Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx

Eleanor W ilson, M A
Abstract: A reference to the term, the glass ceiling, has come to
embody more
than gender equality among women and men. Today the term
embraces the
quest o f all minorities and their journey towards equality in the
workplace. The
purpose o f this article is to bring attention to the subject o f
diversity, culture,
ana the glass ceiling. The article will discuss the history o f the
glass ceiling and
how its broadened meaning is relevant in today's workplace. It
will also provide
statistics showing how diversity and culture are lacking among
the top echelon
of today's executives, the barriers faced by minorities as they
journey towards
executive leadership, and how to overcome these barriers to
truly shatter the
glass ceiling.
Key Words: Diversity, Culture, Glass Ceiling
D iversity, C ulture a n d the
G lass C eiling
The diversity and cultures that flourish to today's society gives
credence to the long held belief that the United States is a
"melting pot" of ethnic
cultures. The diversity of these cultures abounds

in families; communities; and private and public
organizations, and benefits our society with cultural
awareness and engagement; decreased stereotyping
and lower levels of ethnocentrism; and higher levels of
community service (Distelhorst, 2007).
In a perfect world the issues of diversity and
culture would not hinder anyone's goal of becoming
an executive leader. However, diversity and culture
continue to be challenging issues within the executive
ranks of corporate America. Although the United
States has been witness to major advances in diversity
and cultural awareness and acceptance, the board
rooms of corporate America continue to lack culturally
diverse individuals whose hiring will prove the glass
ceiling has once and for all been shattered.
The purpose of this article is to define diversity
and culture and to discuss the phenomenon of the
glass ceiling, its history, whether it is a reality or
myth, its broadened meaning, and how it is relevant
in today's corporations. Statistics will show how
diversity and culture continue to be lacking at the
top levels of executive leadership roles of corporate
Eleanor Wilson, MA, Gonzaga University, Candidate
for MA in Organization Leadership, Spring 2010 and
Servant Leadership Certification, Spring 2009. Ms.
Wilson may be reached at: [email protected] 206-323-
5721
America. In order to improve these statistics, the
author will offer discussion on the barriers to success
that minorities face, and will provide strategies for
individual success as wells as strategies for managing
diversity and culture within an organization. Finally,

the author will offer suggestions for further research
and opportunities for overcoming barriers and truly
shattering the glass ceiling.
DEFINITIONS
Diversity
Diversity is defined by Merriam Webster Online
Dictionary (2010) as "the condition of being diverse:
variety, especially the inclusion of (diverse) people
(as people of different races or cultures) in a group or
organization". Basically diversity means variety, and
the benefits of having diversity within corporations
can include increased productivity and profitability,
cultural awareness, greater equity, less segregation
and stereotyping, decreased litigation and harassment
complaints, improved employee engagement, and
personal effectiveness (Distelnorst, 2007). In striving
for these benefits, it is in a corporation's best interest
to commit to diversity within its executive level
management.
Cultural diversity can provide a corporation with
a competitive edge simply by the differences it brings
to a group.
Research clearly shows that if a group made up of people
different from each other has, or can acquire, intercul-
tural competence skills they can, and do, significantly
outperform groups made of individuals more similar
to each other... Groups of similar people tend to come
Journal of C ultural Diversity • Vol. 21, No. 3 Fall 2014

together more quickly than diverse groups but then peak
out at an average level of performance. Tins is because
they do not have the 'raw material' of difference that
provides the creative tension that leads to innovations
and synergy (Distelhorst, 2007, p. 3).
Just as diverse groups are fueled by the many
differences among them, so too are the definitions of
culture.
Culture
There is no one definition of culture. Culture
is much more than the color of one's skin and can
include: nationality, ethnicity, geographic area, gender,
socioeconomic class, education level, religion, age
and/or generation, physical ability, industry type,
organizational, and even departmental and/or
professional differences (Distelhorst, 2007). "Culture is
simply the set of values, attitudes, and beliefs shared
by such a group, which sets the standards of behavior
required for continued acceptance and successful
participation in that group" (Scarborough, 1998, p. 2).
Due to the fact that culture can encompass different
things for different people, there are instances where
cultural differences may not be blatantly apparent.
However, this does not give justification to any belief
that cultural diversity is not important.
Culture in and of itself should not be the deciding
factor as to who succeeds to an executive level position;
however, it should in no way hinder the advancement of
culturally diverse minorities. This hindrance would be
yet another reference to the glass ceiling that minorities
have spent decades trying to break through. Minorities
have historically been victims of negative stereotypes

and other barriers that had kept them on the outside
of executive level leadership positions in corporate
America. The barrier most referred to in this situation is
known as the glass ceiling.
The G lass C eilin g
Originally the term the glass ceiling was coined
by Hymowitz and Schellhardt in a Wall Street Journal
report in 1986 to represent the barriers that women
who attempted ana aspired to senior management
positions faced (Lockwood, 2004). The glass ceiling was
not something that could be found in any corporate
manual or even discussed at a business meeting; it
was originally introduced as an invisible, covert, and
unspoken phenomenon that existed to keep executive
level leadership positions in the hands of Caucasian
males.
Once the phenomenon was recognized by society a
campaign to change corporate America was underway.
Women dedicated themselves to breaking down the
barriers that were believed to be blocking their entrance
into the executive suite. As women progressed within
the workforce the term glass ceiling began to take on a
much larger meaning. After decades o f referring only to
women, the glass ceiling has now come to represent the
barriers that all minorities face in a quest for executive
leadership positions. In order to educate society about
the issues of the diversity, culture, and the glass ceiling
within corporate America there are many lessons to be
learned through many avenues, but especially through
literature.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Good Is Not Enough and Other Unwritten Rules for

Minority Professionals was written by Keith R. Wyche
(2008) and dealt with the struggles that minority
individuals may have encountered within the corporate
world. Wyche (2008) explained that corporate culture
was critical to the business world and the reputations
that companies carry. "It is important for aspiring
rofessionals to understand that companies have a
usiness reputation as well as a manner in which they
do business" (p. 7). A business's reputation may not only
affect its success, it also may affect its ability to attract
and retain a qualified, genuine, and diverse workforce.
Within every corporate culture, career advancement
is a foremost concern for most of its team members.
However, for minority team member's career
advancement was a common concern and one that
required an understanding of how to navigate corporate
culture (Wyche, 2008). Wyche (2008) used the analogy
of team sports throughout his book as examples for
understanding corporate cultures.
You should do your best to understand the culture, but
never enter an organization expecting to change it. Get
in, learn the rules, get to know the players, follow the
instruction of the coaches, then go on to be the Most
Valuable Player! (Wyche, 2008, p. 28).
Wyche (2008) conceded that Corporate America
had opened its doors to minorities, but also admitted
that, what he referred to as the cement ceiling, was
still thick and the competition brutal; which required
minorities to realize that good was not enough. Other
unwritten rules abound in regards to minorities breaking

through the glass ceiling, including: pivotal perceptions,
being visible, knowing and accepting when changes are
needed, recognizing career killers, being more prepared
than others, becoming a lifelong learner, recognizing
the skills leaders need and keeping these skills current,
seeking out mentors and support, possessing a strong
sense of social responsibility, and a strong dedication to
not give up.
While it is important for every executive leader
to learn from these unwritten rules, it is even more
important for minorities to learn from, and follow,
these rules. Other required skills included "effective
communication and presentation skills, analytical
thinking and problem-solving skills, consensus-
building/ stakeholder management skills, solid financial
acumen, and ability to execute" (Wyche, 2008, p. 110).
As important as these skills are to all who aspired
to become leaders, they are even more important to
minority leaders. "Several executives emphasized that
'comfort' and trust building skills were more critical to
minorities and women in overcoming barriers of being
different" (Wyche, 2008, p. 124). There is, however,
another belief that no member of a minority group
should ever be required to compromise his or her
values, beliefs, or convictions in order to fit in with the
dominant group.
The final message of Wyche's (2008) book was the
importance of not giving up. As a minority himself,
Wyche shared his personal experiences during his rise
into the ranks of executive leadership. The author's final
words to his readers were full of encouragement and
wisdom:
Never give up! While it sounds simple, most minority

professwnals will tell you that working in corporate
environments is anything but simple!...During your
corporate career, you will experience failure!...Failure is
inevitable!...It only becomes a reality when we let it define
Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 21, No. 3 Fall 2014
who we are...Never give up!...Never give up on your
goals. ..Never give up on your dreams.. .Ana above all,
never give up on yourself! (Wyche, 2008, pp, 226 - 227).
The Glass Ceiling: Fact or Myth? w as w ritten by
Edrene M. Frazier (2005) and discussed the under
representation of w om en and m inorities w ithin
executive leadership roles in corporate America. The
author identified factors such as recruiting, hiring, pay,
prom otion practices, personal attitudes, and w om en's
dual roles as the factors w hich m ay have contributed to
the phenom enon of the glass ceiling. The article referred
to several studies w hich supported the opinion that the
glass ceiling did exist in reference to w om en and other
minorities.
The article's m ain purpose w as to "create public
awareness of the potential implications of glass ceiling
practices on Am erica's future in the context of gender
and racial equality in the workplace and in society"
(Frazier, 2005, p. 1930). To provide a balanced review,
Frazier's (2005) article also provided the view point of
the glass ceiling as a m yth. This view point argued that
the reasons w om en did not hold executive leadership
positions w as due to their lack of education, experience,
and m aturity (Frazier, 2005). This portion of the article
also claimed that the discrepancies am ong male and

female executives were the result of a w om an's choice
to spend more time w ith her family and her choice to
w ork fewer hours. Flowever, this portion of the article
provided no inform ation on reasons for the lack of other
m inority groups and their lack of representation in
executive leadership positions. Frazier (2005) conceded
that w om en have m ade small advances in breaking
through the glass ceiling; however, the advances of other
m inorities is still lacking. Therefore the glass ceiling is
still in existence.
M uch of Frazier's w ork was based on the United
States D epartm ent of L abor's Glass Ceiling Commission
Report of 1995. The Com m ission's report stands as
the m ost comprehensive study to date regarding the
glass ceiling phenom enon. Once the Wall Street Journal
p u t a nam e on the phenom enon, the wheels were set
in m otion for further study and research. In 1991 U.S.
D epartm ent of Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, and
her successor, Secretary Lynn M artin, recognized and
ublicized the glass ceiling problem and issued the
eport on the Glass Ceiling Initiative (U. S. D epartm ent of
Labor, 1995). The Initiative brought forth the bipartisan
Glass Ceiling Commission, a tw enty-one m em ber
comm ission whose m ission w as "to conduct a study
and prepare recom m endations on 'elim inating artificial
barriers to the advancem ent of w om en and m inorities'
to 'm anagem ent and decision-m aking positions in
business'" (U.S. D epartm ent of Labor, 1995). The 257
page final report has become one of the m ost vital pieces
of literature in determ ining w hether the glass ceiling
phenom enon is a m yth or a fact.
The study show ed that 43 percent of the Fortune

2000 workforce were Caucasian men, yet 95 percent
of senior level m anagem ent positions were held by
Caucasian m en (Frazier, 2005). Similar findings within
the report found that 97 percent of senior m anagers of
Fortune 500 com panies were Caucasian and m ostly men.
In short, the fact-finding report tells us that the world at
the top of the corporate hierarchy does not yet look any-
thing like America. Two-thirds of our population and 57
percent of the working population is female, or minorities,
or both. Nor, ominously, does the population of today's
executive suite resemble the workforce of America's future
(U.S. Department of Labor, 1995, p. iv).
The w ide-spanning report provided an overview
of the Com m ission m em bership and their scope of
work, environm ental scan, strategic plans, glass ceiling
barriers, strengths and weaknesses, business im peratives
and opportunities, and provided extensive evidence that
the glass ceiling does indeed exist.
Glass Ceiling Myth: Reality is Women Make Different
Choices was an article w ritten by Linda Chavez in
1995 (Chavez, 1995). The article discussed the U. S.
D epartm ent of Labor's Glass Ceiling Report and offers the
opinion that:
it's a fascinating thesis and almost entirely wrong. The
report laments that only 5% of senior managers of For-
tune 2000 industrial and service companies are women...
What the report doesn't show is that women often make
different choices than those men make, choices that pro-
foundly affect their careers but which don't constitute
discrimination (Chavez, 1995, p. 1).

The author also discussed her personal experiences
and decisions to give up high-paying, prestigious
career opportunities in favor of her familial duties.
Decisions regarding one's family are extremely personal
and Chavez offered these final w ords, "It sounds like
shattering through that 'glass ceiling' risks deep cuts
into a w om an's personal life that m any of us w ould
rather forgo. D on't call us victims. We've set different
priorities and experienced different rew ards" (Chavez,
1995, p. 2).
Minority Rules, Turn Your Ethnicity Into A Competitive
Edge was w ritten by Kenneth Arroyo Roldan and
Gary Stern (2006) to discuss m inorities and corporate
America. Roldan & Stern (2006) conceded the fact that
w e do not live in a perfect w orld and gave a dose of the
harsh reality that m inorities are not psychologically or
culturally prepared for corporate careers. To rem edy
this, the authors offered a six step plan for m inorities to
prepare for the corporate world.
Roldan & Stern (2006) offered the opinion that
corporate success does not happen by itself, it is
planned, focused, and targeted.
For minority employees, who face stiff competition from
their majority counterparts who may be better connected
and hail from the right schools, if means overcoming
all of the hurdles that come with growing up African
American, Latino, Asian, female, and 'different' in the
United States (p. 1).
Taking the time to form ulate a focused and targeted
plan is im portant for anyone w anting to break into
corporate America; however, it is even more im portant,
an a necessary, for m inorities entering the workforce

w ith a goal of achieving the ranks of executive
leadership.
Step one in Roldan's and Stern's (2006) book was to
create a strategic blueprint early in your career. Creating
a strategic blueprint m ay allow individuals to lay out
their goals w ith specific steps needed to get there.
An im portant aspect of this step w as to identify your
strengths and weaknesses, reachi o ut beyond your ethnic
group, and avoid the senior executive m inority trap. The
next step was to build your career step-by-step. This step
Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 21, No. 3 Fall 2014
provided guidance on planning, arranging, strategizing,
and developing one's career path into corporate
America. Most importantly "it advises you to not limit
ourself and see yourself only as a minority, show you
ow to brand yourself, and emphasizes mastering
interpersonal skills, which are as critical as technical
skills" (Roldan & Stern, 2006, p. 2).
Choosing a mentor was tire third step offered,
along with the fourth step of networking and making
the right connections (Roldan & Stem, 2006). The
authors offered the opinions that finding a mentor
and networking are key pieces to building positive
relationships within corporations. Minority employees
tend to cling to their own ethnic groups and therefore
can become very limited in their own growth
opportunities; mentors and networking may assist in
avoiding this pitfall. Roldan and Stern (2006) showed

that mastering corporate policies, step five, can be done
while still maintaining your integrity and values.
Finally, the sixth, step of using your ethnicity as
a competitive edge was discussed. "Too many African
Americans, Latinos, and women end up swallowing
their pride, suppressing their identities, and squelching
their own uniqueness. "It's my contention that being
Hispanic, African American, or Asian, for example, is an
asset" (Roldan & Stern, 2006, p. 5). Although the authors
did not specifically address the glass ceiling, they offered
action steps that minorities can use to break through the
glass ceiling and advance within the corporate America.
HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATION AND PREJUDICE
Literature regarding the glass ceiling has long
provided society with a dramatic look at the history of
the phenomenon and the discrimination and prejudice
which minorities have faced throughout the years. The
stories of those who came before us offered a glimpse
of the struggles and celebrations they experienced
throughout the history of our country. Every person's
experience was unique; however, collectively their
experiences were similar.
There is no denying that the United States is a
multicultural society. "As Americans, we originally
came from many different shores, and our diversity has
been at the center of the making of America" (Takaki,
1993, p. 428). There is also no denying that throughout
its existence, the United States has had a difficult
and ugly history of racism, violence, prejudice, and
discrimination. It is through this difficult history that we
learn from the past atrocities in order to ensure that they
never again occur. Although our country has progressed

beyond these atrocities, there is still progress that
needs to be made in the areas of racism, prejudice, and
discrimination. The need for this progress is especially
apparent within corporate America and the quest for
equality in the upper stratum of executive leadership.
The Glass Ceiling
The Glass Ceiling was a term first coined in 1986
when Wall Street Journal reporters, Carol Hymowitz and
Timothy Schelhardt, highlighted the invisible barriers
that women faced when attempting to advance into
senior management positions within corporate America
(Frazier, 2005). "The reporters' argument centered on the
premise that 'brains and competence' were applicable
only to a certain point as a means of achieving
promotion. The reason being that ultimately CEOs
promote individuals they feel most comfortable with"
(Frazier, 2005, p. 1933). Due to the fact that the majority
of corporate senior management consists of white males,
this meant that more white males would be hired.
In traditional roles the men ruled the halls of corporate
America while women stayed home to raise the children
and to oversee the domestic issues of the family's
household. The Second World War; however, saw
women entering the workforce as men were sent to
fight in the war (Frazier, 2005). At the end of the war
many women returned to homemaking; however, in
the 1960s and 1970s there was a resurgence of women
entering the workforce. As the decade progressed so
did the number of women earning college degrees
and entering corporate America. "Men are greatly
overrepresented among the elite group of top jobholders
in organizations" (Padavic & Reskin, 2002, p. 101). For
the last several decades the numbers of women in the

workforce have consistently increased; however, the
numbers of women in executive level positions has
not kept the same pace. This was also true for all other
minorities; thus began the debate of whether or not the
glass ceiling existed.
The Glass Ceiling - reality or myth?
As with every issue there are ideas and opinions on
both sides of the glass ceiling debate. On one side there
was the argument that the phenomenon of the glass
ceiling was a myth. The basis of this argument stemmed
from a woman's personal choice and her lack of
effective skills and education (Frazier, 2005, p. 1932). The
supporting data for this opinion was based on twenty-
two years of research data collected by the Glass Ceiling
Research Center from 200 Fortune 500 corporations.
The findings of the research conducted at the center notes
that in the 1980s, not many women aged 40-plus had
college educations or advanced degrees. That means very
few women had the required education, maturity, and
experience for advancement into upper level corporate
management positions (Frazier, 2005, p. 1932).
Another popular opinion as to the lack of women
in executive positions was that it was by a woman's
choice. Women chose to stay at home and spend more
time with their families and. were not willing to put in
the long hours and dedication needed to advance into
the executive suite. These arguments, however, did not
hold true in regards to the male minority population.
Those who agreed with these opinions strongly debated
the existence of the glass ceiling. Within this opinion the
glass ceiling was looked upon as a myth that aid not
truly exist, though the opposite side of the debate was

that the glass ceiling was a reality.
As a result of continuing public debate the U.S.
Department of Labor issued a Report on the Glass
Celling Initiative in 1991 (U. S. Department of Labor,
1995). Through the initiative, the Glass Ceiling Act was
introduced in 1991 which confirmed "what many of
us have suspected all along - the existence of invisible,
artificial barriers, blocking women and minorities from
advancing up the corporate ladder to management and
executive level positions" (U.S. Department of Labor,
1995, p. iii).
The Glass Ceiling Act was responsible for the
establishment of the Glass Ceiling Commission which
was a twenty-one member, bipartisan commission
tasked with the mission of studying and providing
recommendations to eliminate the artificial barriers of
advancement that were faced by women and minorities.
The Commission's fact finding mission confirmed the:
enduring aptness of the 'glass ceiling' metaphor. At the
highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only
rarely penetrated by women or persons of color. Consider:
97% of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial
and Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 to 97% are
male. In Fortune 2000 and service companies, 5% of se-
nior managers are women - and of that 5%, virtually all
are white. The research also indicates that where there are
women and minorities in high places, their compensation
is lower (U.S. Department of Labor, 1995, p. iii - iv).

The Commission's research and report established
that the fact that the glass ceiling is indeed in existence.
The term "Glass Ceiling" was originally intended
to represent the lack of women in the upper echelons
of corporate America; however, since its inception, the
term has come to represent more than a woman's quest
into executive leadership; it soon included all minority
roups. The glass ceiling now refers to the invisible
arrier that is faced by all minorities attempting to
advance into executive level positions.
Although the Commission's report was completed
in 1995, there has not been a significant amount of
advancement in the number of minorities in executive
level positions. In fact, in 1995 there was not one person
of color holding a CEO position within a Fortune
500 company (Diversity, Inc., 2008) Current statistics
showed that as of July 2008,19 Fortune 500 companies
were run by people of color. Comprising this number
were five African American males; seven Latino males;
and seven Asians, of which five are males and two are
females (Diversity, Inc., 2008). It is evident that these
numbers have increased over several decades; yet there
is still a large disparity in these numbers compared to
the number of white males leading corporate America;
barriers to the executive suite still exist in the form of the
glass ceiling.
Barriers to success
Minorities have long faced barriers to success
in many aspects of society, and corporate America is
no different. There are many individuals that believe
minorities must work twice as hard to get to the same

level as those in the majority group. High intellectual
ability and advanced educational levels are not a
guarantee to those in minority groups. It is regrettable to
say that society holds certain perceptions, both good and
bad, regarding minority groups.
Research suggests that the underlying cause for the exis-
tence of the glass ceiling is the perception of many white
males that they as a group are losing - losing competitive
advantage, losing control, and losing opportunity as a
direct consequence of inclusion of women and minorities
(Redwood, 1996, p. 4).
Instead minorities experienced barriers such as
stereotyping and bias, subtle racism, unwritten rules,
societal barriers, governmental barriers, and internal
organizational barriers (Redwood, 1996).
Stereotyping are generalizations regarding a
group of people that are based on inaccurate and/
or incomplete information (Independent TV Service,
n.d.). These stereotypes are learned from several
sources including television, books, music, and our
peers and families. Learned stereotyping continually
affects society as a whole by ignoring the individual
and combining an entire group together. "Stereotypes
happen when we judge people from our own frame of
reference or our own cultural expectations about how
eople should look, behave, talk, etc." (Independent
V Service, n.d., p. 2). Stereotypes and biases continue
to provide barriers by causing misunderstandings and
misjudgments.
There is no situation within an organization or

corporation where stereotyping of any kind should
be tolerated. "And pejorative comments or joking in a
racial nature is, at a minimum, offensive. When carried
to extreme it is emotionally destructive. 'Jap' jokes,
for example, are just as offensive as 'dumb Irish' or
'redneck7 jokes (Henderson, 1994, p. 41). An additional
form of stereotyping, but equally offensive, is ignoring
minority employees. "The challenge to managers and
supervisors is to minimize unfair, nonprofessional
treatment and to maximize fair, professional treatment
of all workers (Henderson, 1994. P. 41). It is the
responsibility of executive level managers and leaders
to model a no tolerance policy regarding stereotyping.
Without a firm foundation against stereotyping,
transforming corporate America away from the glass
ceiling phenomenon will be impossible and perpetuate
further barriers.
Subtle racism continues to be a barrier in the
advancement of minorities. The diversity that most
companies strive for can, unfortunately, be hampered
by the difference barrier where individuals tend to
steer away from hiring those who are different from
themselves.
Less overt cultural biases, held by the minority candi-
dates as well as by their managers, can also influence
behavior. For example, studies have shown that white
managers are often reluctant to offer constructive criti-
cism to minority employees for fear that it will be seen
as a racial attack. As a result, minority employees miss
the opportunity to get the feedback necessary for their
growth and development in the organization (Wyche,
2008, p. 187).
It is imperative that subtle racism be defeated in

order to break through the glass ceiling.
Societal barriers can include education levels and
job attainment skills. Barriers to education have long
been a hurdle for minorities, and a lack of education
can lead to barriers in gaining appropriate job skills
(Redwood, 1996). The government comes into play in
regards to the collecting and disaggregation of current
and accurate employment data. "There continues
to be inadequate reporting and dissemination of
information relevant to glass ceiling issues" (Redwood,
1996, p. 4). This lack of accurate reporting makes it
nearly impossible to gather the precise data regarding
employees in executive level positions.
Internal organizational barriers such as a lack of
outreach, recruitment, and poor training also contribute
to the stability of the glass ceiling (Redwood, 1996).
When outreach and recruitment issues are not tailored
to minority groups, an organization has failed in the
first step towards breaking the glass ceiling. Without
outreach and recruitment of minority employees the
corporate climate will remain alienated and isolated,
and further perpetrate the perception of executive
leadership positions being an impenetrable destination
for minorities.
The lack of hiring minority executives also
limits access to minority mentors for those minorities
whom are beginning their careers. "Without access
to mentoring, developmental assignments, training,
Journal of Cultural D iversity • Vol. 21, No. 3 Fall 2014

and other career enhancing activities in the managerial
pipeline, too many qualified people are stopped
short, before they fulfill the promise of their abilities"
(Redwood, 1996, p. 4). As difficult as these barriers
seem to be to overcome, there are strategies that can be
incorporated to bypass these hurdles and truly shatter
the glass ceiling.
Strategies for success
In order to overcome the barriers of the glass
ceiling, it is important to recognize the strategies of
success that can surmount any obstacle that minorities
face. Establishing a strategic plan is often the first step
in overcoming recognized barriers. "Ethnic employees
need to create a success plan for themselves in order
to surpass their majority colleagues" (Roldan & Stern,
2006, p. 17). It is no longer sufficient for minorities to
have a fleeting dream of success, it is essential to create a
personal success plan.
Success is different for every person, so establishing
a clear plan of action not only assists minorities
towards their individual goals, but also sets the stage
for corporations to recognize and acknowledge their
potential for executive level positions. This recognition
may bring about the strategy of partnering with a
mentor.
A mentor who is a power broker or a top decision maker,
may be essential to propel you, to promote or sponsor you
within the organization's inner sanctum...Remember,
networking, building relationships, being mentored and
coached - all these are essentialfor anyone to be success-
ful. But if you are the 'other/ the task is harder and may
even seem impossible. But if you want to move from the

outside in, the effort is worth it (Blank, Slipp, & Ford,
2000, p. 29).
The main goal of a mentor and mentee relationship
is to assist with personal goals, and if those goals include
reaching executive level management mentors help in
establishing a much needed foundation and setting the
pace for one's career (Wyche, 2008).
While mentoring is an important aspect for
minorities to conquer the glass ceiling, it is important
that minorities be mentored by a fellow minority.
Wyche (2008) referenced Dave A. Thomas' three year
study entitled The Truth About Mentoring Minorities:
Race Matters as he discussed the successful mentoring
of minorities. "For minority professionals to be
successful, their mentors must be fully engaged in a
variety of developmental roles...and also be aware
of the challenges race can present to [their] protege's
career development and advancement" (Wyche, 2008, p.
189). Without this intimate knowledge vastly different
perspectives and experiences could be detrimental to the
mentoring relationship, and therefore further inhibit the
objective of breaking through the glass ceiling.
Mentors can also assist with other strategies of
success, such as learning to be aware of obstacles,
deciding what battles to fight, and demonstrating
executive potential. Wyche's (2008) work Good Is Not
Enough established the premise that minorities must
constantly be better than average in order to get ahead
and reach the executive suite. "Minorities know they
cannot afford to operate at the C level. As many of
us were taught growing up, 'You have to be twice as
good!"' (Wyche, 2008, p. 135). "In order to compete, you
need to stay one step ahead of the competition...Not

only must your performance be first rate, but also you
must let senior mangers know that you are responsible
for generating the results" (Roldan & Stern, 2006, p. 147).
Awareness or the obstacles faced on a journey towards
success is a crucial strategy of success.
Choosing which battles to fight within a
corporation is not just an issue for minorities;
however, the decisions made may be more important
to their career path. All minorities bring a wealth of
knowledge, experiences, and cultural perspectives
to the corporations where they are employed. Along
with a solid mentoring relationship, the knowledge,
experiences, and perspectives will aid minorities in
choosing the correct battles to fight. Choosing whether
or not to fight a battle does not require giving up one's
values, ethics, or morals. "There are some of the areas
in which accommodation is the key to 'making it.' But
again, you must be comfortable with the notion that you
can modify your behavior and still be true to yourself
and your group" (Blank et. al, 2000, p. 107). Choosing
to fight the essential battles in one's career leaves the
time and energy to focus on demonstrating executive
potential and conquering the glass ceiling.
Every executive has his or her own set of
prominent skills; however, in order to gain an executive
level position is it vital to have skills and behaviors such
as strategic visioning, execution, authentic leadership,
flexibility and adaptability, awareness and political
judgment, and personal accountability (Wyche, 2008).
By focusing on gaining the proper skills and behaviors,
minorities may be catapulted into the executive suite.
As minorities have the glass ceiling to break through,
becoming an expert in these skills and behaviors will

make them invaluable to their corporation. Breaking
through the glass ceiling is not only the responsibility of
minorities; corporations can, and must, do their part.
A corporation's responsibility in removing the glass
ceiling must start from the top down. The CEO must
make a commitment to workplace diversity and
model that commitment to his or her employees and
the communities it serves (Redwood, 1996). This
commitment can be assisted by recruiting and training
a diverse workforce that is strong in ethnic, racial,
and gender diversity; creating a family/work life
balance; and implementing practices that include an
employee's participation while respecting his or her
cultural differences, values, beliefs, and morals. "The
inclusion of women and minorities at all corporate levels
of management would greatly benefit companies and
society, in general. It is likely to strengthen the company
internally and externally" (Frazier, 2005, p. 1935).There
is no denying that the goal of corporate America is to
succeed in its perspective lines of business; however, this
goal can, and should, be accomplished by committing to
managing diversity and culture, and shattering the glass
ceiling.
FURTHER RESEARCH AND OPPORTUNITIES
It is clear that the phenomenon of the glass
ceiling will continue to oe debated until all minorities
are equally represented within corporate America's
top executive level positions. Although opportunities
to recruit and train minorities for executive level
positions currently exist, further research is imperative
to understanding the progress that has been made and
the additional opportunities that are in the future. The
Glass Ceiling Commission established the existence of
the glass ceiling; however, the data is fifteen years old

and current data regarding the aspects of the report is
urgently needed.
Reexamining the statistics of the previous data
must also be completed to assess the effectiveness of
previous studies and reports. Determining whether
previous studies and research have been effective in
removing the glass ceiling is vital to the future diversity
of corporate America. Studies on how corporate America
is dealing with the issues of the glass ceiling and its
attempts to remove it are also extremely important to
its complete removal. In order to truly know if the glass
ceiling will ever be completely removed, a longitudinal
study on the education, training, opportunities, and
progression of minorities within corporate America is
a necessity. Without this type of data, it will never be
known if the glass ceiling is truly a barrier that has been
penetrated and if the executive suite is equally open to
all who seek it.
C on clu sion
In conclusion, the history of our nation proves
that there have been long struggles with diversity,
discrimination, and cultural differences; this has
also been true in regards to corporate America. The
phenomenon of the glass ceiling was first introduced in
1986 and for decades has been debated among scholars,
corporations, politicians, and those who make up the
everyday workforce. There are those who consider it to
be a myth, and others who strongly believe that the glass
ceiling is indeed an artificial barrier which is keeping

minorities out of executive level positions within
corporate America.
The majority of studies, research, and literature
provided a confirmation that the glass ceiling was,
and is still, in existence. Specific barriers such as
stereotyping, biases, and subtle racism stand in the way
of complete removal of the glass ceiling; however, many
strategies towards success, such as strategic planning
and mentor/mentee relationships offer paths towards
a society with no such barriers. The goal of workplace
equality and diversity must be a combined commitment
among corporate America, governmental agencies,
educational institutions, and society as a whole. Without
a commitment to destroying the glass ceiling it will
never cease to exist. With a strong and firm commitment
to educate, recruit, train, and support all minorities
who desire the ranks of executive leadership, corporate
America as well as the rest of society will benefit, and
celebrate, the shattering of the glass ceiling once and for
all.
REFERENCES
A m aram , D. I. (2007). Cultural diversity: Implications fo r
workplace
management. Retrieved February 24,2010, from http: / / www.
cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com / p d fs / 2007181 .pdf
Blank, R., Slipp, S., & Ford, V. (2000). From the outside in:
Seven
strategies fo r success when you're not a member o f the
dominant
group in your workplace. N ew York, NY: Amacom.
Chavez, L. (1995). Glass ceiling myth: Reality is women make

differ-
ent choices. Retrieve, A pril,22, 2010, from http: / /
findarticles.
c o m /p / articles/m i_qn4208/is_l9950325/ai_nl0190358/
Cox, T. & Smolinski, C. (1994). M anaging diversity and glass
ceiling
initiatives as national economic imperatives. Retrieved February
24, 2010, from h ttp ://d ig italco m m o n s.ilf.co rn ell.ed u /cg
i/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1119+context=key_workplace
Distelhorst, D. J. (2007). A transcultural leader's resource
materi-
als fo r building personal, team, and organizational intercultural
competence. Spokane, WA: Gonzaga University.
Diversity, Inc. (2008). Fortune 500 Black, Latino, Asian CEOs.
Diversi-
ty Inc. Retrieved March 8,2010, from http: / / www.diversity-
inc.com /cgi- bin/cms/articIe.cgi?mode=printable&id=3895
D raulans, V. (2003). The glass ceiling: Reality or m yth? A
gen-
der analysis o f leadership. R etrie v e d F e b ru a ry 24, 2010,
fro m h t t p : / / w w w .e th ic a l.p e r s p e c t i v e s . b e / v
i e w p i c .
php?LAN=E&TABLE=EP&ID=313
Frazier, E. M. (2005). Glass ceiling: Fact or m yth. NAAAS
Confer-
ence Proceedings. Scarborough: 2005, p. 1929 -1 9 4 8 .
Retrieved
March 17, 2010, from the ProQ uest Database.
Graham, S. (2006). D iversity leaders no labels: A new plan fo

r the 21st
century. N ew York, NY: Free Press.
Grimson, A. (n.d.). Diversity and culture: Reification and
situational-
ity. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from http: / / w w w .unsam .
e d u .a r/m u n d o sco n tem p o ran eo s/p d f/d iv ersity an d
cu ltu re.
pdf
Henderson, G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the workplace:
Issues and
strategies. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Independent TV Service, (n.d.). Examining stereotypes through
self-
awareness. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from h ttp :/ /w w w .
itvs.org/ footrace/ p d fs / stereotypes.pdf
Kean, D. (2004). Cultural diversity: In fu ll colour report.
Retrieved
February 24, 2010, from h t t p : / /w w w .d a n u ta k e a n .c
o m /
blog/?p=31
LaBeach-Pollard, P. (2005). Critical analysis o f the glass
ceiling
phenomenon. Retrieved February 24, 2010, from h ttp ://w f -
netw ork.bc.edu / encyclopedia_entry.php?id=871
Lockwood, N. (2004). The glass ceiling: Domestic and
international
perspectives. H R Magazine. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from
h ttp :/ / fin d a rtic le s.c o m /p /a rtic le s/m i_ m 3 4 9 5 /is_
6 _ 4 9 /
ai_n6099202/ ?tag=rbxcra.2.a.55

M erriam -W ebster. (2010). D iversity. R etrieved, F eb ru ary
24,
2010, from http: / / w w w .m erriam -w ebster.com /d
ichonary/
diversity
Padavic, I. & Reskin, B. (2002). Women and men at work. (2nd
ed.).
T housand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Redw ood, R. (1996). The glass ceiling: The fin d in g s and
recom-
mendations o f the federal glass ceiling commission. Retrieved
February 24, 2010, from http: / / w w w .inm otionm agazine.
com / glass.html
Roldan, K. A. & Stern, G. M. (2006). M inority rules: Turn your
ethnicity into a competitive edge. N ew York, NY; H arper
Collins.
Scarborough, J. (1998). The origins o f cultural differences and
their
impact on management. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Takaki, R. (1993). A different mirror: A history o f m
ulticultural
America. N ew York, NY: Little Brown.
U. S. D ep artm en t of Labor. (1995). Good fo r business: M
aking
fid l use o f the nation's human Capital: A fact-finding report
of
the federal glass ceiling commission. Retrieved April 11, 2010,
from http: / / w w w .dol.gov/ pasa, / p ro g ram s/h isto ry /
reich/

re p o rts/ ceiling.pdf
Wyche, K. R. (2008). Good is not good enough and other
unwritten
rules fo r m inority professionals. N ew York, NY: Penguin.
Copyright of Journal of Cultural Diversity is the property of
Tucker Publications, Inc. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Leadership Challenges
Westcott, Russ
The Journal for Quality and Participation; Jan 2014; 37, 1;
ProQuest Central
pg. 8

78 I s s u e 2 - 2 0 14 © L O N D O N B u s I N e s s s C H
O O L w w w. L O N D O N . e D u / B s r
A
merger between two
venerable frms six years
ago created one of the
largest fnancial services
frms in the world. After a
robust debate and extensive political
manoeuvering, the individual selected
as the new frm’s CEO emerged from the
handful of contenders. Tis CEO seemed

a logical choice – a bright, youthful,
charismatic and ambitious leader from
one of the legacy frms who had
demonstrated his business building
acumen by successfully leading the
corporate development function in
the US. Yet, despite these impressive
failed his company. However, after
analysing the responses from a research
initiative into how to grow great
leaders, I was struck by another thought:
executives don’t fail on their own – they
have plenty of help along the way. Tis
led to perhaps a more interesting question:
Do leaders fail their companies or
do companies fail their leaders?
Addressing both individual and the
organisational accountabilities will
enable companies to construct their
leadership development practices to
increase the odds that a greater percentage
of those who aspire to lead will do so
credentials and the initial support
provided to the newly appointed CEO,
this individual earned a vote of no
confdence within two years of his
appointment date and resigned “in
order to pursue other opportunities”. As
an advisor to this merger, I was struck by
this CEO’s premature derailment, which
led me to pursue the following question:
Why did this leader, as do many newly
appointed senior executives, fail to lead?

Studying derailment helps us to better
understand why leaders fail to lead. But
virtually all derailment studies have
examined only the individual as the unit
of analysis – we explore why the leader
Is your company
failing its leaders?
Ask not why leaders fail their companies; why do organisations
repeatedly fail their leaders? Douglas A Ready
questions the conventional wisdom on executive derailment in
this article from our Winter 2005 archive
i
l
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
O

B
I
N
B
O
y
D
e
N
BLACK YELLOW MAGENTA CYAN
A
R
T
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
IO
N
C

L
IE
N
T
S
U
B
S
R
E
P
R
O
O
P
V
E
R
S
IO
N
BUSINESS
STRATEGY
REVIEW

© L O N D O N B u s I N e s s s C H O O L I s s u e 2 - 2 0
14 79w w w. L O N D O N . e D u / B s r
BUSINESS
STRATEGY
REVIEW
successfully. It should also help them to
think about leadership efectiveness less
as a list of traits and competencies and
more as the product of the interactions
among the leader, those being led and
the context within which one is
challenged to lead.
Tis is the product of research
conducted in 2005 on 32 companies
from around the world. Te purpose of
the research was threefold: to examine
why, despite signifcant academic
research and managerial applications,
so many managers who aspire to
leadership roles become victims of
executive derailment; to understand
what policies, practices, or other factors
might be operational in companies that
are unintentionally contributing to an
insufcient bench strength of leadership
talent; and to ofer recommendations
concerning what companies can do to
develop their next generation senior
leaders more efectively.
Why leaders fail their companies

Te responses from the 32 companies
gave the greatest weight to seven key
reasons why leaders fail to lead in
their organisations.
1. Poor stakeholder management
While many of the other reasons for
executive derailment were given a
similar weight by the respondents of
our 32-company study, the frst two
factors were overwhelmingly viewed
as the primary reasons why leaders
fail to lead, with poor stakeholder
management gaining top billing.
Early in one’s career, demonstrated
competence in a function or a process
is usually the most direct route to
achieving career advancement. But, as
one’s career advances, the importance
of managing interdependencies
becomes a diferentiating factor in
one’s success. Tese interdependencies,
or stakeholders, might take the form
of other senior executives within the
group, one’s team, suppliers, customers,
regulators, alliance partners, the media,
and a host of other players who need
to be infuenced so that the leader’s
agenda can take shape and be
implemented efectively.
2. Failing to balance diversity and
alignment among the top team
Sufcient research has been conducted
on top team development for us to

understand that requisite variety in
thinking, perspective and experience are
essential ingredients to the formation of
highly efective top teams. However,
the goal in assembling a top team is
not to try to achieve group think. In fact,
prior research points to group think as
a core reason for top team inefectiveness.
Efective senior executives have learned
how to productively manage the
tensions that naturally arise from
nurturing a diverse set of views. Tey
create an edge that keeps the team at
the top of their game, yet they stop well
short of instigating intra-team warfare.
Te respondents signalled that far too
few leaders have learned how to reconcile
the tensions between nurturing diverse
perspectives that create edge and vitality
and bringing about the alignment
needed to craft, articulate and execute
enterprise strategy.
3. Flawed execution of
articulated strategy
Shareowners, analysts, and employees
are more forgiving of senior executives
who do a poor job of articulating an
enterprise vision than they are of those
who fail to deliver value and results.
Te companies engaged in the
research support this point. Tey had
the opportunity to vote for a closely
related candidate for executive

derailment: the inability to articulate
an enterprise strategy. But this factor
fnished substantially lower than its
sister factor: the fawed execution of an
articulated strategy.
4. An insufcient critical mass
of followership
If any factor singularly reinforced the
idea that efective leadership is less
about competence acquisition and more
about managing the efcacy of the
relationship among the leader, the led
and the organisation’s context, then this
is the one. Weighing in at number four,
our respondents drove home the point
that if executives fail to engage their
employees and fail to inspire them to
feel central to their frm’s success, then
they have fundamentally failed to build
the foundation for their leadership. It’s
a simple quotient – lose your critical
mass of followership and you will lose
your privilege to lead.
5. A poor capacity for listening
While respondents cited this factor in
a number of ways, such as an inability
to learn from others, the bottom line is
they viewed a leader’s inability to listen
as a critical determinant of executive
derailment. Tis pathology can take at
least two shapes – the ‘shoot the
messenger’ for giving the bad news or the
‘what do I need to do to make these people

get it?’ variety. Te former defciency is
rooted in insecurity while the latter is
rooted in arrogance. Either way, this
faw puts a leader on a sure-fre path to
isolation, which will eventually lead to
the undesired outcome: derailment.
6. An inability to reinvent during
large-scale change
Te 32 companies engaged in the
research acknowledged that leaders
were certain to make mistakes while
attempting to lead large complex
organisations. It was not the making of
mistakes that precipitated derailment,
they stated, but rather the leader’s lack
of interest or capacity to reinvent one’s
leadership style when it became
increasingly evident that such changes
were, indeed, demanded. In fact, in a
previous study of failed enterprise wide
change initiatives that I conducted a
decade ago, this same factor surfaced.
In that study, when I asked CEOs to
identify the one thing that they would
do diferently that might have prevented
their companies’ transformation eforts
from failing, their responses were the
same: act more swiftly, more broadly,
more deeply – and do so by understanding
that change begins with me. Tis is
much easier said than done. Many
CEOs and top executive teams gain great
satisfaction from creating a sense of
family and community in their companies,
so splitting up that family or destroying

that community is extraordinarily
painful for our senior leaders.
7. A poor ft with the company’s
core values
Senior executives derail when they
fail to lead within the bounds of their
companies’ values. When a senior
executive’s stewardship role is lost
or violated, leaders lose their moral
authority to lead. Unfortunately, there
have been far too many examples in
the popular press recently that point
to this factor as a continuing source of
executive derailments. A company’s
values serve as the foundation for its
core identity, and as such when leaders
act outside these guiding principles
they are often seeding their own paths
to failure. However, if a core value
becomes an excuse for complacency
and inaction then a leader has an
obligation to bring about changes to
those guiding beliefs. One company,
Digital Equipment’s core value of respect
for the autonomy of individual
91BSR1403143.pgs 28.04.2014 15:39
C
la
s
s
ic

i
s
y
o
u
r
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
f
a
il
in
g
i
ts
l
e
a
d
e
rs

w w w. L O N D O N . E D U / B S r80 I S S U E 2 - 2 0 14
© L O N D O N B U S I N E S S S C H O O L
employees deteriorated into a pathology
when it became nearly impossible for
the company’s leaders to mobilise the
resources of the company to satisfy
customers’ demands. Chairman Ken
Olsen’s failure to modify this belief into
a common sense guide for day-to-day
behaviour led not only to his derailment
but to his beloved company’s demise.
A CEO who failed his company
Let’s return to the CEO referred to at
the beginning, because he serves as a
clear example of a leader that failed his
company. Moreover, it is possible to
map his behaviours against the seven
key reasons for executive derailment
that emerged from the research.
Tis individual didn’t understand
that regardless of how smart or capable
he was that there were now dozens
of other stakeholders who would
ultimately determine his success as a
leader. Almost immediately following
his appointment, the American leader
of this global juggernaut surrounded
himself with an all-male Anglo Saxon
top team and an array of American male

external advisors. He regarded the press
and regulators as enemies to be
vanquished. Suppliers were viewed
primarily as opportunities for cost
cutting and customers as targets for
proft optimisation.
Tis CEO did a poor job of balancing
alignment and edge among his top
executive team. More to the point, there
was plenty of edge and precious little
alignment. He would devise
divide-and-conquer strategies
that would pit top team
members against one another,
leading to the strengthening of
enemy camps and zero sum
politics while discussing the
frm’s direction and enterprise
strategy. As a result, the
members of the top team
learned how to behave out of
self interest rather than on
behalf of the enterprise.
While this CEO did a
respectable job of articulating
his enterprise vision and
strategy, he failed to lay the
proper foundation to execute
that strategy. Tis CEO’s statements of
strategic intent were focused on becoming
the innovation leader and becoming the
frst truly globally integrated fnancial
services frm in the world. Te speeches

were terrifc; however, the top team,
key business unit managers, and
geography heads soon realised that
these words were not to be backed up
with actions in the form of resources,
rewards or consequences.
As stated, this CEO failed to manage
his key stakeholder groups, failed to
balance alignment with edge among his
top team, and provided little in the way
of resources to actually execute his
enterprise strategy. As a result he failed
to engage a critical mass of followership
that was excited about his leadership of
their organisation. No stakeholders were
present to reinforce this CEO’s leadership,
from either inside or outside the company.
No top team members were motivated to
rally their troops behind the CEO’s cause.
And few senior managers saw reason
to believe that the frm’s articulated
strategy would be relentlessly pursued.
Tis CEO didn’t understand the
importance of listening. He viewed
feedback and well-intended input as a
threat to his leadership rather than an
opportunity for improvement. When
non-Anglo Saxons suggested that his
statements of strategic intent were loaded
with too much American jargon, he
responded to their inputs with an edge
that bordered on mean-spiritedness.
Tis individual’s goal was to hear no bad

news. Eventually, he got exactly what he
wanted – at least until the ultimate piece
of bad news – his vote of no confdence.
Te merger created signifcant frst
mover scope and scale advantages to
becoming a globally integrated provider
of fnancial services to its clients.
However, due to the frm’s inability to
execute its enterprise strategy and its
subsequent attention to internal politics
rather than client service, competitors
began to catch up at an alarming rate.
As these changes took place, the CEO’s
reluctance to want to hear the beating
of the drums of change caused him to
tighten his inner circle even further,
surrounding himself only with those
who would reinforce his current
direction and leadership style.
Finally, this CEO failed to understand
the importance of establishing and
living by a core set of values for his frm.
He viewed values as a soft initiative,
rather than an opportunity for employee
engagement on the subject of who they
aspired to be as a team. His enterprise
leadership team eventually persuaded
the CEO to establish a set of guiding
principles and values for the company.
However, he placed the ownership of
this initiative in the hands of an external
advisor to execute, generating cynicism
rather than positive momentum.

How companies fail their
leaders
Armed with a deeper understanding of
why leaders fail their companies, it is
now time to turn the question
on its head and ask: in what
ways have companies failed
their leaders? Te company
responses suggest that there
are three primary areas on
which to focus: organisational
culture, systems and processes,
and cognitive misfres.
A culture of silos
Companies have been
organised into discreet entities
(business units, geographies,
functions, product lines, etc.)
for decades for one simple
reason: it has worked. Tese
organisational entities provide
clarity of purpose and are easy
to monitor from a performance
measurement perspective.
Tey have survived every
management fad possible over
the past 40 years, and so
managerial loyalty to these
stand-alone units has been
Falling down
on the job?

Companies need
to support their leaders,
not destabilise them il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
O
B
I
N
B
O
y

D
E
N
BLACK YELLOW MAGENTA CYAN
A
R
T
P
R
O
D
U
C
T
IO
N
C
L
IE
N
T
S
U
B
S

R
E
P
R
O
O
P
V
E
R
S
IO
N
© L O N D O N B U S I N E S S S C H O O L I S S U E 2 -
2 0 14 81w w w. L O N D O N . E D U / B S r
BUSINESS
STRATEGY
REVIEW
very powerful. But, as customers
increase their demands for integrated
solutions, a company that has an
organisational structure of product-push
independence (and the mindset that
usually goes along with it) will be hard
pressed to provide the solutions that its

customers desire.
Te companies in this study reported
signifcant gaps in “integration-oriented,
enterprise thinking and behaviours”. But
whose failing is this? Do many of the
world’s leading global companies lack
leaders who are capable of collaboration
and cross-boundary thinking? Tis is a
doubtful proposition at best. It is not the
lack of capability but rather a matter of
learned behaviour. Tese product-push,
stand-alone entities have engendered
cultures of silos that have very thick
and powerful walls. Tese cultures have
been formed and reinforced by creating
a cultural imagery of the unit leader as
hero, providing a powerful disincentive
for emerging leaders to search alternate
developmental paths. As a result,
leadership development has been
decentralised within these silos,
resulting in unimaginative career
pathing and missed opportunities to
develop talent across the enterprise.
Outdated systems and processes
A staggering 97 per cent of the
respondents indicated that they had in
place formal processes for tracking and
developing their next generation of
senior executives, but virtually all of
these companies indicated that they
lacked a sufcient pipeline of leaders
to achieve their companies’ strategic
priorities. Tat data point sums up the

challenge nicely: companies don’t lack
systems and processes for identifying
and developing leaders – they have
ones that no longer work.
What isn’t working? Even though
companies have been doing business
globally for decades in many cases,
far too many of them have leader
identifcation and assessment processes
that are ethnocentric in nature. Te
rationale for this has been cost efciency
but cost is a relative term if a company
misses out on spotting promising high
potential talent because its assessors
are centrally located or come from one
country or culture. As a former vice
president of executive development for
PepsiCo indicated: “We were doing
business globally, but our leaders lacked
a global mindset. I was in charge of
leader identifcation and development
and yet I barely left our Purchase, New
York, ofce. We had a strategic objective
to grow in Japan, and yet I had never
even been there to see what our
promising talent looked like.”
Other systems and processes that
have become dysfunctional in many
companies include: replacement charts
for senior executive appointments,
leadership competencies profles and
generic leadership training programmes
that have no link to strategic priorities,

and performance management
systems that lack accountability and
consequences. If a company’s systems
and processes don’t serve as mechanisms
for identifying and nurturing the cross-
border development of talent globally
then these processes are failing its
company’s next-generation of
senior leaders.
Cognitive misfres
Tere is little beneft in being delicate
with this point – when it comes to
building leadership capability, some
companies just don’t get it. Whether
this stems from a CEO’s lack of interest,
commitment or intellectual rigour
concerning the importance of building
a robust pipeline of next generation
leaders, it presents a problem for leaders
and leadership development specialists
nonetheless. Te core problem in this
case is that the CEO and top team have
failed to connect the dots between
making investments in developing
leaders and their companies’
organisational capability to succeed
strategically. Tey maintain a view
that leadership development is a cost
item rather than a critical strategic
investment. Tey view the short term
costs of moving talent across silos as
outweighing the benefts of building a
cadre of enterprise leaders. Tey view
gatherings of their companies’ leaders
as of-site golfng opportunities rather

than as opportunities to explore their
companies’ future strategies and
capability gaps.
Building enterprise-wide
leadership capability
Te senior executive population of any
large company is comprised of fewer
than the top one tenth of one per cent of
the frm’s employees. Tis translates into
the top 100 executives of a company
with roughly 100,000 employees. I refer
to these individuals as the company’s
enterprise leadership team. By the time
executives have reached this career
stage their companies have made
signifcant investments in them and
placed signifcant bets on them. Tey
are a miniscule percentage of their
companies’ employee population and
yet the efectiveness of their leadership
will determine whether their companies
will succeed or fail. Te stakes are
enormous, making it a wise move for
companies to seriously investigate how
to minimise executive derailments and
improve their leadership identifcation
and development processes. In other
words, we need to understand why
leaders fail their companies and how
companies fail their leaders.
Te following are some actions
that will help:

• Formulate a leadership development
policy for your organisation that
explicitly connects the dots between
making investments in talent and
improving your company’s
competitiveness;
• Senior executives should own the
talent and leadership development
agenda for your company. Tis means
making serious investments of time
in holding your company’s enterprise
leadership team accountable for
identifying and developing promising
leadership talent;
• Don’t wait until an individual is about
to be appointed to a senior executive
position to broaden this leader’s
development. Invest in cross-boundary
moves early in one’s career and provide
exposure to a variety of businesses,
functions, geographies and stakeholders
as early as possible;
• Invest the time to select well –
development is not a panacea;
• Make derailment behaviours explicit
so promising leaders understand what
leadership styles help them and hurt
them. Examine the seven key reasons
why executives derail and engage in
conversations with your promising
talent to help them to abandon or never
acquire those behaviours;
• Engage in periodic audits of your
processes for identifying and developing
your company’s leaders. Use colleagues
from other parts of your organisation

or external resources to ensure that
you are taking an impartial look at
your approaches.
Doug Ready ([email protected]) is the founder and
CEO of ICEDR, the International Consortium for
Executive Development Research
91BSR1403144.pgs 28.04.2014 15:39
C
la
s
s
ic
i
s
y
o
u
r
c
o
m
p
a
n

y
f
a
il
in
g
i
ts
l
e
a
d
e
rs
Copyright of Business Strategy Review is the property of
Wiley-Blackwell and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for
individual use.

Leading a Virtual Organization: Introduction
Program Transcript
NARRATOR: Dr. Craig Marsh is a business executive with over
25 years of
experience in organizational leadership, development, and
change across a
number of industries. In this case study, Craig will present a
real world leadership
challenge based on his professional experience that will allow
you to place
yourself in the same situation and to explore in-depth some of
the questions that
inevitably arise. Would you have made the same decisions?

What does the case
tell you about the nature of the modern organization and its
opportunities for
value creation, as well as its limits? And what are the questions
it raises for both
senior and front-line leadership in the 21st century?
DR. CRAIG MARSH: Hello, I'm Dr. Craig Marsh. And I'm here
to introduce you to
a real leadership challenge that I was faced with four or five
years ago. This
leadership challenge was based on a structure, which was a
virtual organization
of an organization that was globally dispersed and an
organization which I was
taking over at the time.
At the heart of this situation were two critical constructs. And
by constructs I
mean an idea that has different meanings to it where the
meanings themselves
aren't entirely understood or established. And that'll become
important in a
couple of minutes to you. Those two ideas, or constructs, were
employee
engagement and also the idea of performance management.
Now, what's really important is that you read, in your
classroom, the case study
guide. What the case study guide will give you are my thoughts
and my own
research on these ideas that are going to present to you in the
case. What it will
also give you are some of the facts about the case because what
I'm not going to
do is spend my time talking to you about all of the details of the

situation that I
was presented with.
So once you've read those, you'll get an idea of what I call my
own theory and
use. So what I do is not only do I lead organizations, but I've
also researched,
read, and written about them. So I've developed my ideas and
my constructs
about what we mean by employee engagement, performance
management, and
leadership. And it's really important that you, as doctoral
candidates, do the same
such that when you're confronted with a situation you've formed
your own ideas
about what subjects such as leadership, performance
management, and
engagement really mean.
Four years ago, I took over a business unit that consisted almost
entirely of
people working virtually. I had nearly 500 people working for
me, who lived all
over the world and worked remotely. They were all directly
customer facing. And
most significant, they were not employed directly by my
organization, but were
contracted to us, mostly on a part-time basis.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

To provide some context, our organization had grown rapidly
over the previous
four or five years and was confronting a classic consequence of
that growth, a
start-up culture now requiring scalable structures and processes
to ensure that
growth and service standards were maintained consistently. As a
leader, I
inherited very little structure other than some early attempts at
putting in place
performance indicators and some quality standards, as well as
some established
central units that supported me for monitoring service quality. I
also had a small

group of divisional directors reporting to me, each of whom
were in charge of
sub-unit of my structure with specific and differentiated
customer value
propositions.
So one of my biggest challenges was the very loose structure of
contracted
service professionals who provided the main value work to our
customers. These
service professionals were highly educated and experienced,
multinational, and
worked remotely from anywhere in the world. There were also
mainly part-time
and had a tenuous connection to the company. Legally, there
were strict
constraints on treating them as employees for fear of violating
local tax laws.
Because of this, it was very challenging to promote employee
engagement and
build trust across the team, accurately evaluate performance for
all staff, and
establish an appropriate leadership structure for this unique
situation. I faced a
number of questions and set myself the following three key
challenges. First of
all, how do I introduce a culture of engagement? Secondly, how
do I create an
effective process for performance management? And then,
thirdly, how do I build
a leadership structure appropriate for my particular
circumstances?
Additional Content Attribution

Music:
Creative Support Services
Los Angeles, CA
Dimension Sound Effects Library
Newnan, GA
Narrator Tracks Music Library
Stevens Point, WI
Signature Music, Inc
Chesterton, IN
Studio Cutz Music Library
Carrollton, TX
Managerial Challenges of the Contemporary Society, vol. 7 no.
2

40
HOW TO CHANGE THE INFORMAL SIDE? A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE TRANSFORMATION
MODELS
O. MOLDOVAN1, F.C. MACARIE2
1,2 Babeş-Bolyai University, [email protected],
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
Although organizational culture plays an important role in
the life and success of organizations, the fact that it
remains an informal and unconscious aspect of
organizational life usually hinders, in practice, any attempt
to reform or revitalize it despite the best interest and
attempts of leadership. However, the transformation of the
formal side of organizations will yield few results if nothing
happens on the informal (cultural) side; more often than
not, formal changes must be not only accompanied but
rather preceded by informal changes in order to maximize
the outcomes.
The reform or improvement of organizational culture is
achieved by reshaping the myths, traditions, values and
fundamental ideas shared by the members of an
organization, with the ultimate goal of creating a new
identity for the organization and its members. By critically
reviewing the existent models or organizational culture
transformation, this research will highlight not only the

mechanisms by which change can be achieved, but also:
(1) the type of leadership required to reshape
organizations; (2) facilitating and reactive factors; (3) the
connection between the development stage of an
organization and the transformation means employed and
(4) the key factors that can ensure the success of
organizational and cultural change.
Keywords: Organizational culture, change/transformation,
theoretical models.
JEL classification: D21, D23, M14.
1. Introduction
Organizational change refers to any attempt aimed at
revitalizing or refocussing an organization. Such changes
can be seen by most members of the organization as being
legitimate, but they might also cause adverse reactions and
protests; for a change process to be effective, the forces
acting for change must have a higher representation and
power (influence) than those who oppose it. Development
or organizational change can be defined as “a mix of
actions (that can be either in the design or implementation
phase) aimed at improving components of the management
system (strategy, structure, information system, decision-
making system, methodology) in order to increase the
performance and competitiveness of the organization’’
(Burduş et al., 2003, p. 15). The management of
organizational change represents the “whole process of
provision, organization, coordination, training, control,
replacement, modification and alteration of the organization
in order to increase efficiency and competitiveness’’
(Burduş et al., 2003, p. 23).
Taking into consideration its importance, cultural reform
represents a prerequisite for a smoother process of
organizational change. The reform or improvement of

organizational culture is achieved by reshaping the myths,
traditions, values and fundamental ideas shared by the
members of an organization. The ultimate goal is to create
a new identity of the organization and its members in order
to increase performance and efficiency or to achieve
certain predetermined objectives.
Adler (1986, p. 58) analyzes different cultural changes
based on their timing vis-à-vis other external and internal
factors (reactive and pro-active) and aim (to
ameliorate/improve the situation or to reach a strategic
purpose).
Table 1: Cultural change matrix
Type Ameliorative Strategic
Reactive Adaptation Re-orientation
Anticipative Harmonization Re-conception
Source: Adler, 1986, p. 58
Harmonization changes: aim to improve the culture and the
overall organization in order to be better prepared for a
known (foreseen) future event.
Adaptation changes: aim to improve the culture and the
overall organization as a response to an unforeseen event
that has modified the status quo.
Re-orientation changes: aim to modify the culture and the
organization on a strategic level as a response to external
stimuli.
Re-conception changes: aim to modify the culture and the
organization on a strategic level in order to influence the
external environment.
Although Adler views change largely as a scope/end in

itself, cultural transformation can also be regarded as a
mean. For example, Young (2007) argues that cultural
change can become a mean for a greater goal, one that
does not necessarily relate to the survival or adaptation of
the organization, but which connects to social issues. In her
opinion, organizational culture and cultural transformation
are means to create a more inclusive work environment
(Young, 2007, p. 27).
The remaining of the paper will discuss the relationship
between leadership, socialization and culture from a
change/development perspective (section 2), while section
3 will present a critical analysis of two models of
2
41
organizational culture (a circular and a linear one). Section
4 will address some of the limitations that might arise
during the process of cultural transformation and section 5
will present the main conclusions.
2. Leadership, socialization and culture
Although the roles of leadership and socialization are often
brought up in academic papers and discussions vis-à-vis
organizational culture, the exact underpinnings of these
processes are generally under analyzed. These two
elements are either mentioned briefly as being important or
taken into account without answering key questions (such
as: How does leadership connects with culture? What type
of leadership can truly transform culture and what type of
leadership will be transformed by it? What is the role of

socialization?).
Bass and Avolio do not separate leadership and
management, but rather they distinguish two types of
leadership: transactional and transformational.
Transformational leaders “integrate creative insight,
persistence and energy, intuition and sensitivity to the
needs of others” when building the new culture and can be
characterized by four key elements: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (1993, p, 112). In a culture
created by transformational leadership, a sense of purpose
and a feeling of family exist, as: (1) commitments are made
on long-term, (2) leaders and followers are joined by
common interests and a sense of shared fates and
interdependence, (3) members of the organization go
beyond their self-interests (or expected rewards) and
consider that the organization is more important than their
interests and (4) hierarchical superiors socialize members
into the culture by serving as mentors, coaches, role
models, and leaders (1993, pp. 116, 118).
Transactional leaders on the other hand work within the
existing culture, frame their decisions and actions
according to what already exists in the organization and
“develop exchanges or agreements with their followers,
pointing out what the followers will receive if they do
something right as well as wrong’’ (1993, pp. 112-113). A
transactional culture views everything in terms of explicit
and implicit contractual relationships as: (1) job
assignments are spelled out along with conditions of
employment, disciplinary codes, and benefit structures, (2)
everyone has a material motivation to work (price) and
there is a price on everything and (3) commitments are
made on short-term while self-interests primes in front of
the organizational interest (1993, p. 116).
As such, from a theoretical perspective, culture could be
changed via leadership in the case of transformational

leadership, while transactional leadership would be
modeled by culture and act in the existing cultural context,
without trying (and being unable) to change it.
A similar approach is proposed by Bate (1994) who argues
that two basic approaches to culture can be identified:
conforming (maintaining order and continuity) and
transforming (changing and breaking existing patterns).
Socialization represents the mechanism by which
individuals (usually new members of the organization) learn
the fundamental characteristics of an organizational culture.
A distinction can be made between organizations that give
low importance to culture (were employees are selected by
professional criteria, disregarding cultural compatibility
issues) and organizations that give more importance to
culture (the compatibility of future employees with the
culture of the organization is also taken into consideration
beside professional characteristics).
Richard Pascale (Johns, 1998, pp. 283-284) proposed a
model of socialization (Table 2) that is more than suitable to
explain how employees undergo a gradual process of
socialization (learning the ins and outs of organizational life,
learning the values, beliefs, traditions and assumptions of
their peers in order to become fully integrated members in
the structure and culture of an organization).
Table 2: The socialization process in organizations
Stage
(chronological)
Main activities
Stage one:
employee
selection

Possible new employees are rigorously
selected according to cultural criteria.
The organization is presented in a
realistic way so that possible employees
can eliminate themselves (if they
consider themselves unfit to the cultural
model). Group and individual interviews
as well as other tests (role playing
games) can be used.
Stage two:
humiliation and
ridicule
New employees are humiliated and
ridiculed in order to make them shed
previous cultural characteristics (this will
make them accept the new model more
easily).
Stage three:
hands on training
New employees start work at lower
hierarchical and professional levels so
that they can obtain a better
understanding of how the organization
works. Cultural values are taught to
them by practice.
Stage four:
rewarding and
promoting

Those who adapt and promote the
cultural values of the organization and
contribute toward reaching the
objectives of the organization are
rewarded and promoted.
Stage five:
exposing the
essential culture
The core beliefs, values and norms are
permanently reminded in order to
coordinate the behavior of members.
The values instilled in the earlier stages
of the socialization process are
entrenched at the subconscious level.
Source: Johns, 1998, pp. 283-284
3. A critical analysis of main circular and
linear models model of change
Before dwelling any further into the mainstream models of
cultural change and transformation, the sources or forces of
change must be analyzed. Gibson and Barsade (2003)
identify four major sources or forces of change, three of
which are more or less independent of leadership actions,
and a fourth one directly connected with leadership action
(Table 3).

2
42
Table 3: The multiple facets of OC change
Type Description of forces/sources behind change
Survival of the
fittest
Environmental demands that force the
organization to re-imagine itself.
Evolutionary
process
Natural processes of organizations that grow,
learn and develop.
Revolutionary
process
Internal shifts of power and the emergence of
new leaders that reshape the organization
according to their own image/ideals.
Managed
change
Leaders purposefully take actions in order to
change the organizational culture.
Adapted after Gibson and Barsade, 2003, pp. 21-23

Kurt Lewin (Schein, 2004, pp. 319-331) proposes a series
of steps that can be followed during the process of cultural
reform. The model assumes that any change or reform
must be done in three stages (states): unfreezing, change
and refreezing.
Figure 1: A cyclical model of OC change
Source: Adapted after Schein, 2004, pp. 319-331
The initial state: refers to the situation of the organization
(at some point in its life) when an inconsistency appears
with external requirements (economic, social, political
regime system and so on) or internal ones (new
management, new employees, new values and
expectations).
The unfreezing: is the stage in which leaders and members
of the organization realize that the values, ideas and
expectations they shared in the initial state are obsolete
and that organizational culture must be changed. At this
point leaders start designing a transformation plan (that
includes the transformation process and an outline of the
outcome) and work to highlight the benefits of a new
cultural framework, while distancing themselves from the
old one.
The change: is the stage in which previously planned
transformations are implemented as they are expected to
improve the performance and functionality of the
organization. It is recommended to implement new
elements at a smaller scale (imperceptible changes);

reform should be broadened only if these small changes
prove to be successful. The members of the organization
should be permanently informed of these changes (and
how these can help the organization).
The freezing: is the process in which the upper echelons of
the organization try to stabilize the new values at
organizational level. This process can be done by using
different tools such as: seminars, brochures, regulations,
meetings, new myths and stories, creating artifacts and so
on. The aim is to strengthen the new values and to
minimize the tendency to revert to the old values (to use
the same procedures and have the same habits as in the
initial state).
The final state: is the result of all previous processes. At
this point the organization has acquired new values,
procedures, artifacts and symbols (both at the conscious
and unconscious level) and has reached a new level of
performance and efficiency.
It should be noted that the final state does not represent the
ultimate form of the organizational culture or the end of all
reform processes. The new type of culture (new values and
traditions) can also become redundant at some point as
new developments occur in the environment. As such, the
final state can always turn into an initial one for a new
process of change. From this perspective, the creation and
development of culture is a circular and continuous
operation/process that takes place during the entire
existence of the organization.
Lewin's model offers a rather brief overview of the
processes that take place during an organizational culture
reform. Being rather general, it can be understood with
great ease (at a conceptual level) and it can be
used/applied by managers in their efforts to change the
culture of an organization. Although the model is highly
functional and user friendly, some limitations are easy to
observe: it offers a very general overview of the process (it

does not pay too much attention to details), it does not
present steps and effective measures, it is a static model
(based on the assumption that both the environment and
the organization remain unchanged for extended periods of
time) and it is rather re-active (refers to organizations that
are facing problems and not to those that are functioning
normally and seek to further improve their performances).
Most of these limits are addressed by Schein by proposing
a reform model tied/connected to the development stage of
the organization. In our view the two models do not oppose
or compete with each other and they should both be used
to understand and implement organizational change as
they complete each other.
The more complex process of cultural change and
development (Table 4) proposed by Schein (2004, pp. 291-
317) identifies three main stages in the life of organizations:
(a) founding and early growth, (b) development and (c)
maturity and decline. Depending on the stage reached by
an organization, specific sets of measures and actions are
recommended in order to reduce potential backlash and
resistance, thus ensuring the success or cultural change.
2
43
Table 4: Organizational culture reform according to the
development stage of the organization
Development stage of the

organization
Mechanisms and tools that
can be used for change
I) Founding and early growth:
the organization is founded and
begins to integrate itself in the
environment. At this stage
culture is shaped by the vision
of the founders (leaders) and
aims to create a distinct
identity.
1) Gradual change (general
and specific evolution).
2) Change by organizational
therapy.
3) Promotion of hybrid cultural
elements.
II) Development: the
organization has already
evolved and proved its viability
(performance) in time. Culture
has evolved during this time but
developments such as
diversification, geographical
expansion, external changes,
mergers and acquisitions can
generate problems. Thus,
culture can act as a factor of
progress or regress for the
organization according to the
values promoted and
entrenched in the minds of

members.
4) Selective promotion of
subcultures.
5) Planning by development
projects and establishing
structures for organizational
learning.
6) Unfreezing and change
through technology.
III) Maturity and decline: the
organization is facing major
problems that can threaten its
existence (inefficiency, high
operating costs). Values,
behaviors and symbols are well
assimilated by members, thus
modifying them is rather
difficult. Cultural elements act
as filters in the organization and
can encumber reform efforts
and reduce performances.
7) Change by infusion of
personnel from outside the
organization.
8) Unfreezing by conflicts and
challenging myths.
9) Basic remodeling of the
organization.
10) Change through coercion.
Source: Adapted after Schein (2004, p. 292)
Gradual change (general and specific evolution) occurs as

relationships between members create specific cultural
forms that develop in smaller groups and are then
generalized at organizational level. Cultural elements
developed at two levels (culture and subcultures) while
interacting and influencing each other.
Organizational therapy is a multi-stage process whereby
the members of the organization: (a) identify the
weaknesses and strengths of the organization, (b) grow
aware that change is needed and (c) build the consensus
necessary to address possible problems (possible solutions
would refer to setting new priorities, redefining goals and
procedures and so on).
Promotion of hybrid cultural elements refers to the rational
decisions and actions of upper management (or leadership)
that identifies those members that share values capable to
ensure the success of the organization; once identified,
these members and their cultural characteristics are
promoted to the entire organization.
Selective promotion of subcultures is a similar process to
the promotion of hybrid cultural elements, but done on a
larger scale. Groups (departments, offices) that have well-
developed subcultures capable of ensuring growth and
performance are promoted at organizational level.
Learning structures such as seminars, conferences, codes
of conduct, workshops are the mark of external experts that
are brought in to help managers in their reform attempts.
Reforms are initially implemented in limited areas (pilot
programs) and are extended at organizational level only if
they prove to be successful.
Unfreezing and change through technology refers to the
transformation of work processes and human interactions
as new technological innovations are introduced.
Change can also be generated by an infusion of personnel
from outside the organization; the new staff brings a new
set of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors that can

improve the performances of the organization. In the
meantime, conservative elements that might oppose the
reform process are reduced and gradually eliminated from
the organization.
Unfreezing by conflict and challenging myths refers to
efforts that seek to distance the culture from old myths,
stories and traditions that are not compatible with the new
vision of the organization; at this stage new cultural
elements are proposed to replace the old ones.
Remodeling is a fundamental long term process that
generates a new culture of the organization as a response
to external developments. The process requires consensus
between leaders and members, a clear vision (of what
transformations will take place and what will be the
outcome) and the involvement of all the members of the
organization.
Coercion is used in crisis situations when the organization
needs to react quickly to external or internal threats. This
type of change is imposed in an authoritarian, hierarchical
and in a top to bottom way. Due to time constraints this
type of transformation does not aim to be participative and
is based on a negative motivation (punishment) of
members that disagree with (or oppose) the reform.
The cultural elements modified in any of the
aforementioned stages have a direct and immediate effect
on the behaviors and values expressed by members; as
such, cultural reforms resonate in the entire organization.
The reform of culture, as well as its creation, is a long term
process that requires time and material resources, as well
as the concerted action of both major categories of
members: "leadership" and "followers" (ordinary members,
lower hierarchical echelons).
4. Limitations, solutions and key themes for
the effectiveness of OC change
Following a systemic review of the literature, Parmelli et al.

(2011) reach a rather pessimist conclusion on the topic, as
- according to them - ‘‘current available evidence does not
identify any effective, generalisable strategies to change
organisational culture’’. However, despite considerable
limitations and backlash against organizational and cultural
transformation and change, such conclusions are overly
pessimistic. Although there is no universal model of cultural
change and no panacea for all cultural needs, there is no
shortcoming of general applicable guidelines that can shed
2
44
light on how to overcome various limitations and how to
generally manage organizational/cultural change.
No matter what model (if any) is adopted as a blueprint for
the process of cultural change, the context in which these
transformations will take place must be taken into
consideration. The favorable conditions that facilitate
transformation and the reactive factors which will oppose it
must be themselves understood and analyzed (Nicolescu,
2004, pp. 358-360). From the early stages of organizational
and cultural transformation, decision makers should
consider all obstacles and impediments that may occur; the
actors who present/have interests contrary to those of
cultural promoters ought to be identified and measures
must be taken to pave the way for future processes
(Nicolescu, 2004, p. 361).
The first obstacle can be generated by the very nature of
organizational culture; since culture is difficult to decipher,
most cultural manifestations will have different meanings

for different individuals. The knowledge and comprehension
of what exists in the organization is the first and most
important stage of a cultural reform. If the person that
performs the processes of cultural analysis and change
originates from the organization he might lack the
theoretical knowledge and the instruments necessary for a
proper cultural analysis; on the other hand, if the
organization relies on an external expert for this role, he
can face a wall of silence from the members of the
organization as they might not consider him trustworthy.
The primordial fear of change, the general and irrational
fear of the unknown affects every aspect of life, including
those related to job security. Changes will always be
perceived as threats to personal safety; as such, the
reaction of those members of the organization that oppose
change must be understood as a normal one. This obstacle
can be surpassed by involving all the members of an
organization in the planning and implementation of the
reform process. By highlighting the positive aspects of
change and by creating and maintaining permanent
communication channels this fear of change can be further
diminished.
Most attempts to reform an organization also entail
measures to reduce costs and staff and this will generate
instability and anxiety among the ranks. Yet again, the
promoters of change should give due consideration to the
backlash that will originate in these worries.
Curran (2005) seems to underestimate the problems faced
during cultural change, arguing that ‘‘an organization’s
culture can be changed for the better, and relatively
quickly’’ (p. 29). Although we do not side with the author on
the simplicity or cultural transformation, some of the means
he proposed to affect cultural change are rather valid. As
such, Curran (2005, p. 29) advises leaders and managers
to: “(a) address cultural issues as a cohesive system rather
than attack each problem on its own, (b) work with the

organization or department as a whole rather than with
separate individuals, (c) find the right tools, (d) invest time
and resources, and (e) get help from someone who knows
more about organizational culture than you do”.
In similar lines, Gibson and Barsade (2003) argue that
organizational culture transformation can be effective only
if a series of key elements are taken into account (Table 5)
and addressed accordingly.
Table 5: Key themes in effective OC change
Theme Brief explanation
1. Leadership from the top Leaders must assume a
proactive role in OC change.
2. Alignment of soft and
hard aspects of
organizations
Intentionally align structure,
systems, and policies with the
new structure.
3. Ensuring staff and
stakeholder participation
Involvement will influence
members to abide and enforce
the new culture.
4. Criticality of
communicating change
Clear, conscious and sustained

Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx

Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx

Similar to Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx (15)

More from toltonkendal

More from toltonkendal (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Eleanor W ilson, M AAbstract A reference to the term, th.docx