Organizational Culture and Change

Meyerson and Martin (1987) view organizations as cultures in which organizational change incorporates "changes in patterns of behavior, values, and meanings (p. 624). From their research, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three paradigms of organizational culture: integration, differentiation, and ambiguity.

Paradigm 1: Integration

Integration views of organizational culture identifies with those views that are shared: "for example, a common language, shared values, or an agreed-upon set of appropriate behaviors" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 624). Through an exhaustive search of cultural studies and theories, Meyerson and Martin (1987) identified three common characteristics for integration cultural theories: "consistency across cultural manifestations, consensus among cultural members, and -usually- a focus on leaders as culture creators" (p. 625). An integration culture would be found in most organizations that operate in a traditional top-down, controllable, manner.

Paradigm 2: Differentiation

Differentiation theories of organizational culture espouse diversity, where attention is paid to "inconsistencies, lack of consensus, and non-leader-centered sources of cultural content" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 630). Where an integrated culture is more closed, a differentiation culture is more open, influenced from both inside and outside influences (Meyerson & Martin, 1987). A differentiation culture would be found in organizations that operate with a flat or horizontal hierarchy, allowing more decisions to be made from front-line employees.

Paradigm 3: Ambiguity

Where paradigm 1, integration, resists ambiguity due to its rigidity, paradigm 2, differentiation, is more open to ambiguity so that it can be managed. For paradigm 3, ambiguity is accepted as "the way things are, as the 'truth', not as a temporary state awaiting the discovery of 'truth'" (Meyerson & Martin, 1987, p. 637). An ambiguity culture would be found in organizations that operate on a network theory or a complexity theory model.

Organizations address culture differently, partly based on the type of environment they operate in. Weick and Sutcliffe (2007) recommended to make your organization as complex as the environment - the more complex the environment, the more complex the organizational system will need to be in order to function accordingly. 

No one organization operates completely in one paradigm, there are usually portions of each type of paradigm present in any organization. When addressing change, it is recommended to view the change effort from each of the three paradigms rather than solely from one paradigm. As Meyerson and Martin (1987) pointed out: "An awareness of all three paradigms simultaneously would avoid the usual blind spots associated with any single perspective" (p. 643).

References:

Meyerson, D., & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24(6), 623-647. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-6486

Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing The Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lewin and Historical Traces to Change Management

It is often good to trace the historical threads from where certain concepts originate.  One concept, change management, is one such concept that is worth remembering in today’s complex environment.  

Kurt Lewin is often identified as the father of social psychology with contributions to the theory and practice of planned change (Coghlan, Brannick, 2003).  Lewin added to the scientific management practices of Frederick Taylor by adding the human dimension.  This shifted managements focus from scientific management to a social-psychological way of thinking (Gilley, Dean, & Bierema, 2001). Papanek (1973) identified Lewin’s concept of job enrichment:

The worker wants his work to be rich, wide, and Protean, not crippling and narrow.  Work should not limit personal potential but develop it.  Work can involve love, beauty, and the soaring joy of creating.  Progress, in that case, does not mean shortening the work day, but an increase in the human value of the work (p. 318).

Through work from the Harwood studies, Lewin developed the following core elements to action research:

1. Understanding the interplay between the work environment and the individual worker is critical for change in organizations.
2. To understand the system, you must first seek to change it.  Lewin called this action research.
3. Wed scientific thinking to democratic values for organizational change (Gilley et al., 2001, p. 145).

The core philosophy behind Lewin’s planned approach to change focused on changing group behavior rather than changing individual behavior.  This planned change took the form of action research which can be viewed as an eight-step processes:

1. Entry
2. Start-up
3. Assessment and Feedback
4. Action Planning
5. Intervantion
6. Evaluation
7. Adoption
8. Separation (Rothwell, & Sullivan, 2005, p. 43).

Action research should be viewed as a systematic way of thinking embedded in a cyclical process of questioning, assessing, investigating, collaborating, analyzing, and refining (Schoen, 2007).

References:

Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2003). Kurt Lewin: The “practical theorist” for the 21^st century. Irish Journal of Management, 24(2), 31-37. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 650633441).

Gilley, J. W., Dean, P. J., & Bierema, L. L. (2001). Philosophy and practice of organizational learning, performance, and change. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.

Papanek, M. L. (1973). Kurt Lewin and his contributions to modern management theory. Academy of Management Proceedings, 317-322. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.1973.4981410

Rothwell, W. J., & Sullivan, R. (2005). Practicing organization development: A guide for consultants (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Schoen, S. (2007). Action research: A developmental model of professional socialization. Clearing House, 80(5), 211-216. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.