How can management develop a culture in an organizational spin-off that
effectively combines the existing culture of the parent organization with the
entrepreneurial culture required for an organizational spin-off?
Evi Cathelijne Beukelaar (10282696)
Amsterdam, 30 January 2014 Supervisor: Dr. Ir. J. Kraaijenbrink
“... there is no more delicate matter to take in hand, nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of things, and only lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off under the new.” (Machiavelli, 1469–1527)
Acknowledgement
First I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Ir. J. Kraaijenbrink for his support, patience and insights from my initial research proposal until the final version of this thesis. It is because of his constructive criticism and feedback that I was able to keep on improving my research and make it a thesis I am proud of. Second I would like to thank all the respondents and interviewees who enthusiastically provided me with the data to write this thesis. Next I would like to thank the unit manager and laboratory manager of the microbiology laboratory for their support during the past 3 years and for giving me the time and space to make this challenge a success. Furthermore I would like to thank my friends for their encouragement and the needed and desired distractions and my (step-) parents for their endless support, listening to me no matter what and helping me where I needed it. Finally I want to thank Marcel Eijgermans for his ceaseless support and care, positive attitude, encouraging feedback and just being there for me from the beginning until the end.
Table of contents Summary………7 1. Introduction………7 2. Literature review………...12 2.1 Spinoffs...………..………12 2.2 Organizational culture………...14
2.3 The elements of organizational culture…….………15
2.4 The Competing Values Framework………..17
2.4.1 The hierarchy (control) culture………...18
2.4.2 The market (compete) culture………...19
2.4.3 The clan (collaborate) culture………...19
2.4.4 The adhocracy (create) culture………...19
2.5 Entrepreneurial culture………..20
2.6 Spin-offs and culture……….………21
2.7 Culture change………..……….23 2.8 Résumé ………….……….………...27 3. Research design………..………29 3.1 Research approach………...………..29 3.2 Data collection……….………..31 3.3 Data analysis………...35 3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews………35
3.3.2 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)……...37
3.4 Research setting……….………38
3.4.2 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)……...43
3.5 Validity and reliability………...………...44
3.5.1 The interviews………...44
3.5.2 The OCAI……….45
4. Results……….48
4.1 The interviews………..……….48
4.1.1 Results OLVG………..48
4.1.1.1 The organizational culture……….48
4.1.1.2 The organizational spin-off OLVG………...55
4.1.2 Results ICTR and SDS………..60
4.1.2.1 The organizational culture at the ICTR……….60
4.1.2.2 The organizational culture at the SDS………...64
4.1.2.3 The development of the current organization………....66
(ICTR & SDS) 4.2 The OCAI……….………...71
4.2.1 Overall results………72
4.2.2 Results per laboratory………74
4.2.3 Results per function group………78
4.2.4 Results per age category………82
4.2.5 Results per gender………..85
5. Conclusion………...88
6. Discussion………96
6.1 Limitations……….………96
7. References………...99
Appendix……….107
I. Interview protocol 1a………107
II. Interview protocol 1b………....109
III. Interview protocol 2………..112
IV. The OCAI………...115
V. Overview distribution of points OCAI………123
Summary
Many companies are being forced due to the economic crisis on the one hand and politics on the other hand to reflect on their way of doing business. One possibility is to consider the divestment of one or more units and to turn them into an independent organization, a so called organizational spin-off. This way costs can be decreased and risks can be spread. The OLVG (Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis) is currently considering to divest three laboratories and to transform them into a new independent organization together with four other hospitals. The process to create a new organization through an organizational spin-off is not described in the current literature as such. This thesis proposes a step-by-step plan to commence the process to create a new organization through an organizational spin-off. This process consists of four steps, the first is to establish a vision and to obtain a clear view where you want to go. The second step is to measure the culture and to recognize anxieties. The next step is to decrease anxieties and to increase learning by creating psychological safety and through this commence the change. The final step is to internalize and integrate the new concepts, ideas and constructs.
1. Introduction
With the current economic crisis, companies are more than ever looking for ways to survive. Even hospitals are feeling the pain of the need to economize. Imposed cuts on hospitals through decisions by politics have ensured that hospitals have become more conscious of their financial situation. These decisions include a maximum of research that will be
reimbursed by the health care insurance companies (a so called ceiling on production) and a maximum increase of the costs of 2,5 percent for each hospital per year (van de Poel 2011; van de Poel 2012). Because of this hospitals are increasingly aware of the need for strategic innovation to respond to the competitive challenges that have arisen. There are hospitals that
are looking for alliances with other hospital and there are hospitals that want to outsource some of their activities, for example the laboratories. Either way, hospitals need to make a choice how to deal with these changes and adapt to their environment. The Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis (OLVG), a city hospital in Amsterdam, is deliberating another way to face the current difficulties in the healthcare industry. Currently, the board of directors of the OLVG is, in consultation with the board of directors of four other hospitals, considering the feasibility of spinning-off the laboratories as an independent company outside the hospital. These other hospitals are the Flevoziekenhuis, the St. Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis and the MCgroep whom currently are customers of the OLVG. The fourth hospital is the BovenIJ ziekenhuis that has outsourced its laboratories currently to another hospital but whose contract will end in 2014. In this organizational spin-off a new company will be created and all participating hospitals become co-owner. This construction makes all participants responsible for the results. With a new company normally new employees arrive that bring a new culture (Schein 1983), but in the present case the new company consists of employees that already worked in the existing laboratories. It is important that these employees stay in the new company because they bring a lot of knowledge that is critical for the spin-off to be created, to build it and make it successful. Some of the most successful firms, like Apple and Walmart, mention their organizational culture as the key ingredient in their success (Cameron & Quinn 2011). Organizational culture is of critical importance for the organizational
spin-off by the OLVG and therefore organizational culture is the main focus of this thesis. Culture is developed over time., it consists of the shared beliefs and assumptions of the people working in that organization (Schein 1983). As stated by Nohria et al. (2003) , culture is that what binds everybody together. Barney (1986) writes that organizations with a strong culture can be seen as examples of best management and that an organizations’ culture is one of the characteristics that distinguishes one organization from the other. According to
Heracleous (1995) a culture is a sustainable competitive advantage that a company can possess, for the simple reason that a culture is intangible. Barney (1986) describes in his article three conditions for organizational culture to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. These are that the culture must be valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable. A
valuable culture means that this culture enables an organization to add financial value to the firm. A rare culture is a culture with properties and characteristics that are uncommon in most other organizations. The last condition, imperfectly imitable, means that a culture cannot be imitated. This forms an advantage in comparison to the organization that is trying to imitate that culture. An organization that owns a valuable, rare and imperfectly imitable culture savors a sustained competitive advantage that reflects that culture and should nurture this culture. When an organization decides to divest a unit and to change it into an
independent company, automatically the organizational culture comes into play. In the case of a radical change within an organization, like an organizational spin-off, the employees need support and assistance to adapt to the new situation (Birkinshaw & Gibson 2004). However, the organizational spin-off can be seen as a reaction to changes in the market conditions and because of this a change in culture is needed. With these arisen issues, on the one hand the existing organizational culture is important to support employees facing radical changes, while on the other hand the reaction to market conditions requires a new culture. This leads to a contradiction, namely that in an organizational spin-off where the employees transfer from a unit to an independent company, an old culture is needed to support the employees to adapt to new situation, while changes in the culture are needed to achieve competitive advantage for the new company. In the current literature no attention is paid to this controversy. Several gaps in the literature appear to exist. It is stated by Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) that it is important to hold on to the current culture in order to provide a safe environment for the employees and let them adjust to the new situation Other authors (e.g.
Heracleous 1995) state that it is important to develop a new culture to achieve competitive advantage when faced with changing market conditions. When encountered with the development of an organizational spin-off, the current culture needs to be combined with a new culture. The gap in the literature is that no research has reported on how to combine the current culture with a new culture, i.e. how to make the employees adapt to the new situation and to achieve competitive advantage for the new organization. In the literature there also appears to be a gap regarding the question how a spin-off balances its legitimacy gained from the relationship with the founder company while on the same time it is moving away from that founder company and becomes an independent organization with its own identity (Sahaym 2012). The final gap is that most research done on organizational spin-offs is focused on technology based companies (Chavez et al. 2002, Parhankangas & Arenius 2003, Sahaym 2012) or stock market listed companies (Schipper & Smith 1983, Corley & Gioia 2004) and not on organizations in the health care industry like hospitals that create an
organizational spin-off. The findings of this study represent an interesting example of culture development during the creation of an organizational spin-off in the health care industry and through this addresses the three found gaps. On account of the current economic crisis and politics that react to this, it is very well possible that more companies in the health care industry will spin-off units to meet the restrictions, safe costs and on the long run, to safeguard their own survival. For this reason it is important to fill the gaps in the existing literature. The case of the organizational spin-offs combined with the information that can be found in the literature leads to the following research question for this thesis:
How can management develop a culture in an organizational spin-off that effectively combines the existing culture of the parent organization with the entrepreneurial culture required for an organizational spin-off?
1. What is organizational culture and what are the elements of culture? 2. What is an entrepreneurial culture?
3. How can organizational culture be measured? 4. What is the process for developing a culture?
The subquestions are drawn up because in order to do research on culture, one needs to understand culture, know the different elements it consists of, and the different types there are. When this is clear, the next step is to elucidate what an entrepreneurial culture is, because that will be the culture the organizational spin-off needs to change into. To transform to such a culture, it is necessary to know what the current culture is, that way it will become clear which actions need to be taken. To know the organizational culture it is necessary to measure the organizational culture. When these actions are known, the process to get there is the logical final step to answer the research question. The first three subquestions are answered with the current literature. A questionnaire, the Organizational Cultural Assessment
Instrument, or OCAI, is transmitted and semi-structured interviews are held at the OLVG in order to understand the organizational culture of the OLVG. The OCAI is held at the three laboratories and the interviews go vertically through the microbiology laboratory. For the fourth question the management of two established companies that started off as spin-offs are interviewed with the use of the semi-structures interviews. Through these interviews the process followed to transform into an entrepreneurial culture becomes clear. Two organizations have been interviewed. One is a software development company in the rehabilitation industry and the second a search engine engineering company. Also the literature is used to answer the fourth question. After thorough analysis of all the data a step-by-step process is proposed on how to develop an entrepreneurial culture for an organizational spin-off while taking the culture of the founder company into account is
developed. This step-by-step process indicates where the OLVG stands now and which steps have to be made to create the organizational spin-off.
2. Literature review
In this section the different components of this thesis, spin-off companies and their culture, are more extensively clarified and the link between these components is elucidated.
Subsequently the four subquestions What is organizational culture and what are its
elements?, What is an entrepreneurial culture?, How can organizational culture be
measured? and What is the process for developing a culture are answered.
2.1. Spin-offs
One way to create a new company is through spin-offs. The term spin-off has many different meanings in the literature and can be put in three categories. One category of spin-offs is new companies created by employees of an incumbent company with the support of the
incumbent company (Cooper, 1971; Corley & Gioia, 2004; Sahaym, 2012). A second category of spin-offs are new companies created by employees of an incumbent company without the support of the incumbent company (Garvin, 1983; Klepper, 2009). A third category of spin-off is the organizational spin-off where a new company is created as the result of a strategic decision made by the parent company (Corley & Gioia 2004; Sahaym 2012). In this kind of spin-off the parent company arranges the complete set up of the organizational spin-off with no room for individual entrepreneurship (Koster, 2006). An organizational spin-off can also be called a voluntary divestiture. With a voluntary divestiture there are two types of divestitures, one is a sell-off and the other is a spin-off. In a sell-off the divesting company gives up control and ownership of the divested part and receives cash in return. In a spin-off the divested unit becomes an independent company under new
management but the founder company remains the owner (Khan & Mehta 1996). This last description is in accordance with the description of organizational spin-offs. For this thesis the category organizational spin-off will be used. The reason for this is that the OLVG and the other hospitals are the initiators of this organizational spin-off, they make this strategic decision, and they will be the biggest shareholders of the organizational spin-off. There are several advantages of an organizational spin-off, some of which are that it can lead to more efficiency, that it can give the possibility for entrepreneurial activities and that it can make a contribution to an organization’s competitive advantage (Phan et al. 2009). Different reasons can be identified for a parent company to set up an organizational spin-off. Schipper & Smith (1983) have done research on the wealth effects of voluntary spin-offs and they found several reasons for organizational spin-offs. These reasons are to loosen constraints of regulatory or institutional environment, to improve managerial efficiency, to enhance investor evaluation of the founder and subsidiary by dividing them and to remove a source of fluctuation in net income. Rosenfeld (1984) mentions a financial reason namely that the alteration of the tax status of the divested unit which results in a financial advantage may also be a reason for an organizational spin-off. Garvin (1983) states that among other things efficiency through economies of scale by creating an organizational spin-off can be a reason. Also the increasing of employment or the creation of wealth (Carayannis et al. 1998) or to unlock shareholder value of a business unit that is not critical for the success of the parent company (Chavez et al. 2000) can be reasons for a parent company to create a spin-off. Whatever the reason the decision to create an organizational spin-off is strongly rooted in the character of the relation between the organizational spin-off and the parent company (Parhankangas & Arenius 2003).
2.2. Organizational culture
Organizational culture has been studied since the 1940s but it was not until the 1980s that it has become a subject of many studies (Alvesson 2013; Cameron & Quinn 2011). Some of the most important works on this subject are by Schein (1983, 1984), the reason for this is that he has been one of the first to describe the creation of an organizational culture as a dynamic process and as a pattern of basic assumptions that should be taught to new members of the organization. Schein (1984, 2009) concludes that culture exists at various levels.
Visible
3.
4. Invisible
Figure 1 Levels of Culture (Source: Schein 2009)
According to Schein (1984, 2009) artifacts are visible, organizational structures and processes which are hard to decipher. Espoused values are the strategies, goals and
philosophies of the organization and these are espoused justifications. The last one are the underlying assumptions. These comprise of unconscious, taken for granted beliefs,
perceptions, thought and feelings and these are the ultimate source of values and actions. To know about organizational culture each level should be understood and managed. Culture is a complex concept and the basic facts are that culture is deep, broad and stable (Schein 2009). Organizational culture and organizational identity are interconnected according to
Artifacts
Espoused values
Underlying assumptions
Alvesson (2013), where identity ‘…..refers to ideas on how people in an organization define
what is distinct and unique about the organization, culture covers a broader terrain
including meanings and beliefs about a wider set of issues of more indirect relevance for self-definition.’ (p.38.). In research done by Hatch and Schultz (1997), it is concluded that
identity, culture and image form three related parts that define an organization. Their
definition of the three parts is as follows, organizational identity is what the employees think, feel and comprehend about the organization. Organizational image is the impression held by an individual or a group of people about the organization and also the way the organization communicates and through this present a picture to the outside world. Organizational culture involves all the employees of the organization at all the hierarchical levels and it is based on the history of the organization including its name, products, services logos and buildings. According to Schein (1983) organizational culture is a pattern of assumptions that a certain group of people have developed over time and that has proved itself well enough so that it can be considered valid and because of this can be taught to new group members as the right way to perform tasks. Organizational culture is that what binds a group of people together (Nohria et al. 2003).
2.3 The elements of culture
Schein writes in his book ‘The corporate Cultural Survival Guide’ (2009) that when people are asked what organizational culture is about most would say that it is about human relations in the organization. According to Schein (2009) this is, even though correct, a too narrow view of organizational culture. Schein (2009) used the story of the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) to understand organizational culture. Studying this story, he found that culture does not only involve the internal procedures of the organization but also how the organization sees itself in relation to its environment. He came up with three areas of what
culture is about and these are the external survival issues, the internal integration issues and the deeper underlying assumptions. The external survival issues are about how the
organization presents itself to the outside world. The internal integration issues are about how the human relationships inside the organizations. The deeper underlying assumptions are about the basic core of all organizational culture. They are difficult to understand and recognize because these underlying assumptions are seldom pronounced. To recognize the underlying assumptions someone must become immersed in the organization and its culture. Underlying assumptions become apparent through internal representation, beliefs, emotions, and behaviors of members of the organization. Each of the areas consists of several elements: External survival issues:
• Mission, strategy and goals
• Means (structure, systems and processes)
• Measurement (error-detection and correction systems) Internal integration issues:
• Common language and concepts • Group boundaries and identity
• The nature of authority and relationships • Allocation of rewards and status
Deeper underlying assumptions: • Human relationships to nature • The nature of reality and truth • The nature of human nature • The nature of human relationships • The nature of time and place
In research done by Hendry & Hope (1994) the cultural web is used and this consists of the elements stories/myths, symbols, power structure, organizational structure, incentives, control systems, communication and rites/routines. When cultural change occurs Hendry & Hope (1994) assert that every element in the cultural web needs to change because all are
‘….mutually reinforcing’ (p. 403). Even though the words used for the elements are different, the underlying meaning show resemblance with the ones Schein (2009) uses. Cameron & Quinn (2011) define the elements of organizational culture as explicit behavior, artifacts, conscious contracts & norms and implicit assumptions which have a lot of resemblance with the levels of cultures that are identified by Schein (2009). To assess an organizational culture the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) as described by Cameron & Quinn (2011) can be used. This instrument is based on the Competing Values Framework and it consists of six dimensions with each four alternatives. These dimensions are:
• Dominant characteristics • Organizational leadership • Management of employees • Organization glue • Strategic emphases • Criteria of success
2.4 The Competing Values Framework
One way to identify the organizational culture of a company is through the Competing Value Framework (Cameron & Quinn 2011). This framework was originally developed to explain differences between different organizational effectiveness models (Quinn & Rohrbaugh 1981). In the competing Values Framework two important dimensions among organizations are distinguished (Cameron & Quinn 2011). The first dimension discerns effectiveness
criteria that accentuate flexibility, discretion and dynamism from criteria that accentuate flexibility, discretion and control. The second dimension discerns effectiveness criteria that accentuate an internal orientation, integration and unity from criteria that accentuate an external orientation, differentiation and rivalry. These two dimensions together than form four quadrants and each of these quadrants corresponds to a specific effectiveness indicator.
Flexibility and Discretion
Internal External
Focus Focus
and and
Integration Differentiation
Stability and Control
Figure 2 The Competing Values Framework (Source: Cameron & Quinn 2011)
Each of the quadrants has a label to classify its most prominent characteristics.
The labels in the Competing Values Framework represent the four major culture types. In this section each of the culture types will be explained as described by Cameron & Quinn (2011).
2.4.1 The hierarchy (control) culture
In this kind of organizational culture the lines of decision-making are clear, rules &
procedures are standardized and formal and control & accountability mechanisms are seen as the key to success. Organizations with a hierarchical culture are a formalized and structured
Clan (collaborate) Adhocracy (create)
place to work. It is important to stay a smoothly run organization and the long-term consideration are stability, predictability and efficiency.
2.4.2 The market (compete) culture
Organizations with this kind of culture function as a market itself, it has nothing to do with a marketing function or consumers in the marketplace. These organizations are oriented toward the external environment and not to internal affairs. The major focus is to doing transactions with external parties like suppliers, customers, contractors etc. to create competitive
advantage. The primary objectives of this kind of organizations are profitability, strength in market niches, secure customer bases and stretch targets. Competitiveness and productivity are the core values.
2.4.3 The clan (collaborate) culture
The label ‘clan’ refers to the similarity these organizations have with family-type organizations. What characterizes these organizations are their shared values & goals, cohesion, individuality, “we-ness”, teamwork, employee involvement and corporate
commitment to employees. According to clan culture based companies the market can best be approached through teamwork and customers are seen as partners. It is important that the work environment is a humane one and management sees it as their task to foster
employment participation, commitment and loyalty. 2.4.4 The adhocracy (create) culture
Organizations with an adhocracy culture assume that innovativeness and pioneering
initiatives lead to success. These organizations core business is developing new products and service and to be prepared for the future. It is important to foster entrepreneurship, creativity, adaptation, innovativeness which than leads to new resources and profitability. An adhocracy culture is characterized by being dynamic, entrepreneurial, creative, have a visionary and dare to take risks.
2.5 Entrepreneurial culture
Beugelsdijk (2007) has done research on the relationship between entrepreneurial culture and economic growth. In this research seven traits of entrepreneurial culture are described. These traits are: the need for achievement, locus of control, risk taking, creativity, the need for autonomy, tolerance for ambiguity and self-confidence. When taken the descriptions of the different culture types by Cameron & Quinn (2011) in account the culture that has the most similarities with an entrepreneurial culture is the adhocracy (create) culture. Although the concept of entrepreneurship can differ, the general agreement is that entrepreneurship is about teams and individuals occupied with identifying, assessing and exploiting new
opportunities (Discua Cruz et al. 2012). This general agreement of entrepreneurship logically leads to the conclusion that such a firm should have an entrepreneurial culture that constantly nourishes and assists the pursuit for new opportunities. Miller & Friesen (1982) write that because of daring managers who prefer fast growing and challenging environments, entrepreneurial firms are often found in in dynamic and hostile environments. They also claim that this kind of firm can even be responsible for a dynamic environment because of their innovativeness. The description of an entrepreneurial firm by Miller & Friesen (1982) has similarities with the description as given by Kuratko et al. (1990). They speak of
corporate entrepreneuring (p.1), which is a way for firms to enhance the innovative abilities of their employees. Morris et al. (2011) have done research on entrepreneurial orientation in non-profit organizations and they describe entrepreneurial organizations as innovative firms who implement these innovations before competitors and who take aggressive and audacious steps in exploiting opportunities. According to them the traditional form of entrepreneurship is mostly connected to for-profit organizations. Where for-profit organizations exist to raise the wealth of the owners and because of this have a direct incentive to act entrepreneurial, non-profit organizations are formed with the purpose of fulfilling a social need and not make
a profit at the same time. Morris et al (2011) have done research on entrepreneurship in the non-profit sector because, as they state, the non-profit sector are forced to become more entrepreneurial because of their growth, demands from the community and government for more efficiency and changes in their business model. In their research they name three
reasons for non-profit organizations to go in pursuit of entrepreneurship. These reasons are 1) the need to enhance efficiencies or raise revenue generation in order to financially continue operations; 2) the feeling that the organization is no longer able to meet the demands in terms of the social needs; and 3) the creation of social value creation opportunities that did not previously exist because of changes in the environment. The first reason, the need to enhance efficiencies and raise revenues to financially continue operations, is one of the reasons for the OLVG to divest the laboratories which is why the organizational spin-off needs to balance its current culture with an entrepreneurial culture.
2.6 Spin-offs and culture
Every company exists because a founding person or persons decides to establish a company and act on this decision. This person or persons can be seen as the architecture of this company and through this, they design the initial strategy, structure and culture of this firm. They have this influence when they are visible in the new organization and because of this visibility they can serve as a focal point for other decision makers and influence the behavior of the top management (Nelson 2003). The OLVG can be seen as the founders because of the strategic decision they make to establish a new organization through an organizational spin-off. With creating a spin-off company challenges arise because there is a thin line between staying connected to the founding company and becoming an independent company and these two things need to be balanced. A spin-off is always a change that is disruptive to the known world order at that moment. The reason for this is that with a spin-off company comes change
and with change comes a challenge because of the unknowns that are involved with this change (Corley & Gioia 2004). Corley & Gioia (2004) have studied the processes by which a firm’s identity underwent changes during and after the spin-off and they have also looked at how a firm responds to these changes. A spin-off needs its own identity and image but also its own culture (Corley & Gioia 2004) to become its own company. With an organizational spin-off there is always the connection with the founder company and because of this you get ambiguity (Corley & Gioia 2004; Sahaym 2012). For example there is the identity of the parent company and the not yet established identity of the spin-off, this also goes for the image and the culture of both companies. This causes multiple possibilities in the
interpretation about what core features will define the spin-off and through this, what core features will define the image and culture of the spin-off (Corley & Gioia 2004). To approach this ambiguity it is important to answer the question ‘who are we?’ and this way define the new organization. With organizational spin-offs there is a strong relationship with the parent company which makes it difficult for the spin-off to develop its own identity and culture (Sahaym 2012). Hellerman & Jones (2000) have done research on spin-offs and they have asked four spun-off companies retrospectively about the decisions they have made during the period surrounding the transaction date. They were interested in what, looking back, the top management thought have been good decisions and what could’ve, would’ve and should’ve been done better. All four companies stated that they were clear about the kind of company they wanted to be, what kind of business they wanted to be in and what the mission of the new company was going to be. On the subject of culture the companies interviewed by Hellerman & Jones (2000) state that it is important to decide upfront what identity the new culture will have and how the change of this culture has to be executed. They also indicate that to identify the new culture you need to articulate the strategy clearly. To achieve that the focus should be on the philosophy, intent and objectives of the new company. These findings
should be taken into account by the OLVG when divesting the three laboratories and creating a new organization through an organizational spin-off.
2.7 Culture development
When the OLVG creates the new organization through an organizational spin-off, there will be on the one hand the development of a new, entrepreneurial culture and on the other hand balancing and combining of this culture with the current culture. Change, on every level, is a difficult and timely process in any company. To accomplish the necessary change in an organization’s culture it is fundamental for top management to lucidly communicate the change that is needed (Bass et al. 1993). Schein (2009) writes that leadership and culture are bound together and that leaders not only strengthen and perform as a part of the current culture but also frequently create new cultural factors. A successful change asks for vision, strategy and the development of a culture that supports this vision and strategy. This vision, strategy and culture needs to be supported by a leader because as Gill (2003: p309) says: “Change, therefore, is primarily about leadership”. This is also supported by Kotter (2001) who writes that to make an organizational change a success, this change always starts with having a vision and having the involvement of a leader. When an organization succeeds a cultural change this change depends on the rearrangement of the power relations within the organization (Hall et al. 2001). According to Bass et al. (1993) it is important to understand and respect the past when trying to encourage cultural change in an organization. Also return to that past for inspiration, direction and identifications of past principles, strategies and goals that must be conserved. Bass et al. (1993) also state that promotions should as well be made to ensure that the older values will survive despite the necessary changes and it also says that to mourn the loss of the old ways of doing things. For influence on the organizational culture the organization should initiate formal events may be needed to make a clean breach with its
past through an illustrative act. In the article by Hall et al. (2001) it is stated that a radical, strategic change is defined as a situation where the historical concord between strategy, structure, culture, and leadership is inclined to be broken and restored in a new way. In the articles appointed above it is said that it is important to remember and respect the past of an organization to change an organizations culture. This can also be seen as taking the best from the old culture and transfer this to the new culture. Hellerman & Jones (2000) have
interviewed four spun-off companies and they find that it is important to besides formulating the new mission and culture of the spin-off, it is equally as important to decide how to fulfill this mission and culture beforehand and not wait until the spin-off has been established. According to this article (Hellerman & Jones 2000) it is important to identify the new culture, know what is has to look like and adapt all the employee programs to make sure they support the new business strategy, mission and culture. The overall message of this paper is that the success of the spin-off is greatly influenced by the decisions made during the months directly surrounding the transformation. Kotter (1995) has written an article about the change process that organizations have to get through to change. For this he gives eight steps for
transforming an organization. These steps are: • Establish a sense of urgency
• Forming a powerful guiding coalition • Create a vision
• Communicate the vision
• Empowering others to act on the vision • Planning for and creating short-term wins
• Consolidating improvements and producing still more change • Institutionalizing new approaches
While Kotter (1995) describe the steps that need to be taken to transform an organization, Schein (2009) gives the stages an organization goes through undergoing the change. Some of these stages have similarities with the steps as given by Kotter which is not a surprise seeing that they cover the same subject. The stages as described by Schein (2009) are:
1. Unfreezing (creating the motivation to change)
2. Learning new concepts , new meanings for old concepts and new standards for judgment
3. Refreezing (internalizing new concepts, meaning and standards)
In the first stage something is experienced that is not anticipated and that upsets some of the beliefs or assumptions which creates anxiety. Anxiety brings about the feeling that something bad may happen if you do not respond in a specific way. The need to change is being
recognized as is the need to give up some old habits and ways of thinking. At the same time the need to learn new habits new ways of thinking is also being recognized. It is about the feeling the need to do “something”. When needing to change several other anxieties can surface. Some of these are the fear to lose your power or position, the feeling of not being competent enough and what the consequences of this are and the fear of losing part of your identity because the way of thinking was a strong source of your identity. The consequences of these anxieties are denying the change is valid or that the change will only be temporarily. Other consequences are making yourself belief that it has nothing to do with you or by bargaining. Examples of bargaining are asking for compensation or only wanting to change if others change first. In the second stage the anxiety of the employees needs to be addressed. To make employees change, their anxiety must decrease and their willingness to change must increase. This is not achieved by heightening the need to change because this only leads to defensiveness. It can be achieved by compelling a positive vision, formal training,
everyone , give room for feedback, form support groups and make sure that the structures and systems are consistent with the desired change. In the final stage the new ideas and
constructs need to be internalized so it becomes the normal way of doing things and causes new stability. Where Kotter (1995) describes the actions needed for change, Schein (2009) writes about understanding the human system when undergoing change and that way understanding the natural resistance that occurs when trying to change an organization. When combining the eight steps by Kotter (1995) and understanding the three phases by Schein (2009), with respecting and using the past of the organization as given by Bass et al. (1993) and Hall et al. (2001) and rearranging the power relations within the organization as said by Hall et al. (2001), it is possible to develop the needed entrepreneurial culture and balance this with the current culture. Besides the necessity to combine the current culture with an entrepreneurial culture it is also required to deal with the ambiguity that occurs because of the relationship with the founder company (Corley & Gioia 2004; Sahaym 2012). All these changes need to be addressed in the months directly surrounding the transformation (Hellerman & Jones 2000).
2.8 Résumé
Figure 3 Summary literature review
The upper arrow represents the new characteristic that is needed for the organizational spin-off, this is the new culture that has to be implemented. The middle arrow represents the process and phases of change that is needed (Kotter 1995; Schein 2009) and the balancing of ambiguity that follows because of the relationship with the founder company (Corley & Gioia 2004; Sahaym 2012). The arrows at the bottom represent the components of the founder company that need to be maintained. The closed arrow (from left to right) corresponds to the current culture of the unit and the relationship with the founder company. The dotted arrow (from right to left) corresponds to the necessity of respecting and also using the past of the divested unit.
In this chapter the four subquestions What is organizational culture and what are its
elements?, What is an entrepreneurial culture?, How can organizational culture be
of organizational culture used in this thesis is those by Schein (1983, 1984) and Cameron & Quinn (2011). According to Schein (1983, 1984) organizational culture consists of several elements which can be distinguished in three groups: external survival issues, internal integration issues and deeper underlying assumptions. Schein (2009) states that
organizational culture can be measured by interviews based on this elements. Cameron & Quinn (2011) developed the OCAI to measure organizational culture, which is based on the Competing Values Framework. They state that organizational culture consists of six
dimensions and that there are four dominant culture types. These types are clan, adhocracy, market and hierarchy culture. The combination of interviews as stated by Schein (2009) with the OCAI (Cameron & Quinn 2011) can be used to measure organizational culture and this answers the third subquestion. Through use of interviews and the OCAI the current culture of the OLVG and the expectations of the future culture can be measured which then can be used to see where the OLVG currently stands concerning the possibility of divesting of the three laboratories. The second question was about understanding an entrepreneurial culture. The organizational spin-off by the OLVG needs to combine the current culture with an
entrepreneurial culture. An entrepreneurial culture has the most resemblance with an adhocracy culture and in general it is about teams and individuals who are occupied with identifying, assessing and exploiting new opportunities (Discua Cruz et al. 2012). To combine the current culture with a new company, the process for the development a culture needs to be addressed. In this thesis the development of a culture, the change of a culture and changing an organization are intertwined. For an organizational transformation the eight steps by Kotter (1995) need to be followed and these steps will only work when the human system undergoing change is understood. At the same time it is important to respect and use the past of the organization or organizational unit (Bass et al. 1993), rearrange the power relation within the organization and founder company (Hall et al. 2001), deal with the ambiguity
because of the relationship with the founder company (Corley & Gioia 2004; Sahaym 2012) and communicate the change that is needed (Bass et al. 1993).
3 Research design 3.1 Research approach
Even though current literature has given some insights on the subject of developing a culture when creating a new organization and the importance of this, it has failed to provide
appropriate and applicable answers to the research question which stands central in this thesis. This creates a dilemma because some theory exists but it is not appropriate in the circumstances of the research question of this thesis. The extensive literature on the subject of culture, culture change and the development of culture could have been appropriate for a deductive research design, but the current research has not been applied on the situation of this thesis, namely the creation of an organizational spin-off by a hospital. Because of this, I will incorporate an inductive as well as a deductive research design. The goal of inductive research is to get new insights by analyzing applicable data which is collected from multiple sources. The data is then analyzed by comparing and validating with existing theories and re-examination of the data (Eisenhardt 1989). By compiling all the data a method is designed to develop a culture for an organizational spin-off while taking the founder culture into account. On the other hand this research will also be deductive in character. Deductive research is testing a theoretical statement by using a research strategy uniquely designed for testing and explaining causal relationships between variables (Saunders & Lewis 2012). In other words in deductive research there is a role for existing theory because as Ali and Birley (1999) state
‘…it informs the development of hypotheses, the choice of variables, and the resultant measures which researchers intend to use. Within this paradigm the scientist formulates a particular theoretical framework and then sets about testing it’ (p.103). The deductive part of
this thesis is based on the model of Schein (1984, 2009) on levels of culture, the elements by Schein (2009) and Cameron & Quinn (2011) and types of culture, the competing values framework, the OCAI by Cameron & Quinn (2011) and on the literature about
(organizational) spin-offs. These models and framework are used to understand the organizational culture of the three organizations which are interviewed for this thesis, the OCAI is used to measure the organizational culture of the three laboratories. For
understanding the planned organizational spin-off by the OLVG and to get insight in the two already spun-off companies several questions on this subject are drawn up using the literature on spin-offs as a base which will be used for semi-structures interviews. This thesis will be mainly qualitative and, according to Helfat (2007), qualitative research plays an important role in revealing ‘….interesting or unexpected phenomena that statistical analysis may miss,
because such research provides fine-grained detail and insights that can only come from case analysis’ (p.189). There are several strengths that are related to qualitative research. One of these strengths is that it provides insights that are difficult to produce with quantitative research. The reason for this is that qualitative research contrary to quantitative research can provide rich and detailed descriptions of real-life events and thus can give an understanding social processes that are part of management issues (Gephart 2004). With qualitative research there is a relationship between the researcher and the respondent. The strength of such a relationship is that the researcher obtains this data first-hand and the more time the researcher and respondent spent together the more valid and honest this data will most likely become (Carr 1994). This also gives a limitation, to gather valid and honest data enough time is needed. The presence of the researcher can influence the respondent which is also a limitation (Carr 1994). Carr (1994) also mentions another limitation which is that because of the
closeness of the relationship between researcher and respondent, it is possible that the researcher has difficulty in separating their own experiences from those of the respondents.
On the other hand this does not need to be completely negative because it gives the opportunity to better understand the subject of that research. According to Carr (1994)
besides better understanding the subject, qualitative research also allows more flexibility then rigid approaches. One way of doing qualitative research is through case studies. With case studies it is possible to collect rich data (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007) and it is also to contribute to managerial and organizational issues and because of this doing case study research can be quit rewarding (Gephart 2004). To examine the process of culture
development of the organizational spin-off, a multiple case study based design is used. The reason for this is that, according to Yin (2013), the case study method is most likely to be appropriate with research questions starting with ‘how’ and ‘why’ and when the researcher has little control over the events. Another reason for a multiple case study based design is that the results from this kind of research will be more generalizable and exact then it would be with a single case study (Eisenhardt & Graebner 2007). This research encompasses an empirical research in a real-life context and the qualitative data of this case study will add insights into the process of culture development of an organizational spin-off where quantitative data will not disclose this clear cut.
Besides being mainly qualitative there is also a quantitative component in this thesis. This quantitative component is the OCAI which is a questionnaire that is used to measure the organizational culture of the laboratories of the OLVG. The reason for combining the OCAI with interviews is that according to Schein (2009) culture cannot be assessed through questionnaires because no questionnaire has enough questions to cover all relevant areas.
3.2 Research setting
This research is multiple-case based. The first case, the OLVG, is chosen because they are considering an organizational spin-off. The spin-off is not yet developed, so it is not possible
to study the development of a culture of this particular spin-off. To be able to study the development of a off culture, two companies were sought that have originally been spin-offs. Both companies are spin-offs and both have totally different cultures than the founder company they originate from and these companies have needed to develop their current culture. The first company, ICT Solution Rehabilitation Industry (ICTR), has been chosen because their development has great similarities with the organizational spin-off the OLVG is considering. They have originated as the IT unit of several rehabilitation centers and have been divested to go on as an independent company. Because of their experience with going from a unit of a non-profit organization to transforming in an independent for-profit
company, they can provide this thesis with a lot of information on what their changing process was, what went really well and which learning points arisen. ICTR is also chosen because of the challenges they faced during the process of transforming to the current organization. First they went from being a unit of several rehabilitation centers to an association with the board of these rehabilitation centers as their shareholder with absolute power. After several years it became clear that this was not the ideal organizational structure and they decided to become a LLC (Limited Liability Company). This also was not ideal for the apparent reason that it were still the board members of a health care organization with a non-profit approach that made the decisions. Because of this it was difficult to make a profit and to serve different markets. Now they are transforming from a non-profit organization to a more market and adhocracy oriented organization and this brings new challenges. These challenges in combination with the solutions they have come up with can show the could’ve, would’ve and should’ve, like in the article by Hellerman & Jones (2000), when considering divesting a unit and adjusting the current culture.
The second company, Search Development Specialist (SDS), has been chosen because they were created by employees of an incumbent company with the support of the incumbent
company and thus this was another kind of spin-off. Because this is another kind of spin-off, interviewing this company gives new and different insights in the process and how to develop a new company, develop and change culture and how to maintain a relationship with the incumbent company. The cases of these two other companies combined are used to study how they have developed their culture and what steps they have taken in the process. By looking at these two companies and study how they developed their culture and combining this with the data found in the literature and the existing culture of the OLVG, it is possible to see which steps the OLVG needs to make to get to a more entrepreneurial culture.
The Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis
The first case is the OLVG, even though the spin-off will be created with four other hospitals this thesis only focuses on the OLVG as the first organization. . The first reason to choose the OLVG as one of the cases was accessibility because the OLVG is the employer of the
researcher of this thesis and the researcher works as a team leader at the laboratory for medical microbiology. The second reason for this choice is that the OLVG is the one that initiates the spin-off, will be the biggest shareholder and that will also deliver the biggest share of employees to the organizational spin-off. The OLVG is a city hospital with about 3000 employees and 555 beds. Within the OLVG there are the three laboratories:
microbiology, pathology and clinical chemical. These three laboratories perform, besides the research for the OLVG itself, also the laboratory research for 3 other hospitals, namely the Flevoziekenhuis, the MCgroep and the St. Lucas Andreas Ziekenhuis, a private clinic (Jan van Goyen kliniek) and for the general practitioners in the vicinity of the OLVG. This means that these organizations are the customers of the OLVG and that these relationships (with the exception of the general practitioners) are bounded by contracts. The contracts are made for a certain amount of time and at the end of this period these customers can decide not to
contracts are not renewed this will lead to a significant income loss. At this moment the OLVG is contemplating to divest the laboratories and change these into an independent company. The three laboratories are the microbiology laboratory (71 employees), the pathology laboratory (52 employees) and the clinical chemical laboratory (103 employees). Each of the laboratories consists of one head of the laboratory, one manager, team leaders, several doctors (medical microbiologists, pathologists and clinical chemists), different laboratory technicians and supporting staff
ICT Solutions for Rehabilitation Industry (ICTR)
ICT Solution Rehabilitation Industry (ICTR) is a company based in the east of the Netherlands which provides ICT solutions for multidisciplinary care among whom rehabilitation and sport medicine. In 1984 several rehabilitation centers decided to divest their IT units and create a spin-off where these units were put together as one. In 2001 ICTR went from being a non-profit company into a for-profit company. Access was provided by an acquaintance and through telephone conversations and email.
Search Development Specialist (SDS)
Search Development Specialist (SDS) is based in the middle of the Netherlands and started as a technology spin-off from the National Research Foundation in Computer Science and Mathematics(FCSM). Originally SDS was a research group of the FCSM and the product they developed pointed out to be potential profitable. It is the goal of the FCSM to encourage their researchers to start a spin-off with their support. SDS develops search technology for information specialists, combining the key advantages of information retrieval and databases to easily provide customized access to any data source. This organization was found on the internet and access was provided by telephone conversation and email.
3.3 Data collection
Data for this research is mainly based on primary data and this data is collected through semi-structured interviews with relevant interviewees with the three companies as mentioned above (OLVG, ICTR and SDS) on the subject of organizational culture, organizational identity and organizational spin-offs and also through plotting the organizational culture of the OLVG with the help of the OCAI.
3.3.1 Semi-structured interviews
Data is collected through semi-structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews are conducted with open questions and consist of three parts. The first part is basic questions which comprise the respondents name, age, function, education and work history. The second part of the interview is about organizational culture. These questions are based on the book by Schein The corporate culture survival guide (2009). Schein writes about three areas of organizational culture: external survival issues, internal integration issues and deeper underlying assumptions. Each of these areas consists of several subjects as described in §2.3 and the questions are based on each of these subjects. On every subject 2 to 4 questions are drawn up. The third part of the interview is on the field of organizational spin-offs. These questions are based on the literature and to gather data on the development of an
organizational spin-off. The first two subjects are the same for all three organizations that are interviewed. For the OLVG the third subject is the plan for the development of the
organizational spin-off, its future culture and how to approach it. For ICTR and SDS the third subject is the already spun-off company, the development process and culture of the company in comparison with the founder company. The interview questions used at the OLVG can be found in appendix I (board members, protocol 1a) and appendix II (microbiology laboratory, protocol 1b), the interview questions used at ICTR and SDS can be found in appendix III. The participants of the OLVG are two members of the board of directors of the OLVG who
make the strategic decision to divest a unit into a spin-off, the head and the manager of the microbiology laboratory who will have to execute the strategic decision, one medical microbiologist, one team leader, the application manager and two laboratory technicians of the microbiology laboratory. The participants for the semi-interviews of the OLVG are chosen through a purposive sampling approach (Corley & Gioia 2004; Saunders & Lewis 2012). Those participants are chosen who are most able to provide information on the main research question concerning how culture of an organizational spin-off can be developed. The participants for ICTR are the CEO and the delivery manager and the participant of SDS is the CEO. The participants of ICTR and SDS are chosen because of the following reasons. The delivery manager of ICTR have worked at the company from the start of the spin-off and because of this has the most information about the time surrounding the development of this new company and the relationship with the founder company from the start and currently. The CEO of the ICTR is currently involved in the transformation of the company from a non-profit to a for-non-profit organization and can provide useful information on this transformation and the current relationship with the founder company. At the SDS there are three employees who all three were involved in the development of this spin-off. The CEO is chosen because of its function and availability. See table 1 for an overview of the respondents.
Alias Board member
blue (BMB) Board member orange (BMO) Unit head laboratory (UHL) Medical doctor laboratory (MDL) Laboratory manager (LM) Team leader laboratory (TL) Age 52 51 53 55 52 34
Gender Female Male Male Male Female Female
Education Slavonic
languages
Accountancy/ec onomy
Medicine Medicine HLO HLO
Profession Member board of
director OLVG Member board of director OLVG Unit head MML & Medical Microbiologist Medical Microbiologist Laboratory manager MML Team leader MML
Alias Computer specialist laboratory (CSL) Technician pink (TP) Technician red (TR)
CEO SDS (SDS) CEO ICTR (CICTR) Manager
ICTR (MICTR)
Age 56 25 54 33 40 59
Gender Male Female Female Male Male Female
Education Agricultural
education HLO
HLO HLO Computer science Technical physics Physiotherapist Computer scientist Profession Application manager MML Technician MML Technician MML
CEO SDS CEO ICTR Delivery manager ICTR
Table 1 Overview respondents HLO: Higher Laboratory Education
MML: Laboratory for Medical Microbiology
3.3.2 The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)
The questionnaire used to measure the organizational culture of the laboratories is the OCAI. The OCAI is an instrument that gives you the opportunity to diagnose the dominant
orientation of an organization based on the four major culture types and it has been found to predict organizational performance (Cameron & Quinn 2011). The OCAI has been used in many companies and articles (Igo & Skitmore 2006; Fralinger & Olson 2007; Naranjo-Valencia 2011). The goal of the OCAI is to consider six key dimensions of organizational culture: dominant characteristics, organizational leadership, management of employees, organizational glue, strategic emphases and criteria of success. Each of these dimensions consists of four alternatives (A to D) and each of these alternatives can be reduced to one of the four major culture types (A = clan, B = adhocracy, C= market and D = hierarchy). Each dimension and its alternatives has to be considered in two ways, now and future. Now refers to the current situation the organization is in and future refers to where the organization should go to according to the person filling in the OCAI. To fill in the OCAI the participants needed to divide 100 points per dimension among the four alternatives. They are asked to give the most points to the alternative that has the most similarity with the organization and the least points to the alternative that has the least similarity with the organization. This
division of 100 points has to be done twice, once for the current organization (now) and once for future organization, the organizational spin-off (future). Before the actual OCAI
questions starts there are four demographic questions. These are: on which laboratory do you work (microbiology, pathology, clinical chemical); gender; age category (<20, 20-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, >60) and job category (doctor, manager, technician/employee medium
preparation/employee mortuary, administration, IT, other). To execute the OCAI, an online OCAI is used which is built with the use of www.surveymonkey.nl. The participants for the OCAI are all the employees of the three laboratories which are being considered to be divested by the OLVG. All participants are asked to fill in the questionnaire online and they all received an email with a link to the questionnaire. All participants were informed about the OCAI through several presentations prior to this email. In the questionnaire and also in the accompanying email the goal and interpretation of the OCAI was explained once more. See appendix IV for an example of the questionnaire.
3.4 Data analysis
3.4.1 The semi-structured interviews
All the interviews are transcribed and the data collected from the interviews have been analyzed and used to recognize the organizational culture of the three organizations. Besides recognizing the organizational culture, the data has also been used to develop a step-by-step plan on how to manage the development of a culture in an organizational spin-off that effectively combines the existing culture of the parent organization with the entrepreneurial culture required for an organizational spin-off. The areas that will be researched will be determined a priori, these areas are organizational culture based on the elements of culture from Schein (2009) and the organizational spin-off. The data from the interviews with the employees of the OLVG on the subject of the organizational spin-off of the three laboratories
will be analyzed in the context of the organizational spin-off representing the plans of divesting the three laboratories and restart them in a new company. The data from the interviews with the employees of the ICTR and SDS on the subject of the organizational spin-off of the three laboratories will be analyzed in the context of the organizational spin-off being the formerly spun off company and the company they are nowadays. To analyze the interviews the data is categorized and unitized (Saunders et al. 2009; Saunders & Lewis 2012). First the development of categories and sub-categories is necessary to attach these to meaningful data. Three main categories are developed which are based on the literature. These three categories are: starting the new organization (organizational spin-off), the structure of the new organization (organizational spin-off) and the culture of this new
company. Next several sub-categories and sub-sub-categories are developed which are based on the data itself and the interview questions, see figures 4 &5. For the OLVG and the SDS and ICTR two separate sets of categories are developed because the approach of both interviews differed. Categories and sub-categories as used for analyzing the data from the interviews held at the OLVG are:
Example of the analysis of the interviews of the OLVG:
Table 2 Example of interview analysis OLVG
Categories and sub-categories as used for analyzing the data from the interviews held at the SDS and ICTR are:
Figure 5 Overview of the categories and sub-categories concerning the former organizational spin-off by the SDS & ICTR
Culture of the new organization Current culture of the unit Conserving from current culture Skip from current culture kijk de cultuur binnen de laboratoria is
vrij uniform en eh, zeker afgelopen jaren is eh, het verschil tussen eh, dat is typisch microbiologie en dat is typisch klinisch chemie en dat is typisch pathologie de onderzoeken zijn wel typisch natuurlijk maar die laboratoria beginnen steeds hechter te functioneren. [CLS 80]
ik geloof nog steeds heel graag dat we redelijk laagdrempelig zijn en dat wij alles tegen mekaar kunnen zeggen al doen wij dat niet. En eh, dus, eh, dat zou ik wel heel graag willen behouden. Misschien iets verder uitbouwen[LM 102]
ik hoop dat bepaalde dingen die we nu hebben eh, dat we die los kunnen laten en eh, veranderen. de manier waarop mensen met elkaar omgaan. Dat we, eh, toch kunnen bewerkstelligen eh, dat, dat, eh, op een prettige manier als zo en zo mensen met elkaar omgaan. De klacht was vorig jaar natuurlijk over de, de, de roddelen en achterklap. Eh, dat wordt ook wel ingegeven zelf denk nog altijd dat ook voor een grotendeel word ingegeven op de manier waarop we hier op mekaar zitten eh, eh, eh, de, eh, en ik hoop in een nieuwe organisatie dat je gewoon de ruimte hebt om, om eh, zowel letterlijk als figuurlijk om eh, daar wat verbetering in te brengen.[LM 101] in ieder geval de platte structuur die we hier hebben
binnen de hiërarchie zolang het goed gaat is die structuur plat en nou ja als mensen fouten gaan maken of vreselijk tegen de draad in zijn en dus niet in het systeem passen dan moet je natuurlijk wel op je strepen staan. Dat zou ik dan wel over willen zetten daarna toe eh, dat het wel fijn zou zijn als je dat minder overzet [CLS 77]
de andere kant weer dat er iets te veel vrijheid is die ze hier hebben. Eh, wat, wat strakker in kaders kan. [TL 79]
maar eh, te pas en te onpas zeggen van eh, dat je eh, naar een dokter, tandarts weet ik veel moet, dat soort dingen eh, dat mag wel strakker in het geheel [TL 80]
