aston Conference
2003, Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK, July, pp. 152-
63.
Czarniawska, B. (2004), Narratives in Social Science Research,
Sage, London.
Czarniawska, B. (1997), Narrating the Organization: Dramas of
Institutional Identity, University
of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Denning, S. (2001), The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites
Action in Knowledge-Era
Organizations, Knowledge Management Consortium
International Press,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, MA.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992), “Analyzing talk at work: an

introduction”, in Drew, P. and
Heritage, J. (Eds), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional
Settings, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-65.
Fronda, Y. and Moriceau, J-L. (2008), “I am not your hero:
change management and culture
shocks in a public sector corporation”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 589-609.
Gabriel, Y. (2000), Storytelling in Organizations: Facts,
Fictions, and Fantasies, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Hall, E.T. (1976), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, New York,
NY.
Hansen, H. (2006), “The ethnonarrative approach”, Human
Relations, Vol. 59 No. 8, pp. 1049-75.
Jordan, A.T. (1996), “Critical incident story creation and
culture formation in a self-directed work
team”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 27-35.

Lapp, C.A. and Carr, A.N. (2008), “Coaching can be
storyselling: creating change through crises
of confidence”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 532-59.
Mitchell, H.J. (2005), “Knowledge sharing – the value of story
telling”, International Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 632-41.
O’Connor, E.S. (2000), “Plotting the organization: the
embedded narrative as a construct for
studying change”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.
36 No. 2, pp. 174-92.
Orr, J.E. (1996), Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a
Modern Job, ILR Press, Ithaca,
NY.
Orr, J.E. (1986), “Narratives at work: story telling as
cooperative diagnostic activity”, Proceedings
of the 1986 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported
Cooperative Work, Austin, Texas,
December 3-5, pp. 62-72.

Parkin, M. (2004), Tales for Change: Using Storytelling to
Develop People and Organizations,
Kogan Page Publishers, London.
Reissner, S.C. (2005), “Learning and innovation”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 482-94.
Schensul, S.L., Schensul, J.J. and LeCompte, M.D. (1999),
Essential Ethnographic Methods:
Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. The
Ethnographer’s Toolkit, AltaMira Press,
Walnut Creek, CA.
Silverman, L.L. (Ed.) (2006), Wake Me Up When the Data Is
Over: How Organizations Use Stories
to Drive Results, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Soin, K. and Scheytt, T. (2006), “Making the case for narrative
methods in cross cultural
organizational research”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 55-77.
Stacey, R.D. (2001), Complex Responsive Processes in
Organizations: Learning and Knowledge

Creation, Routledge, London.
JOCM
25,1
84
Steuer, R. and Wood, T. (2008), “Storytellers and their
discursive strategies in a post-acquisition
process”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol.
21 No. 5, pp. 574-88.
Suchman, L. (2003), “Organizing alignment: the case of bridge-
building”, in Nicolini, D., Gherardi,
S. and Yanow, D. (Eds), Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-
Based Approach, M.E.
Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 187-204.
Trotter, R.T. II and Schensul, J.J. (1998), “Methods in applied
anthropology”, in Bernard, H.R.
(Ed.), Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, Altamira
Press, Walnut Creek, CA,
pp. 691-736.

Van Willigen, J., Rylko-Bauer, R. and McElroy, A. (Eds)
(1989), Making Our Research Useful:
Case Studies in the Utilization of Anthropological Knowledge,
Westview Special Studies in
Applied Anthropology, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Vickers, D. (2008), “Beyond the hegemonic narrative – a study
of managers”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 560-73.
Wallace, T. (Ed.) (2005), Tourism and Applied Anthropologists:
Linking Theory and Practice.
NAPA Bulletin No. 23, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Appendix
We developed ten applications or tools to assist manufacturing
employees in moving towards
and reinforcing their cultural ideal – a culture of
collaboration[4]. Consequently, we refer to these
applications as the Collaboration Tools (Briody et al. 2007;
Briody et al., 2008). The tools are
grouped based on their primary function: understanding
collaboration, practicing collaboration,

measuring collaboration, and making decisions consistent with a
culture of collaboration.
Tools for understanding collaboration
Four tools help promote an understanding of the critical
elements of an ideal plant culture and
how plant cultural conditions can be improved.
. Ideal Cultural Model – This tool is the foundation for all of
the Collaboration Tools. It
provides a conceptual view of the ideal plant culture – one
based on a culture of
collaboration – from the standpoint of GM employees. The Ideal
Cultural Model consists
of four quadrants – plant environment, work force, work
practices, and relationships –
into which all named features of the ideal plant culture can be
categorized. Collaboration
emerges as the central theme and encompasses the elements of
unity, cooperation, and
joint work.
. Cultural Toolkit – This tool describes and explains the primary
elements of the Ideal
Cultural Model, identifies the obstacles that will be encountered

in trying to improve plant
culture, and specifies the enablers that can help enhance plant
culture and cooperation.
The Cultural Toolkit focuses on cultural change and the
mechanisms for achieving it. The
exercises can be used as a problem-exploration process, or as a
specific problem-solving
instrument. They are designed to be action oriented, moving
from problem identification
to problem resolution.
. Story Packet – This tool includes a set of plant stories that
highlight a variety of topics
and issues pertaining to an ideal plant culture. The stories
illustrate examples ranging
from the “old way” to those reflecting the ideal. The exercises
are designed to facilitate
cultural learning and evolution towards the ideal by providing
examples of desired
behaviors contrasted with “warning” stories from current (or
past) plant culture. The
exercises use the Ideal Cultural Model to suggest ways to move
towards “walking the
talk.”

A story’s impact
on change
85
. Recipes for Cultural Success – This tool offers a set of
guidelines for the behavior of all
plant personnel as they move towards, and attempt to maintain,
a culture of collaboration
based on the Ideal Cultural Model. It helps plant personnel cope
with change by providing
a Ready-Reference Card of preferred behavioral qualities in
effective plant cultures. It is
also useful in helping plant personnel understand the value of
and expectations associated
with a culture of collaboration.
Tools for practicing collaboration
Three tools help employees gain collaborative skills and
practice in achieving ideal cultural
goals.
. Collaborative questions – this tool provides training in a

technique that individuals can
use to ask questions when there are issues that need to be solved
in their work
environment. It emphasizes the importance of asking questions
in a neutral, objective way
so that collaboration is enhanced. It also improves plant
personnel’s abilities to ask
open-ended, non-judgmental questions so that they may obtain
more complete, detailed,
and accurate information, and make better decisions.
. Cultural “Hot Spots” – this tool provides a procedure for
opening up discussion on known
cultural clashes in the work environment so that potential
solutions to those clashes can
be developed, and the positive elements of the ideal culture can
be reinforced. It is
particularly useful when work groups identify and deal with
ambiguous situations –
including the interface of two opposing themes (e.g.
empowerment and hierarchy;
standardization and innovation). Plant personnel can test, and
subsequently modify, the
solutions they create so that they can contribute as effectively
as possible to plant

operations.
. Workplace disagreements – this tool focuses attention on
addressing conflict. It includes
a video in which one of the key stories collected during the
Ideal Culture Project is
reenacted. The exercises are designed to help individuals and
groups analyze and manage
typical work-related disagreements so that any damage to plant
relationships, processes,
and work output can be addressed quickly and effectively.
Tools for measuring collaboration
Two tools measure current conditions and the movement of
groups and individuals towards an
ideal culture of collaborative effectiveness.
. Work group relationship metrics – this tool consists of a set of
work-group-level metrics
that measure seven elements of positive relationships (based on
the Ideal Cultural Model)
for a work group or multiple work groups. It focuses on work
group dynamics by
examining key attributes of work group effectiveness. The
exercises provide a process for

identifying which elements of within-group or between-group
relationships are positive
(for reinforcement) or negative (and needing change). The
tool’s exercises have a process
for working through the cultural obstacles and enablers to
strengthen the positive metrics
and/or reduce the impact of the negative metrics. Work groups
can develop
recommendations to maintain their strengths and/or improve
their weaknesses.
. Individual relationship effectiveness metrics – this tool is
designed to help individuals
measure and then either reinforce or improve their workplace
relationship dynamics. It
provides input into the collaborative abilities and behaviors of
an individual, along with
the actions he/she can take to create and sustain strong, healthy
relationships at work.
Plant personnel can examine aspects of their own everyday
actions and activities (e.g.,
engaging in positive interactions, working together on work
tasks) and track changes in
their behavior over time.

JOCM
25,1
86
A tool for making decisions consistent with a culture of
collaboration
One tool teaches and reinforces collaborative actions and ideals.
. ExplorePlantCulture computer game – this game enables
players to learn about the
impact of their decisions on plant culture. It showcases an
actual observation of a stud gun
breakdown in a GM plant and the aftermath associated with its
repair. Players make
decisions for the game’s characters. Each decision is scored on
two key elements of plant
culture – Relationships and Work Process – with a cumulative
score and the explanation
for that score at the end of each game.
Corresponding author
Elizabeth Briody can be contacted at: [email protected]

A story’s impact
on change
87
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:
[email protected]
Or visit our web site for further details:
www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Week 6 Assignment Resources/Cultures role in enabling
organizational change.pdf
Survey ties
transformation success
to deft handling of
cultural issues

Culture’s role
in enabling
organizational
change
2 Strategy&
Berlin
Carolin Oelschlegel
Principal
+44-7825-67-6472
carolin.oelschlegel
@strategyand.pwc.com
Buenos Aires
Ariel Fleichman
Partner
+54-11-4131-0432
ariel.fleichman

Delhi
Gaurav Moda
Principal
+91-124-499-8719
gaurav.moda
Dubai
James Thomas
Principal
+971-4-390-0260
james.thomas
Mexico City
Carlos Navarro
Partner
+52-55-9178-4209
carlos.navarro
New York

Rutger von Post
Partner
+1-212-551-6090
rutger.vonpost
San Francisco
DeAnne Aguirre
Senior Partner
+1-415-653-3472
deanne.aguirre
Shanghai
Tony Tang
Principal
+86-21-2327-9800
tony.tang
Sydney

Varya Davidson
Partner
+61-2-9321-2820
varya.davidson
Tokyo
Kenji Mitsui
Partner
+81-3-6757-8692
kenji.mitsui
DeAnne Aguirre is a senior partner with
Strategy& based in San Francisco.
She is the co-leader of the global
Katzenbach Center and an expert in
culture, talent effectiveness, leadership,
and change management. She
advises senior executives globally on
organizational topics.
Rutger von Post is a partner with
Strategy& based in New York and is

head of the Katzenbach Center in North
America. He specializes in culture
transformation and organizational design
and effectiveness in the financial-services
industry.
Micah Alpern is a senior associate with
Strategy& based in Chicago and is a
member of the Katzenbach Center’s
operating team. He is an expert in culture
transformation and change management.
About the authorsContacts
This report was originally published by
Booz & Company in 2013.
3Strategy&
For all the money and effort that go into corporate change
initiatives,
they have a decidedly mixed success rate. Only about half of
transformation

initiatives accomplish and sustain their goals, according to a
survey on
culture and change management by the Katzenbach Center.
Among the biggest obstacles to successful change are “change
fatigue”
(which occurs when workers are asked to follow through on too
many
changes at once) and a lack of the capabilities needed to make
major
changes last. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents cited
change fatigue,
and only about half felt their organization had the capabilities
to deliver
change. Another problem is the tendency for management to
exclude lower-
level employees in developing and executing the change plan.
The role of culture was a particular focus of the survey.
Although 84 percent
of all respondents think culture is critically important, a far
smaller
percentage (less than half) believe their companies do a good
job of
managing culture. The same respondents who see their

companies’ change
programs as falling short tend to say that culture isn’t a priority
in their
companies’ transformation initiatives.
The survey points to the need for companies to take a more
holistic approach
to change and to find ways to work with and within the
organization’s
culture during change initiatives. This is not to say that culture-
enabled
transformation removes the need for formal change management
processes
or techniques. It doesn’t. But it does mean that leaders need to
rethink how
to drive and sustain change if they want to materially increase
the success of
their transformation programs.
Executive summary
4 Strategy&

When they embark on transformation efforts, companies put
their
credibility and reputations on the line — not to mention a lot of
financial capital. Are the effort and money well spent? A wide
body of
literature suggests that many change initiatives fail, typically in
areas
such as process improvement, cost reduction, digitization, and
quality
improvement. Even when they initially succeed, their benefits
may
not last.
To learn more about what goes wrong with transformation
efforts and
what might be done to make them more successful, the
Katzenbach
Center conducted a survey of more than 2,200 executives,
managers,
and employees (see Methodology, page 11).
Transformation efforts face three major obstacles, according to
the
study. The first is “change fatigue,” a dynamic that comes into
play

when employees feel they are being asked to make too many
changes at
once. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents say they have
experienced
some form of change fatigue. The second obstacle relates to
companies’
skill at driving transformation; 48 percent of respondents say
their
companies don’t have the necessary capabilities to ensure that
change is
sustained. The third issue is the way transformation initiatives
are
selected, planned, and implemented — by senior managers,
without
much input from lower-level employees. This limits
understanding and
buy-in. When asked to select the top three reasons people resist
change,
44 percent of employees say they don’t understand the change
they’re
being asked to make, and 38 percent say they don’t agree with
it.
When employees are faced with too many change priorities,
aren’t sure

how to proceed, and aren’t even sure that an initiative is good
for the
organization, they take a wait-and-see attitude, looking to their
bosses for
direction and to their co-workers for clues about which aspects
matter the
most. This sort of uncertainty, deep down in an organization,
can keep a
change initiative from gaining momentum. (A later-stage
obstacle to
change comes in the form of the “boomerang effect,” in which
initial
changes start to fade when leadership stops paying attention and
moves on
to other priorities.)
Why transformations
typically fall short
Uncertainty,
deep down in an
organization,
can keep a
change initiative
from gaining

momentum.
5Strategy&
A change plan may be especially hard to implement if
employees see the
transformation as being contrary to the company’s culture — to
the many
things, such as feedback and peer and manager behavior, that
determine
(as people often put it) “how we do things around here.” It is
for these
reasons that a high proportion of change initiatives fail. Only a
little more
than half of all respondents — 54 percent — say change
initiatives at their
companies are adopted and sustained.
Turning to culture, it is clear that people understand its
importance.
Eighty-six percent of C-suite executives and 84 percent of all
managers
and employees say culture is critical to their organizations’

success, and
60 percent see it as a bigger success factor than either their
strategy or
their operating model (see Exhibit 1). Still, culture doesn’t
seem to be a
priority when companies are trying to drive change, and a
deeper
analysis of the data — pinpointing culture’s place in successful
change
programs and its place in unsuccessful change programs —
reveals some
striking correlations.
60%
48%
…agree that their organization’s culture is critical to business
success
…say culture is more important than strategy or operating
model
84%

44%
47%
#1
45%
#1
51%
#2
…do not feel their culture is being effectively managed
…do not feel culture is an important part of the leadership
team’s agenda
…think their organization’s culture is in need of a major
overhaul
…say culture change should take less than one year
…think, other than communications and leadership alignment,

they do not have the capabilities to effectively deliver change
…barrier respondents said prevents sustainable change is there
are too many competing priorities, creating change fatigue
…reason respondents resist change is they are skeptical due to
past failed change efforts
…reason respondents resist change is they do not feel involved
in the change process
Exhibit 1
Key Findings - The Importance of Culture in Enabling Change
Source: Strategy& Global
Culture and Change
Management Survey 2013
6 Strategy&
In particular, when transformation initiatives fall short, it
usually appears
that corporate culture was an afterthought. Among the survey

respondents
who said the changes at their companies weren’t adopted and
sustained over
time, only 24 percent said their companies used the existing
culture as a
source of energy and influence during the change effort. Only
35 percent of
respondents who said change efforts hadn’t succeeded saw their
companies
as trying to leverage employees’ pride in, and emotional
commitment to,
their organizations.
By contrast, cultural levers were at least twice as likely to have
played a role
in change programs that had succeeded. Seventy percent of
respondents
who said change efforts at their companies were adopted and
sustained also
said their companies leveraged employees’ pride in the
organization and
their emotional commitment. Fifty-six percent of respondents at
companies
where changes had worked said the existing culture was used as
a source of

energy and influence.
It seems clear that there’s a disconnect between what many
companies say
about culture and how much they attend to it. Only about half of
all
employees say their leaders treat culture as a priority on a day-
to-day basis.
Fewer still (45 percent) say culture is effectively managed at
their companies.
A full 96 percent of respondents say some change to their
culture is needed,
and 51 percent think their culture requires a major overhaul.
Putting all of
this together, there would seem to be an opportunity, indeed a
need, to
evolve culture itself so that it can be used as more of a change
lever and, in
some cases, to have culture lead the transformation.
7Strategy&
Leading change with culture

As an enabler of change, culture remains stubbornly
underleveraged.
Both the survey data and our years of experience observing a
wide
range of companies trying to transform some aspect of their
business
or operations suggest that culture is usually pretty far down the
priority list.
Most business transformations are at least loosely based on an
eight-
step process first codified by John Kotter of Harvard Business
School.
In practice, many change programs disproportionately
emphasize
two of the levers he cites — communications and leadership
alignment. Culture is the last step in Kotter’s formula,
something
that can be addressed only after new practices have taken hold
and
proven their value. And as our data suggests, culture is often
not
addressed at all.

These priorities need to be rethought. This is not to denigrate
traditional
change levers — including top-level diagnostics, organizational
design,
performance management, metrics, and incentives. Depending
on the
change initiative, these may all be crucial. But a change effort
needs to
lead with culture as part of a more holistic approach if a
transformation
program is to have the best possible chance of success. In
particular, the
change needs to draw on whatever positive cultural attributes
are
embedded in the organization. It also needs to minimize any
negative
cultural attributes that might get in the way.
There are several levers that companies should employ as they
use
culture to lead transformation — or when they are trying to
transform
their own cultures. Among the most important are the following:
• Culture diagnostic: Before you can use culture in a

transformation or change your culture, you need to know your
culture’s strengths and weaknesses. Effectively tapping into the
strengths can give your change initiative the momentum it needs
to overcome obstacles.
• The “critical few” behaviors: Setting a small number of clear
behavioral change goals, which we call the critical few, is a
As an enabler
of change,
culture remains
stubbornly
underleveraged.
8 Strategy&
crucial way of showing workers what you want them to do
differently. By focusing on only a few behaviors, you avoid a
situation in which workers become overwhelmed and as a result
do nothing, hoping the new requirements will just go away (see
“Focusing on the Critical Few,” page 9).
• Employee pride and commitment: The odds of a successful

transformation plummet when morale is bad. Companies must
find ways to connect workers to something larger that they can
believe in — including customer benefits or the satisfaction of
beating a benchmark.
• Informal peer networks and motivators: Culture might start at
the top, but it is reinforced at every level. Having a peer point
out
the benefits of change, instead of an executive or manager, is
very
powerful and leads to improved behaviors that continue even
when nobody is looking (see “The Power of a Peer,” page 10).
• Storytelling: How did we get here? At companies with strong
cultures, there are usually widely known stories that answer this
question, often about the boldness of a leader or some decisive
moment in the company’s history. These stories can be a source
of
pride and a natural way of reinforcing desired behaviors.
9Strategy&
A strong example of putting the “critical

few” concept into practice involves a
global consumer and industrial company
that wanted to change the culture in its
financial shared-services organization.
Morale at the organization was low.
Employees tended to point fingers
rather than accept responsibility and
to be reactive in solving problems. The
organization rarely looked into root
causes, so the same problems kept
cropping up again and again. Because
of these issues, the financial shared-
services group lacked the respect
and trust of other departments in the
company. A feeling that bordered on
hostility hung over the organization’s
interactions with its internal partners.
The organization had a long list of new
behaviors that it could have addressed.
Instead, it focused on a critical few
that everyone could remember and
understand. Among them were taking
ownership for results, soliciting and
providing constructive feedback on

performance-related issues, and treating
an outsourcing firm with which relations
had become contentious as a partner
instead of an enemy.
Of course, it is one thing to set goals for
a transformation and another to achieve
them. Recognizing this, the shared-
services organization broke down
its short list of priorities into a set of
specific behaviors that varied depending
on the actor. The organization’s leaders,
for instance, were instructed to push
employees to come up with longer-
lasting solutions and to praise them
when they did. Internal partners were
asked to be respectful and collaborative
when presenting issues. And the
outsourcing firm — along with the
shared-services organization’s own
employees — was encouraged to look
for the root causes of problems as part
of an overall effort to find longer-term
solutions. In an upcoming phase of the

change plan, that inquisitiveness will be
formalized in a “Five Why” campaign,
in which workers will be trained to ask
why something has happened in five
different ways, if necessary.
The change initiative is starting to
reinvigorate the department and
generate an enthusiasm that had
long been absent. A competition for
operational improvement ideas elicited
288 suggestions from people in the
department. The ultimate vote of
confidence came about a year after the
transformation initiative started. In an
internal survey, 70 percent of the staff
said they believed that the new model
for shared services was essential to
making the department more efficient.
Focusing on the Critical Few
10 Strategy&

Culture is not a shortcut to successful corporate change. Nor is
culture-led
transformation less rigorous than more conventional types of
transforma-
tion — it involves just as much time and effort. Culture-led
transformations
require a fundamentally sound set of change objectives and
discipline in
the sense of setting priorities. Performing a culture diagnostic,
identifying
a critical few behaviors, capitalizing on employee pride and
commitment,
engaging in effective storytelling, and leveraging informal peer
networks
are just a few of the ingredients in the change recipe. We will
dig more
deeply into these and other factors in a subsequent paper.
Change imperatives
Informal peer networks help an organization
take advantage of employee pride and
emotional commitment. One way to utilize
these networks during a transformation

effort is to identify and leverage certain
people as “pride builders.” These are highly
respected individuals, usually middle
and frontline managers with leadership
qualities who excel at helping colleagues
feel good about their work. The role of
pride builders during a transformation
effort is to show how a new way of doing
something connects to the bigger picture of
the organization’s goal. These individuals
also encourage their fellow employees and
direct reports to embrace the new behaviors
and requirements and to take responsibility
for meeting them. Finally, pride builders
challenge others to come up with innovative
ways to meet the new standards, and
to spread those innovations and ideas
throughout the enterprise.
The tactics employed by pride builders
depend on the initiative and the audience,
but it is often helpful for the tactics to go
beyond the ordinary. Consider the case
of a global technology company, which
identified about 2,000 pride builders to help

translate senior leadership directives into
actions through a focus on the company’s
distinctive culture. Different tactics were
used in different geographies. In Asia, the
pride builders created a game show to
remind employees of the company’s many
assets and cultural strengths. In Europe,
the pride builders set up a photo contest
focusing on the cultural attributes that
were most important at the company. The
company also held a global contest, in
which senior leaders — and eventually all
employees — were encouraged to make
videos about the company’s culture and
how they tried to embody it every day. (The
videos were voted on by employees.)
The Power of a Peer
47% Other
24% Manager
17% Director
12% C-suite

59% Other
11% Operations
13% Planning
17% General Management
35% 0–499 employees
28% >10,000 employees
37% 500–10,000 employees
17% Asia-Pacific
30% Europe, the Middle East, and Africa
53% Americas
20% Public
80% Private
Seniority Company Size
Function Region
Sector

Industry
12% Engineered Product Services
34% Other
7% Energy
9% Finance
8% Healthcare
15% Consumer
15% Retail
11Strategy&
Exhibit A
The survey drew more than 2,000 responses from participants in
a range of industries
and geographies
Source: Strategy& Global
Culture and Change
Management Survey 2013
The survey was conducted in May 2013 by
the Katzenbach Center, through an online
questionnaire. We received responses

from 2,219 participants, with a variety of
titles and from many different industry
sectors (see Exhibit A).
These and other tactics boosted employee
engagement scores by roughly 12 percent in
less than a year. They have also contributed
to measurable improvements in a variety
of areas where the company’s performance
had suffered, including product quality,
market share, and top-line growth.
Methodology
© 2013 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the PwC
network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which
is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for
further
details. Disclaimer: This content is for general information
purposes only, and should not be used as a substitute for
consultation with professional advisors.

www.strategyand.pwc.com
Strategy& is a global team
of practical strategists
committed to helping you
seize essential advantage.
We do that by working
alongside you to solve your
toughest problems and
helping you capture your
greatest opportunities.
These are complex and
high-stakes undertakings
— often game-changing
transformations. We bring
100 years of strategy
consulting experience
and the unrivaled industry
and functional capabilities
of the PwC network to the
task. Whether you’re

charting your corporate
strategy, transforming a
function or business unit, or
building critical capabilities,
we’ll help you create the
value you’re looking for
with speed, confidence,
and impact.
We are a member of the
PwC network of firms in
157 countries with more
than 184,000 people
committed to delivering
quality in assurance, tax,
and advisory services. Tell us
what matters to you and find
out more by visiting us at
strategyand.pwc.com.
This report was originally published by Booz & Company in
2013.

Week 6 Assignment Resources/Managers as change agents -
Implications for human resource.pdf
Managers as change agents
Implications for human resource managers
engaging with culture change
Llandis Barratt-Pugh, Susanne Bahn and Elsie Gakere
Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the merger of
two large State departments and the
cultural change program orchestrated by the Human Resources
(HR) department. This study reveals
the instrumental role played by some managers who accelerated
the cultural change process through
utilising formal and informal agencies of change in their
management roles.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper explores a two-year
investigation of a major State

organisation trying to reshape the culture and values of the
organisation after a politically determined
merger. This paper reviews the context for this change process,
the associated concepts from the
literature, and adapts Gidden’s Structuration Theory to provide
a model of manager action during the
change process that may also be used to explore subsequent
change practices.
Findings – The findings from the sequenced phases of data
collection provide new evidence from a
strategic HR perspective of the multiple ways managers act to
embed a culture change for the
emerging organisation.
Practical implications – The subsequent discussion centres on
the diverse roles played by
managers in the new disjointed and often dysfunctional culture
to develop unified cultural change with
their staff, with the change process being modelled in terms of
Structuration Theory.
Originality/value – The paper uses the findings from an
empirical study to indicate the agencies of
change that managers can employ during organisational change

processes. By doing so it provides
both a pragmatic model for managers of change and through the
typology of manager agencies of
change makes an addition to the existing theoretical frameworks
of change management.
Keywords Human resource management, Organizational change
management,
Public sector organizations, Australia, Culture change,
Managing change, Change agents
Paper type Case study
Introduction
This study explores an organisational merger and the strategies
employed by a public
service organisation’s HR department to promote new values
and install a more
flexible culture. Digital communication and globalisation has
accelerated the pace and
complexity of organisational change. Organisations are
continually adapting to
external pressures and radically reshaping themselves to gain
competitive advantage.
For public service organisations, previously the domain of

bureaucratic stability, these
experiences raise employee anxiety and present considerable
HR challenges, especially
when the change involves organisational mergers. Mergers
entail the destruction and
re-construction of organisational culture. In the emotional
confusion of such change
processes, HR may be reduced to a regulatory role, burdened
with continual
recruitment of changing positions and managing the out-
placement and traumas of
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm
The authors wish to acknowledge Ms Elsie Gakere for her work
on the project as an embedded
researcher and the DPI HR department who were co-researchers
in this study.
JOCM
26,4

748
Received 3 February 2011
Revised 21 October 2011
11 September 2012
6 November 2012
Accepted 6 November 2012
Journal of Organizational Change
Management
Vol. 26 No. 4, 2013
pp. 748-764
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/JOCM-Feb-2011-0014
displaced employees. How can HR managers construct a more
strategic approach to
change management and cultural change, and what might be the
components of such
an approach? It was from discussions with HR managers about a
merger between two
leading State departments that this research study was devised

to provide them with
some insight into what was happening within the organisation,
and how they could
best use their resources to accelerate a change in values and
embed a more flexible
culture. We engaged in discussion with the five most senior
members of the HR
department, who reported to the department CEO and were
responsible for almost
4,000 staff in this leading State agency. Collaboratively we
devised a research study to
provide them with some insight into what was happening within
the organisation, and
how they could best use their resources to accelerate a change
in values and embed a
more flexible culture. While the complexity and failure of
organisation change
programmes is well documented (Beer et al., 1993; Beer, 2009),
little has been written
about the value of HR activity in supporting organisational
development (Ulrich and
Beatty, 2001).
We present the broad background of the case study, followed by
a review of the

relevant literature, a narrative overview of the findings and a
discussion of the
emerging key issues, with the conclusion confirming the key
messages for various
stakeholders.
Case study background
A political decision in 2006 determined a merger between two
state government
departments in Western Australia. The government wanted to
merge the State
departments of Planning and Transport to form a new “lead
agency” to manage
increased production in the resources sector, and to ensure such
development was
regulated, harnessed and supported.
The existing Planning department was small and centralised,
comprising of highly
qualified staff making critical developmental decisions about
State expansion. In
contrast, the Transport department was a large regulatory
organisation in multiple
locations managing the licensing of vehicles, boats and drivers
across a vast

geographic area. The HR department of the newly merged
Department for Planning
and Infrastructure (DPI) recognised the complexity of the task
and their instrumental
role in shaping a new culture and engaged with university
researchers to develop a
collaborative investigation. The project goal was to gather
perceptions from staff about
the change process and to provide feedback. The HR department
wanted to know what
actions would have the greatest “utility” in supporting the
change process towards a
unified, vibrant and flexible culture, responsive to the public
demands and government
policy changes. They conceptualised this goal as “Dynamic
Resourcing”. This led to a
change of fixed staffing configurations to multi-skilled and
flexible staff that were
reconfigured as teams around emerging issues, needs and
directives. The HR
department workshopped this vision through the organisation
and collaboratively
constructed a set of “values” for the new culture that were
widely and continually
distributed.

The relevance of this study for other organisations was evident
as accelerating
change within public institutions seemed to be a universal
concern. While business
was being driven by global and technological change, public
bodies were adapting
from rigid stable bureaucracies to more flexible customer
service and a focus on
performance measurement. This study reflects these moves
towards new public sector
managerialism and provided a unique opportunity with an
embedded researcher and a
Managers as
change agents
749
longitudinal project, to examine such an environment and
increase understanding of
the role that human resource managers can play.

HR and change management
This paper is concerned with the role of HR during
organisational cultural change. We
were influenced by Wanda et al. (1997) in defining change
management as the
systematic, continuous and iterative practice of altering specific
workplace systems,
behaviours and structures to improve organisational efficiency
or effectiveness. We
based our definition of culture on the work of Schein (1991,
1995) and Sanchez (1996),
as the patterns of shared assumptions and enacted values,
developed through and
embedded within social interaction, which guide evolving social
practice. Cultural
change is therefore when these patterns and shared assumptions
are disrupted and
reconfigured, as in a merger between these two large State
departments. The following
sections provide an academic context for the study by detailing
current conceptual
understanding of the relations between strategic human resource
approaches and
organisational change, and the emerging focus on organisational
values within

cultural change. The review will also explore the nature of
change agency and
resistance to change, concluding by focusing on change in the
public sector.
The relationship between HR and organisational change reflects
the increasing
focus on human resources as a source of strategic advantage
rather than a peripheral
component of production. The literature describes a torturous
and unconfirmed
relationship between HRM investment and subsequent
improvement of business
performance. Gathering such evidence is problematised by the
many contextual
factors that mediate the relationship (Dess and Robinson, 1984;
Emery et al., 1997;
Billett and Cooper, 1997). Kane and Hermans (1996) indicate
that HRM approaches are
themselves diverse, and encompass regulatory, resource based
and partnership
models. However, some studies support a positive relationship
between “strategic” HR
activity and business benefits (Becher and Gerhart, 1996;
Huselid et al., 1997). Huselid

et al. (1997) indicate that in a world where capital and
technology are equally accessible
to all, strategic HR practices may be viewed as the key to
achieving competitive
advantage. Although, Rogers and Wright (1998), suggest such a
relationship is neither
consistent nor universal. It appears the impact of strategic HR
activity is greatest
where bundles or configurations of micro strategies are used
simultaneously (Dyer and
Reeves, 1995). Lepak and Snell’s modelling (1999) suggests
that effecting
organisational change through strategic HR practices is best
achieved through
“alliance making” with organisational partners.
Beer et al. (1993); Beer, 2009) insists that most change
management initiative fail.
While the change direction may be misguided in some cases, it
is the failure to
communicate with, engage and change the behaviour of staff
that underpins such
failure. Traditional HR approaches regulating employee
employment do not facilitate
behaviour and culture change. Legge (1995) described these

traditional “hard” HRM
strategies as those that are concerned with prescribing
performance, objectifying
employees, enclosing, partitioning and ranking them according
to a plan (Townley,
1993). This approach achieves only employee compliance, with
order performed
though position statements, competencies and performance
reviews. Payne (2000)
suggests that this HRM approach potentially disorganises, by
producing only weak
symbolic compliance, and allowing each micro “community”
within an enterprise to
organise their own local meaning. It is intervention within such
communities that
underpins a more strategic approach by HR. Traditional HRM
approaches to change
JOCM
26,4
750

focused simply on locating employees in time and space.
However, the growth of
knowledge work has made such patterns increasingly obsolete
as organisations
demand employee participation, engagement and creativity to
change and improve
business practice. As Du Gay (1996) and Gee et al. (1996)
would insist, if your business
is now about the production of identity, rather than production
of commodity, then
regulating your employee’s identity is counter productive.
Enabling employee
development with enable organisational development, and such
a goal becomes a
critical HRM project. Motivating employees to consume new
texts and develop
extended identities displaces the previous HRM pre-occupation
with locating bodies
(Legge, 1995). In scenarios of complex organisational change
traditional HR
approaches become entwined with regulating human movement
during the change,
while more strategic “softer” approaches facilitate employee
engagement with new
values and changing behaviour. Organisational Development

practices have a long
history in promoting such soft approaches to organisational
change and specifically
cultural change (Argyris, 1994). As Beer (1998, p. 6) indicates:
Two overarching theoretical perspectives about organisational
change exist. Agency theory,
propagated by economists, emphasises the importance of linking
top management’s
incentives to the creation of economic value for shareholders.
Behavioural theories emphasise
the importance of participative processes which develop
commitment to the change.
Organisational development approaches to change are normative
in nature, focusing
on movement to new norms as a means to improve
organisational performance rather
than an implicit focus on performance targets. Organisational
Development
approaches also mirror the increasing emphasis on relational
management skills
rather than the traditional focus on promotion for technical
skills. However, Dunphy
and Stace (1988) argue that no singular approach to change is

sufficient and that
transformation, incremental, coercive and participative
approaches can all make
contributions according to context.
In this case study the DPI produced a vision of how they would
like the new
organisation to be and portrayed their vision to the organisation
through a new set of
corporate values (Branson, 2008). Kotter and Hesket (1999)
indicate that values-led
companies are equated with high performance. Sullivan (2002)
suggests that the
realignment of organisational and individual values is a
powerful change management
tool. However, Whiteley (1995) indicates the painful collective
experience of any
organisation attempting to change their values. The simple
“text” statement has to be
followed by vigorous internal debate to achieve changed actions
in practice. As
Gidden’s (1984) structuration theory suggests; it is the structure
of the organisation
that continually regulates individual performance. It is only
through conversations

Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx

Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx

Similar to Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx (20)

More from cockekeshia

More from cockekeshia (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Week 6 Assignment ResourcesA storys impact on organizational-cu.docx