1514 | P a g e
THE MANAGEMENT OF EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND WORK
CULTURE
Mr. Mohan Shanker Gandhe
1Dr.Pramod Gupta
2Ms. Meenakshi Sharma
3, Raj Mishra
41Department of Management Studies, Research Scholar, Sunrise University- Alwar(India)
2,3.4
Department of Management Studies, IET Group of Institutions- Alwar (India)
ABSTRACT
Culture is a term that is used regularly in workplace discussions. It is taken for granted that we understand what it means. The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss some of the significant issues relating to the management of an organisation‘s culture. As organisational cultures are born within the context of broader cultural contexts such as national or ethic groupings, the paper will commence by defining ‗culture‘ in the wider social context. This definition will subsequently form the basis for discussion of definitions of organizational culture and the paradigms and perspectives that underpin these. The paper will then discuss the issue of whether there is one dominant culture that typifies an organisation, or whether an organisation is really a collection or sub-set of loosely bound group identities. Finally, the paper identifies some implications for the management of culture management and change. The purpose of this paper is to provide a conceptual framework for the study of communication during organisational change. Although there is an enduring interest in studying (internal) communication during organisational change, there is still little or no empirical research on the topic.
Keywords: Rganisational Culture, Management, Organizational Change, Implement Of Change, Corporate Communications.
Competences Design/methodology/approach- In this conceptual paper a framework is presented on how to study communication during organisational change and how communication could prevent resistance to change. The framework leads to six propositions in which aspects of communication, such as information, feelings of belonging to a community, and feelings of uncertainty, have an influence on resistance to change, which will affect the effectiveness of the change effort.
I. INTRODUCTION
Organizational change occurs when a company makes a transition from its current state to some desired future state. Managing organizational change is the process of planning and implementing change in organizations in such a way as to minimize employee resistance and cost to the organization while simultaneously maximizing the effectiveness of the change effort.
Today's business environment requires companies to undergo changes almost constantly if they are to remain competitive. Factors such as globalization of markets and rapidly evolving technology force businesses to
1515 | P a g e respond in order to survive. Such changes may be relatively minor—as in the case of installing a new software program—or quite major—as in the case of refocusing an overall marketing strategy, fighting off a hostile takeover, or transforming a company in the face of persistent foreign competition.
According to the Webster's dictionary, culture is the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a given people in a given period. “The only thing constant within organisations is the continual change of these organizations.” This line is widespread and famous within organisational and management literature. Organisational change has become a topic of many text books and other scientific and management literature. Despite this growing attention and research, still many of the efforts of organisational change fail.Culture is a term that is used regularly in workplace discussions. It is taken for granted that we understand what it means. In their noted publication In Search of Excellence, Peters and Waterman (1982) drew a lot of attention to the importance of culture to achieving high levels of organisational effectiveness. This spawned many subsequent publications on how to manage organisational culture (eg. Deal & Kennedy 1982; Ott 1989; Bate 1994). If organisational culture is to be managed it helps first to be able to define it, for definitions of culture influence approaches to managing culture. Defining organisational culture is, however, not an easy task, for while there is general agreement about the components of culture as a broad construct, there is considerable disagreement about:
*what constitutes organizational culture,
*whether the culture of a given organization can ever be adequately described,
*whether culture management can ever be truly effective and, if so,
*Which management strategies are most likely to succeed.
Despite the claims of some authors, there are no simple or right answers to these questions and, as indicated previously, approaches to culture management are contingent upon the manager‟s or change agent‟s conception of organizational culture.
The purpose of this paper is to identify and discuss some of the significant issues relating to the management of an organization‟s culture. As organizational cultures are born within the context of broader cultural contexts such as national or ethic groupings, the paper will commence by defining „culture‟ in the wider social context.
This definition wills subsequently form the basis for discussion of definitions of organizational culture and the paradigms and perspectives that underpin these. The paper will then discuss the issue of whether there is one dominant culture that typifies an organization, or whether an organization is really a collection or sub-set of loosely bound group identities. Finally, the paper identifies some implications for the management of culture management and change.
1516 | P a g e 1.1 Literature Review
Organizational Performance One of the important questions in business has been why some organizations succeeded while others failed. Organization performance has been the most important issue for every organization be it profit or non-profit one. It has been very important for managers to know which factors influence an organization‟s performance in order for them to take appropriate steps to initiate them.
However, defining, conceptualizing, and measuring performance have not been an easy task. Researchers among themselves have different opinions and definitions of performance, which remains to be a contentious issue among organizational researchers (Barney, 1997). The central issue concerns with the appropriateness of various approaches to the concept utilization and measurement of organizational performance (Venkatraman &
Ramanuiam, 1986).
1.2 Definition of Organizational Performance
Researchers among themselves have different opinions of performance. Performance, in fact, continues to be a contentious issue among organizational researchers (Barney, 1997). For example, according to Javier (2002), performance is equivalent to the famous 3Es (economy, efficiency, and effectiveness) of a certain program or activity.
However, according to Daft (2000), organizational performance is the organization‟s ability to attain its goals by using resources in an efficient and effective manner. Quite similar to Daft (2000), Richardo (2001) defined organizational performance as the ability of the organization to achieve its goals and objectives.
Organizational performance has suffered from not only a definition problem, but also from a conceptual problem. This is what Hefferman and Flood (2000) stated. They stated that as a concept in modern management, organizational performance suffered from problems of conceptual clarity in a number of areas.
The first was the area of definition while the second was that of measurement. The term performance was sometimes confused with productivity.
According to Ricardo (2001), there was a difference between performance and productivity. Productivity was a ratio depicting the volume of work completed in a given amount of time. Performance was a broader indicator that could include productivity as well as quality, consistency and other factors. In result oriented evaluation, productivity measures were typically considered.
II. CULTURE IN A BROADER SOCIAL CONTEXT
In its very broadest sense, culture serves to delineate different groupings of people on the basis of the extent to which each group is perceived and perceives itself to share similar ways of seeing and interacting with the animate, inanimate and spiritual world (Benedict 1934; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck 1961; Trompenaars 1993).
Australian culture, for example, may thus arguably be described as more similar to that of the United States of America than to that of Malaysia.
Cultures are based in history, developing over time as groups establish patterns of behaviour and belief that seem effective in helping them to interpret and interact with the world in which they find themselves.
Australian „mateship‟ behaviour, for example, served early male white settlers in a harsh and sparsely populated world much better than the maintenance of the hierarchical class distinctions typical of the world from which they had come. From such new, adaptive patterns of behaviour arise new beliefs, such as a belief in egalitarianism. These new behaviours, values and beliefs, together with the associated rituals, myths and
1517 | P a g e symbols that arise to support them, combine over time to establish and then to reinforce the core assumptions of the culture. In addition to providing implicit guidelines for behaviour and the channelling of emotion (Trice &
Beyer 1993), cultures serve to give people a sense of belonging through collective identity and thus break down the intrinsic isolation of the individual. It is also important to realise that culture can also define differences between groups. Culture identifies particular groups by their similarities as well as their differences.
Although cultures are dynamic to the extent that changed circumstances can lead to the incorporation of new patterns of behaviour or ideologies, typically these are overlaid on existing core assumptions and thus a culture may exhibit what seem to be complex ambiguities or paradoxes (Trice & Beyer 1993) until such time new behavioural adaptations to the environment give rise to a new belief system and set of core assumptions.
This can be clearly seen in the case of egalitarianism, a value that is probably associated with a core assumption that life should be lived cooperatively, rather than competitively. While most Australians continue to proclaim egalitarianism as an Australian value, under the changed circumstances of greater urbanization and commercialization of labour, they also now display enthusiasm for job or salary-related status which tends to be associated with competitive behaviour. It may be that over time, as behaviours and values move towards competitiveness, deeply held assumptions about the viability of cooperative relationships will also shift to emphasize the greaterviability of competitive relationships.
2.1 Goals of Organisational Communication
According to Francis (1989) organisational communication commonly has two goals (De Ridder, 2003). The first goal of organisational communication should be to inform the employees about their tasks and about the policy and other issues of the organisation. The second goal is communication with a mean to create a community within the organisation. Roughly, a distinction can be made between organizational communication as a mean to provide information (“communicatio”) and organizational communication as a mean to create a community spirit (“communicare”; Francis, 1989; De Ridder, 2003).In line with these goals, within organisational change we can distinct between the information given about the change, and the sense of a community within the organisation before, during and after the change.
The information given by the organisation about the change should address the reasons to change, and the worries employees initially will have. The information given by the organisation usually comes from management as the sender, and with employees as the receiver of information. In this sense, common communicational theories of sender, message, channel, and receiver and noise could be applied to this communication. Specific aspects are if the information of the change was in time, that the information was understandable, and that it contained no errors and so on.. One of the main purposes of change communication should be to inform the organisational members about the change, and how their work is altered because of the change. This informative function of communication wills has an effect on readiness for change.
III. TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING CHANGE EFFECTIVELY:
Managing change effectively requires moving the organization from its current state to a future desired state at minimal cost to the organization. Key steps in that process are:
1. Understanding the current state of the organization. This involves identifying problems the company faces, assigning a level of importance to each one, and assessing the kinds of changes needed to solve the problems.
1518 | P a g e 2. Competently envisioning and laying out the desired future state of the organization. This involves picturing the ideal situation for the company after the change is implemented, conveying this vision clearly to everyone involved in the change effort, and designing a means of transition to the new state. An important part of the transition should be maintaining some sort of stability; some things—such as the company's overall mission or key personnel—should remain constant in the midst of turmoil to help reduce people's anxiety.
3. Implementing the change in an orderly manner. This involves managing the transition effectively. It might be helpful to draw up a plan, allocate resources, and appoint a key person to take charge of the change process. The company's leaders should try to generate enthusiasm for the change by sharing their goals and vision and acting as role models. In some cases, it may be useful to try for small victories first in order to pave the way for later successes.
IV. DEFINING ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Like wider delineations such as national culture, an organisational culture may be generally described asa set of norms, beliefs, principles and ways of behaving that together give organisation a distinctive character (Brown 1995). Like national cultures, organisational cultures form and are transformed over time. There is broad agreement amongst writers that around the time of its inception, an organisation responds to and reflects industry characteristics such as the competitive environment and customer requirements, together with the wider community values held by its employees, and also the values and behaviors‟ of its founders or early leaders (eg. Schein 1985; Ott 1989; Gordon 1991). What may happen some years from the time of inception, however, is warmly debated, for at this point organisational culture writers and change agents divide into separate camps formed on the basis of distinct paradigms and perspectives. For writers and researchers who take an „anthropological‟ stance, organisations are cultures (Bate 1994) describing something that an organisation is (Smircich 1983) and thus, like national cultures, an organisation comprises:
1. A pattern of shared basic assumptions,
2. invented, discovered, or developed by a given group,
3. as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, 4. That has worked well enough to be considered valid, and, therefore,
5. Is to be taught to new members of the group as the
6. Correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (Schein 1991, p. 247).
In this paradigm, organisational culture is both defined and circumscribed by group parameters (e.g. language, concepts, boundaries, ideology) and by normative criteria that provides the basis for allocating status, power, authority, rewards, punishment, friendship and respect (Schein 1991). Culture determines what a group pays attention to and monitors in the external environment and how it responds to this environment. Thus, as Bate (1994) notes, for those who take an anthropological stance, organisational culture and organisational strategy are inextricably linked and interdependent. Culture, in this paradigm, is not a separable facet of an organisation, it is not readily manipulated or changed, and it is not created or maintained primarily by leaders. Over time, early leaders‟ beliefs and behaviours are likely to be translated into assumptions that subsequently guide the organisation. Because these assumptions operate often at a sub-conscious level and come to be shared by all organisation members, they are not easily displaced by new organisational values and beliefs articulated by later leaders. Although the use of rewards or sanctions may prompt changes in employee‟s behaviour to bring it
1519 | P a g e into line with new stated values, it is usually a long time before these changes influence the deep assumptions held by members entrenched in the culture.
When researchers seek to investigate organisational culture using an anthropological paradigm, they tend to engage in „cultural audits‟ which involve extensive observations of behaviour, interviews and examination of organisation documents and other artefacts. While the data collected is likely to provide a comprehensive overview of the distinct cultural features of a given organisation (albeit that these are usually derived by the researcher), the amount of material to be gathered and interpreted may render this method of organisational analysis time-consuming and unwieldy.
For the writers described by Bate (1994) as „scientific rationalists‟, organisational culture is but one aspect of the component parts of an organisation, a facet that can be measured, manipulated staff (Peters & Waterman 1982). In this paradigm, organisational culture is primarily a set of values and beliefs articulated by leaders to guide the organisation, translated by managers and employees into appropriate behaviours and reinforced through rewards and sanctions. „Scientific rationalist‟ writers thus tend to talk about culture as if it is a definable thing — the culture of the organisation; the organisation has a service culture — and their strategies for change focus on „modular, design-and-build activity‟ often related to structures, procedures and rewards (Bate 1994, p. 11).
They usually discuss organisational culture from the perspective of managers, rather than workers, and often emphasise the leader‟s role in creating, maintaining or transforming culture: „leaders help to shape the culture.
The culture helps to shape its members ... culture, then, stands at the apex of the leader‟s responsibility hierarchy‟ (Hampden-Turner 1990, pp. 7, 9). In this paradigm, „organisational culture‟ is sometimes used interchangeably with „corporate culture‟ which Linstead & Grafton Small (1992, p. 333) describe as:
the term used for a culture devised by management and transmitted, marketed, sold or imposed on the rest of the organization ...; with both internal and external images ... yet also including action and belief — the rites, rituals, stories, and values which are offered to organizational members as part of the seductive process of achieving membership and gaining commitment.
When investigation of deeper distinctive characteristics of a particular organisational culture is called for, researchers or consultants who subscribe to the scientific rationalist paradigm tend to use survey instruments (such as those used by Hofstede et al. 1990 and Hofstede 1991).
These instruments bring to the surface factors which purport to be features of particular cultures, but which are in actuality a quantitative summary of individuals‟responses to questions about how they might behave in a limited set of situations which the researcher predicts will be useful for highlighting cultural differences. In other words, the researcher determines what scenarios or concepts should be used to describe the culture and then tests to see which of the scenarios or concepts are accepted by the majority of respondents as most relevant to a given culture.
4.1 The GLOBE Study
The Global Leadership Organizational Behavior Effectiveness (GLOBE) Research Program (1992-2000). The GLOBE research has the following dimensions, which included those five dimensions proposed earlier by Hofstde‟s (1980). These dimensions were defined as follows:
(i) Power-distance, degree to which power is expected to be equally shared.
1520 | P a g e (ii) Uncertainty avoidance, extent to which norms and procedures are relied upon to alleviate the unpredictable
future events.
(iii) Individualism - collectivism, degree to which individuals are encouraged to be integrated into groups.
(iv) Gender differentiation, extent to which gender role differences are maximized or minimized.
(iv) Future orientation, extent to which future-oriented behaviors such as planning, investing and delaying gratifications are encouraged and rewarded.
(v) Performance orientation, degree to which rewards are encouraged for performance improvement and excellence.
(vi) Human orientation, degree to which individuals are encouraged to be fair, altruistic, generous, friendly and caring towards others.
(vii) Assertiveness, degree to which members are encouraged to be tough, confrontational, competitive and assertive, as opposed to modest and tender.
The four new dimensions added to Hofstede‟s four dimensions were future orientation, performance orientation, humane orientation and assertiveness. These four dimensions are explained below.
V. ONE CULTURE OR MANY?
Collins and Porras‟ (1994, p. 8) study of visionary companies — Built to Last — provides a clear example of an anthropological paradigm combined with a unitarist perspective in its claim that:
A visionary company almost religiously preserves its core ideology — changing it seldom, if ever. Core values ... form a rock-solid foundation and do not drift with the trends and fashions of the day.
A unitarist perspective also underpins various category descriptions of organisational culture. For example, Handy (1993) asserts that organisations exhibit either role, task, power or person orientated cultures.
Change agents or writers who take a unitarist perspective generally argue for change or maintenance of organisational culture through top-down leadership and organisationwide systems and programs. From the unitarist perspective, the essential unity of the organisation makes it possible for the leader or leadership group to effectively control or alter organisational direction. This sort of top-down organisational control may conceivably occur in transnational companies, in which national or professional cultures arguably exert less influence, but many writers or change agents perceive in most organisations the existence of sub-cultures which militate against the effectiveness of top-down cultural leadership.
Those who take a pluralist perspective and recognize the existence within organisations of diverse sub-cultures arising from factors such as professional affiliation, status, social or divisional interactions, argue that organisational success springs from the effective leadership and management of diversity, and that cultural change or maintenance efforts have to be undertaken through programs specifically designed for different segments of the organisation. International companies, with national subsidiaries tied to a parent company, often exhibit distinct cultures interacting with the parent company culture, but so also do many nationally-based companies where, for example, research and development divisions may form a sub-culture quite different from that of marketing divisions.
Public sector healthcare organisations such as Queensland Health have long been subjected to cultural silos that have emerged from the development of powerful professional groups such as medical and nursing associations.
Ogbonna & Wilkinson‟s (1990) study of the effects of a supermarket cultural change program from a cost- minimization to a customer service focus) further demonstrates that, in some organisations, not only do distinct
1521 | P a g e subcultures exist (supermarket checkout operators vs managers), but that changes in training, rewards and structures may achieve change in the values of one group (the managers) and only superficial behavioral changes in the other group (the checkout operators). The checkout operators behaved in the way required but did this because they were required to do so, rather than because they had personally come to believe in the importance of better customer service.
Even more fragmentation in organisational cultures than is evidenced in the supermarket example may result from recent changes in organisational configurations, such as the growth of project work, network organisations or strategic alliances in which individuals from across an organisation or from several separate organisations join together temporarily to undertake a specific task. In such instances, the transient and diverse nature of the work grouping is clearly unlikely to foster the formation of an organisation-wide culture or even a sub-culture.
The anarchist perspective argues that in any case, all organisations are comprised of individuals who bring with them their own values and assumptions and thus there really can be no underlying cultural unity at any level except on a transient basis (Frost et al. 1991). Such fragmentation may be found even in traditionally structured firms for, in their study of twenty organisational cultures, Hofstede et al. (1990, p. 311) found:
Shared perceptions of daily practices to be the core of an organization‘s culture.... employee values differed more according to the demographic criteria of nationality, age, and education than according to membership in the organization per se.
The anarchist perception of organisational culture implies the impossibility of effecting cultural change through concerted change efforts, but it also highlights the centrality of effective communication and management of diversity if the loosely-coupled organisation is to remain functional and not break apart (Weick 1991).
The question of whether there is one culture or many operating within the organisational context is an important issue for managing culture. Each of the three perspectives discussed above provide some valuable insights into addressing the question.
VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR CULTURE MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE
There exist two basic approaches to culture and, by implication, strategy: conforming (maintaining order and continuity) and transforming (changing and breaking existing patterns) (Bate 1994). As demonstrated by the subsequent poor performance of many of Peters and Waterman‟s (1982) so-called „excellent‟ companies, the effectiveness of the chosen approach to organisational culture and strategy at any given time is dependent upon contextual factors relating to both the internal and the external environment (Bate 1994). Thus, context determines a culture needs to be maintained or changed, but the strategies adopted are very much determined by the paradigm and perspective subscribed to by the manager or change agent.
In dealing with the management of organisational culture, it is firstly necessary to identify as fully as possible the attributes of the existing or new target culture — the myths, symbols, rituals, values and assumptions that underpin the culture. Subsequently, action can be instigated in any of several key points of leverage (Allen 1985; Davis 1985; Trice & Beyer 1985; Kilman et al. 1986; Schneider & Rentsch 1988):
* recruitment, selection and replacement — culture management can be affected by ensuring that appointments strengthen the existing culture/s or support a culture shift; removal and replacement may be used to dramatically change the culture;
1522 | P a g e
*socialisation — induction and subsequent development and training can provide for acculturation to an existing or new culture and also for improved interpersonal communication and teamwork, which is especially critical in fragmented organisational cultures;
* performance management/reward systems — can be used to highlight and encourage desired behaviours which may (or may not) in turn lead to changed values;
*leadership and modelling — by executives, managers, supervisors can reinforce or assist in the overturning of existing myths, symbols, behaviour and values, and demonstrates the universality and integrity of vision, mission or value statements;
*participation — of all organisation members in cultural reconstruction or maintenance activities and associated input, decision-making and development activities is essential if long-term change in values, and not just behaviours, is to be achieved;
*interpersonal communication — satisfying interpersonal relationships do much to support an existing organisational culture and integrate members into a culture; effective teamwork supports either change or development in and communication of culture; and
*Structures, policies, procedures and allocation of resources — need to be congruent with organisational strategy and culture and objectives.
The above constitute a number of many strategies and leverage points that can be used in organizations to manipulate an organisation in terms of its overall culture and the subcultures that are contained within. The management of culture is based on a sophisticated understanding of the tacit and explicit aspects that make-up the existing culture.
6.1 Limitations
Communication is not the only key factor of successful organisational change. The actual design of the change and the strategic choices made within the design are of course precursors of effective changes. As stated before, many of the academic literature focuses on the constructional phase of organisational change. The aim of the model presented in this paper, is not to give organisations a tool of creating effective communication and as a result design changes that will make sense. The aim of the model is more empirical, in that sense that it could guide future empirical research.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper I tried to explain the role of communication during organizational change by reflecting the goals of internal communication (Francis, 1989), and discuss them in relation to organisational change. A distinction between the informative function of communication and communication as a mean to create a community was made. In the suggested model communication has not only an effect on readiness for change, but also on uncertainty. What constitutes organisational culture and its perceived role in organisational success are contested, resting on perceptions of culture either as a historically-based, changeresistant, deep social system which underpins all organisational strategy and action, or as just one aspect of the total organisational system, manipulable though surface structures such as rewards. The paradigm adopted will determine which of the key points of leverage are deemed most likely to achieve the desired outcome of cultural maintenance or change.
The perspective adopted will determine the focus of cultural change, development or maintenance activities, that
1523 | P a g e is, whether they are to involve the whole organisation, identified sub-cultures, or small cells brought together for specific projects.
REFERENCES
1) Abu Kasim, Nor Aziah, Minai, Badriay and Chun, Loo Sin (1989). Performance Measures in Malaysia- TheState of the Art. Malaysia Management Review,vol.24:3-9
2) Arthur, J.B.(1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on Manufacturing Performance and Turnover.
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3),670-687.
3) Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.(2002)―Crafting a change management to createtrans formational readiness‖, Journal of Organil Change Manag, Vol.15No. 2, pp. 169-83.
4) Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy. The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman and Company, NewYork, NY.
5)Allen, R. 1985, ‗Four Phases for Bringing About Cultural Change„, in Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, eds R. Kilmann, M. Saxton, R. Serpa, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
6) Bate, S. 1994, Strategies for Cultural Change, Butterworth Heinemann, and Oxford.
7) Benedict, R. 1934, Patterns of Culture, Houghton Mifflin, Boston 8) Brown, A. 1995, Organisational Culture, Pitman Publishing, London.
9) Collins, J. & Porras, J. 1994, Built to Last, Century, London.
10) Davis, T. 1985, ‗Managing Culture at the Bottom„, in Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, eds R.
Kilmann, M. Saxton, R. Serpa, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
11) Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life, Addison- Wesley, Reading, MA.
12) Frost, P., Moore, L., Reis Louis, M., Lundberg, C., & Martin, J. (eds) 1991, Reframing Organizational Culture, Sage, Newbury Park.
13) Gordon, G. 1991, ‗Industry Determinants of Organizational Culture„, Academy of Management Review, vol 16, no. 2. pp. 396-415.
14) Hampden-Turner, C. 1990, Creating Corporate Culture, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
15) Handy, C. 1993, Understanding Organizations, Penguin, London.
16) Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Dval Ohayv, D. & Sanders, G. 1990, ‗Measuring Organizational Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study Across Twenty Cases„, Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp 286-316.
17) Hofstede, G. 1991, Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, London.
18) R. Kilmann, M. Saxton & R. Serpa, 1986, ‗Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture„, California Management Review, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 87-94.
19)Kluckhohn, C. & Strodtbeck, F. 1961, Variations in Value Orientations, Row Publishing, Illinois.
20) Linstead, S. & Grafton-Small, R. 1992, ‗On Reading Organizational Culture„, Organization Studies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp 331-55.
21) Ogbonna, E. & Wilkinson, B. 1990, ‗Corporate Strategy and Corporate Culture: The View from the Checkout„, Personnel Review, vol 19, no. 4., pp. 9-15.
22) Ott, J. S. 1989, The Organizational Culture Perspective, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California.
23) Peters, T. & Waterman, R. 1982, In Search of Excellence, Harper & Row, 24) Sydney. Francis, D. (1989), Organisational Communication, Gower, Aldershot.
1524 | P a g e 25)Schneider, B. & Rentsch, J. 1988, ‗Managing Climates and Cultures: A Futures Perspective„, inFutures of
Organizations, ed. J. Hage, Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
26) Smircich L. 1983, ‗Concepts of Culture and Organisational Analysis„ Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 3, pp. 339-358.
27) Trice, H. & Beyer, J. 1993, The Cultures of Work Organizations, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
28) Trice, H. & Beyer, J. 1985, ‗Using Six Organizational Rites to Change Culture„, in Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture, eds R. Kilmann, M. Saxton, R. Serpa, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
29) Trompenaars, F. 1993, Riding the Waves of Culture, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
30) Weick, K. 1991, ‗The Vulnerable System: an Analysis of the Tenerife Air Disaster„, in Reframing Organizational Culture, eds P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Reis Louis, C. Lundberg & J. Martin, Sage, Newbury Park.
31) French, W.L., Bell, C.H. and Zawacki, R.A. (2000), Organizational Development and Transformation:
Managing Effective Change, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
