THE PREFERENCE FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE APPROACHES IN A
MULTICULTURAL CONTEXT: AN ANALYSIS INCLUDING NORTH AMERICA,
EUROPE, AND ASIA
MSc BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – CHANGE MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
2
ABSTRACT
This research investigates the existence of preference for organizational change approaches,
and whether this preference varies from the one cultural region to another. This was done via a
systematic curriculum analysis of 42 universities in 14 countries, representing North America,
Europe, and Asia. Findings include a general dominance of planned change approaches over
organizational development and continuous change approaches. Theoretical contributions
include the identification of a dominant change approach and the rejection of a cultural
influence in change approach preference. Managerial implications include the recommendation
for change agents to conform the configuration of their change initiatives to the general
preference among change recipients for planned change initiatives.
Parts of this thesis can be found in other theses as well, as they were written in collaboration
with fellow master students.
Key words
Change management, planned change, organizational development, continuous change,
culture, intercultural change management.
Acknowledgements
3
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 2
INTRODUCTION ... 4
LITERATURE ... 5
Organizational change approaches ... 5
Culture ... 7
Cultural differences and a preference for the dominant change approach ... 8
METHODOLOGY ... 9
Research Method ... 9
Change Approach ... 9
Culture ... 10
Data gathering ... 10
Sample selection ... 10
Data collection ... 10
Inclusion criteria ... 11
Data analysis ... 14
Preparing for coding ... 14
Coding and determine the change approach ... 14
Determining cultural influence ... 15
Justification of research method... 15
RESULTS ... 16
Sample ... 16
Preference across change approaches ... 18
Regions and preference for change approaches ... 18
DISCUSSION ... 23
CONCLUSION ... 25
Contributions ... 25
Findings ... 25
Theoretical contributions ... 26
Managerial implications ... 27
Propositions ... 27
Limitations ... 28
Suggestions for further research... 29
REFERENCES ... 30
4
INTRODUCTION
As Beer and Nohria (2000) notice, contemporary organizations have the choice to either change
or die. Organizational change has become such an important topic that it is seen as one of the
prime responsibilities of organizational leaders (Burnes, 2014). Despite the relevance of
change, evidence shows that some 70% of change initiatives fail (Burnes & Jackson, 2011).
Yet, the question what causes these failure rates often remains unaddressed (Buchanan,
Fitzgerald, Ketley, Gollop, Jones, Saint Lamont, Neath, & Whitby, 2005).
Amongst others, Burnes and Jackson (2011) suggest that a potential reason for change failure
might be the lack of alignment of values between those of the change initiatives and those of
the members of the organization. It is in the interest of the change agent to know the values he
is dealing with if he is to align the values of his change initiative in order to reduce the chance
of change failure (Burnes & Jackson, 2011). Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) demonstrate that
managers can choose their change approach from a range of strategic options. According to
Boonstra (2003), all of these different theories and practices of organizational change are based
on deeply held values. Values, among basic assumptions, norms, and artifacts, can be seen as
one of the major layers of culture (Cummings & Huse, 1989).
Cummings and Huse (1989) discuss culture in the context of organizations. Sasaki and
Yoshikawa (2014) take a broader perspective, demonstrating that organizational culture is
subject to a range of national and intra-national cultural influences. Literature on culture has
shown that culture varies to a great extent over geographic regions (Hofstede, 1980; House,
Javidan, Hanges, & Dorman, 2002; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012). Hofstede (2001) argues
that although organizational culture and national culture are distinct from each other, they are
also complementary and that they do interfere: ‘organizational cultures distinguish
organizations, while holding their national environments constant’ (Hofstede, 2001:391).
5
Current literature gives no insight into which change approach is preferred by academics or
practitioners in different cultural regions. Therefore the goal of this study is to identify the
dominant change approach in several regions to see whether they differ and if so, in what way.
This research aims to contribute to the research field of change management by relating
different change approaches to different cultural regions. This research will complement
existing literature by means of theory development. Apart from theoretical relevance, this
research also provides practical relevance. As mentioned before, Burnes and Jackson (2011)
state that change initiatives fail due to a lack of alignment between the values of the
organization, the value of the applied change approach and the values underpinning the change
approach. They also state that factors causing change interventions to fail are underpinned by
‘the appropriateness of the content and the approach to change used by organizations, and
whether there was value alignment between the two’ (Burnes & Jackson, 2011:158). This
research aims to provide change agents with insight in how they can manage change
interventions more effectively. Once different preferences are identified, the extent to which
these differences can be explained by cultural differences will be investigated. Hence, the
research question is as follows:
Does the dominant change approach differ across cultural regions? If so, can this different
preference be related to cultural differences?
LITERATURE
Organizational change approaches
Change management is about ‘modifying or transforming organizations in order to maintain or
improve their effectiveness’ (Hayes, 2007:30). According to Viljoen, ‘change management
occurs within the overall context of strategic management’ (1997:121)
1. Barnett and
Carroll
(1995) conceptualize change in terms of process, referring to how change occurs, and content,
describing what in the organization actually changes. This thesis will focus on the process
aspect of organizational change.
According to Burnes (2004), change is a feature always present in organizations, on an
operational as well as on a strategic level. Although consultants, academics and executives
acknowledge that change is constant, their view on the process of change differs. Beer and
6
Nohria (2000) identify two theories that are capturing these different views on the purpose and
meanings for change: Theory E and Theory O. Whereas Theory E focuses on economic value,
seeing change as planned, programmatic, rapid and dramatic, Theory O approaches change as
more emergent, focusing on the development of organizational capabilities, building trust and
commitment. Boonstra (2003) builds upon these theories, adding Theory C: an approach
incorporating continuously changing and constructing realities.
Theory E revolves around the realization of a competitive advantage and the creation of
economic value (Boonstra, 2003). The focus mainly lies on formal structures and systems, and
the need for change is typically caused by market demands and changing environments.
Because improving business performance is key, change agents are seen as powerful experts
who induce change top-down, being behavioral experts and employees are merely seen as
objects that need to be motivated.
Contrasting Theory E, Theory O approaches change as emergent, less planned and less
programmatic (Boonstra, 2003). Key in Theory O is Organizational Development (OD),
optimizing social and technical systems, and increasing the quality of working life (Boonstra,
2003). The interest of individuals and the organization needs to be integrated (Boonstra, 2003;
Burnes, 2009). Theory O emphasizes individual and organizational learning (Beer & Nohria,
2000). Organizational effectiveness and humanist orientation coexist, seeing the role of change
agent not as being an expert, but as the one who facilitates the collaboration between managers
and employees. Where Theory E appears to be most suitable in situations with an identified
problem that is not too complex, and where change is seen as episodic with a stable end
situation, Theory O seems to be more suitable when the issue is complex and no evident
solution is available, focusing on continuous changing and improving change abilities
(Boonstra, 2003).
7
and changing are connected as a collective process, where learning is seen ‘as a change in
routines, response repertoires, and basic assumptions about social realities and interrelations’
(Boonstra, 2003:9). Change within this theory is more fundamental as compared to Theory O.
Survival will depend on the alignment with the organizational environment, emphasizing the
importance of alert reactions and daily contingencies which will drive organizational change
(Boonstra, 2003).
The aim of each theory differs. Theory E aims to create as much economic value as possible.
Theory O aims to develop human skills within the organization in such a way that all
organizational members are able to put strategies into practice and learn from the effectiveness
of the changes made (Boonstra, 2003). Theory C bridges the gap created by a significant
contradiction between Theory E and O by focusing on continuous change (Boonstra, 2003).
Using Beer and Nohria (2000) and Boonstra (2003), change management approaches can be
divided in three change approaches. So far, based on current literature, no unitary answer can
be given to the question which change approach currently is most prevalent.
Culture
‘Culture’ has been defined in many ways (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011; Taras et al., 2012). The
definition by Hofstede (2001:15) is one of the most quoted: ‘Culture is the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people
from another’.
8
The research of Taras et al. (2012) incorporates the initial four Hofstede dimensions, as well as
the more recently added ones (long- versus short-term orientation and indulgence versus
constraint, see: Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Hofstede, 2011; Scheffknecht, 2011) no sufficient
amount of data was available (Taras et al., 2012). According to Taras et al. (2012:330), power
distance can be defined as ‘the extent to which the less powerful persons in a society accept
inequality in power and consider it as normal’. Individualism is ‘the degree to which people
prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups’, masculinity is the degree to
which masculine values prevail over feminine values, and uncertainty avoidance can be defined
as ‘the degree to which people are made nervous by situations which they perceive as
unstructured, unclear, or unpredictable’ (Taras et al., 2012:330).
So far, culture has been discussed in terms of national culture. However, national cultural is
reflected in organizational culture as well. Just like national culture, organizational culture is a
term that can be defined in many ways (Watkins, 2013). Schwartz and Davis define
organizational culture as ‘a pattern of beliefs and expectations shared by the organization’s
members’ (1981:33). Watkins (2013) shows that organizational culture is shaped by other
cultures, especially the national culture it operates in. According to Scheffknecht (2011)
national and regional cultural values cannot be avoided in organizational culture building,
which is in line with Hofstede’s (2001) reasoning that organizational culture is bound by
national culture.
Cultural differences and a preference for the dominant change approach
9
national culture and influences (organizational) behavior in a unique way (Hofstede, 1980;
Taras et al., 2012). Therefore, we expect that the different scores on the cultural dimensions
given by Hofstede (1980) and Taras et al. (2012) will lead to a different preference for change
approach. This research aims to provide insight in the preference for change approaches in
different cultural regions because current literature does not provide insight in which change
approach enjoys practitioners’ greatest preference across different cultural regions.
METHODOLOGY
Research Method
From the research question, neither a pure theory testing nor a pure theory development
approach appears to be suitable. For identifying whether the preference for a change approach
differs across nations, which is unknown yet, a theory development approach is most
appropriate. Testing hypotheses is unlikely to fit within the scope of this exploratory research
and rather is a next step in this research field. Therefore, this research will seek to put forward
with propositions that add value to the existing literature (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij,
2012), based on the exploratory nature and potential findings of this research endeavor, and
feasible for further research.
Change Approach
For identifying the dominant change approaches, a systematic analysis of university curricula
will be performed. The procedure is similar to a systematic literature analysis, as it is a method
for ‘systematically evaluating the contribution of a body of literature’ (Crossan & Apaydin,
2010; Ginsberg & Venkatraman, 1985), yet different in the sense that no literature on a specific
research topic but university curricula are under investigation. There are several arguments in
favor of this approach. For this research purpose, universities offer the opportunity for a good
comparison: course information and literature usually comes in a similar format. This
information usually is readily available, and universities generally are easy to approach.
Furthermore, universities for this matter serve as the base where future managers will be
schooled upon. Universities are subject to national values in the sense that they are
organizations as any other (Sasaki & Yoshikawa, 2014). They are rooted in national cultures,
and therefore likely to resonate national values. Therefore it is expected the change approaches
taught at universities represent the change approaches preferred by practitioners in a given
country.
10
advocate underlying values of one of the three change approaches, or a combination of these
change approaches based on Boonstra (2003), simplifying the process of data analysis.
Culture
For defining the culture of the countries involved, the framework of Taras et al. (2012) will be
used. It incorporates the initial four cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980), and is performed
longitudinally so that it covers a time span of four decades and corrects for the reliability and
generalizability issues of Hofstede’s work. Taras et al. (2012) present scores for power distance,
individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance for 49 geographical regions based on a
meta-analysis of 451 studies (journal articles, master’s and doctoral theses, books and book
chapters, and unpublished papers) using models and methodology comparable with that of
Hofstede. Hereby Taras et al. (2012) provide a re-established determination of the cultural
configuration of all countries in the dataset of this research. For this research the 40-year
average scores for the cultural dimensions as presented in their work will be used. The research
of Taras et al. (2012) makes use of standardized scores of their dataset (mean=0, SD=1), scores
generally not exceeding -2 or +2 in which -2 is a low score on a cultural dimension and +2 is a
high score on a cultural dimension.
Data gathering
Sample selection
The starting point of the data gathering process was identifying relevant universities. To ensure
that relevant universities are taken into account, the ranking of the top 200 universities
worldwide as published by Thomson-Reuters (2014) has served as input. The ranking of
universities prevailed over that of business schools, as universities with a different or broader
focus than business or economics alone might offer courses related to change management that
reflect cultural values. Next to this sample, we were given the opportunity to make use of the
faculty partner network. All partner universities of the Faculty of Economics and Business of
the University of Groningen were sent an information request containing questions on whether
any courses related to organizational change were being taught at their university, if there was
any information about the courses concerned available, and what literature students following
those courses needed to study.
Data collection
11
Search terms University Curricula
Business Transformation Business Communication
Change Management Consultancy Continuous Change
Decision Making Dynamic Engineering
Entrepreneurship Emergent Change Human Resources Management
Information Innovation Leadership
Manage/Managing Organizational Behavior Organizational Change
Organizational Development Planned Change Project Management
Strategy Strategic Management Technology
Table 1: Search terms for university curricula.
It is important to note that the search terms are derived from the curriculum as taught at the
University of Groningen, and other courses that have been part of the educational and/or
practical background of the writers of this thesis. This has the potential of holding a researcher’s
bias. However, due to the wide range of search terms and the wide range of research fields they
cover, the data found in this searching procedure is supposed to be sufficient to cover the data
needs for performing this research.
If no data or no satisfactory amount of data was found on university, the university under
investigation was approached via e-mail with an information request. An overview of all
countries and universities included in the sample can be found in appendix 1. In all, 320
universities from 42 countries in the regions North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa,
and Asia were approached. Amongst these 320 universities, 176 were top 200 universities, 167
were partner universities of the Faculty for Economics and Business of the University of
Groningen, and the University of Groningen itself was included as well.
Inclusion criteria
12 Figure 1: Countries included in the research
To ensure that cultural differences were included in our data collection procedure, a cultural
profile based on Taras et al. (2012) made for each country. Countries were clustered into
regions based on their profile of scores on the four cultural dimensions (power distance,
individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance) as can be seen in table 2. For Tanzania,
Latvia, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, and Peru no data was
available in Taras et al. (2012), for these countries the data available for their
macro-geographical regions were used. The existence of cultural variety in our dataset was ensured by
using the chosen data collection procedure.
Region
Cultural dimensions
Africa Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance
Tanzania* 1,08 -1,17 -0,76 1,61
Asia Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance China 0,71 -0,13 -0,44 0,42 Hong Kong 0,56 -0,19 0,05 -0,37 Indonesia 0,69 -0,58 0,13 -0,58 Japan 0,32 -0,23 1,31 1,33 Legend
13 Malaysia 1,38 -0,95 0,11 0,32 Singapore 0,79 -0,71 -0,19 -0,65 South Korea 0,69 -0,12 0,45 0,46 Taiwan -0,23 -0,74 -0,21 -0,07 Thailand 0,5 -0,88 -0,58 0,16 Turkey 0,09 -0,39 0,37 0,41
Central Europe Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Austria -1,29 -0,07 1,15 -0,03 Czech Republic -0,47 0,08 0,39 0,24 Germany -0,49 0,03 0,64 0,43 Greece -0,12 -0,72 0,23 1,29 Italy -0,06 0,49 0,7 0,62 Switzerland -0,57 0,4 0,73 0,14
Eastern Europe and Portugal
Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Latvia** -0,66 -0,32 -0,19 0,63 Poland -0,39 -0,33 0,04 0,54 Portugal -0,14 -0,83 -0,7 0,32 Romania -0,2 -0,35 -0,54 0,75 Russia*** -0,1 -0,25 -0,05 1,12 Slovakia*** -0,1 -0,25 -0,05 1,12 Slovenia**** 0,29 -0,03 -0,73 0,22 Scandinavia Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Denmark -1,17 0,48 -0,92 -1,31 Finland -0,09 0,23 -0,58 -0,03 Netherlands -0,11 0,89 -0,91 -0,27 Norway -0,94 0,57 -1,14 -1,37 Sweden -0,76 0,69 -0,95 -0,94
Western Europe Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Belgium 0,37 0,59 0,19 0,88 France 0,41 0,39 0,06 1,05 Hungary 1,14 0,11 1,07 1,07 Republic of Ireland -0,7 0,42 0,84 -0,56 Spain 0,16 0,05 -0,13 1,17 United Kingdom 0,03 0,93 0,83 -0,61
North America Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance
14
United States of America -0,27 0,42 0,4 -0,14
Latin America Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance Brazil***** 1,17 -0,73 -0,52 0,94 Colombia***** 1,17 -0,73 -0,52 0,94 Chile***** 1,17 -0,73 -0,52 0,94 Mexico****** 1,41 -1,14 0,25 1,08 Peru***** 1,17 -0,73 -0,52 0,94
* Scores for Africa
** Scores for Baltic USSR
*** Scores for Slavic USSR
**** Scores for Yugoslavia
***** Scores for South America
****** Scores for Central America
Table 2: Cultural clusters in the population
Data analysis
After gathering the course literature, qualitative analysis was required in order to identify the
nature of the course literature in terms of advocated change approaches. The coding process
consisted of three steps. First a coding scheme was built, then the actual coding process, and
the third step was to build a taxonomy.
Preparing for coding
The first step in the coding process was to build a database in order to prepare the data for
analysis. This database contained details of all course literature that met the inclusion criteria.
The database contains the literature’s author, title, complete reference, regions it is deployed
in, and university and course it is used in for each record. Books were separated from the papers
in order to facilitate an easier analysis process. Papers were searched by using EBSCO Business
Source Premier and Google Scholar. The total list of papers and books as used for the courses
taught at foreign universities can be found in appendix 2 and 3 for papers and books
respectively.
Coding and determine the change approach
15
O, or a combination of Theory O and Theory C, if a combination of shared values in terms of
Boonstra (2003) was advocated in the literature in question. A combination of Theory E and
Theory C is not included in this research as these change approaches are opposing. The search
terms used for each of the change approaches are based on Boonstra’s (2003) classification and
can be found in the table in appendix 4. If only the abstract or a summary was available, analysis
was performed based on the parts that were available. The researchers kept constant record of
whether they were able to analyze the entire paper or parts of it, and when and by whom this
analysis was performed. Based on codes given to the literature, a prevalent change approach
was assigned to the paper under investigation.
Determining cultural influence
The third step was to use the data identified in the coding process in order to build a taxonomy.
This taxonomy consists of literature which would advocate either Theory E, Theory O, or
Theory C, or a combination of change approaches, either Theory E & O, or Theory O & C on
a country level. This taxonomy is used to identify the influence of culture. In order to do so, it
registers the scores for power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance
and the papers advocating Theory E, Theory O, Theory C, or a combination of these denoted
in absolute numbers (k) as well as means ( ) and standardized means (z). Standardized means
were generated by using the following formula (1):
Justification of research method
16
approaches during the coding process, the impact of this bias should be reduced to as much as
lies within in the researcher’s abilities.
Validity falls apart in four types: justification, construct validity, internal validity, and external
validity (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Justification is achieved by correctly linking
the results to the procedure they are derived from (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).
To achieve construct validity, a fellow master student with a background in the field of change
management will crosscheck this coding scheme independently in order to check whether they
draw the same conclusions from the identical dataset. This is conform the procedure as
proposed by Yin (2003) and Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij (2012) and is done by
crosschecking of the first fifty analyzed papers and every tenth paper after. Separate coding and
crosschecking of the separately generated coding tables did not fall within the scope of this
research. This thesis takes external validity into consideration by two means. First, the regions
under investigation are chosen based upon theoretical justifications. Second, the universities
under investigation are chosen based upon their academic qualification as assured by inclusion
in Thomson-Reuters (2014) top 200 university ranking or by the fact that they are a partner
university of the Faculty for Economics and Business of the University of Groningen. Both
measures are to ensure that the findings of this research are likely to represent a broader trend.
RESULTS
Sample
Usable data was collected from 74 out of the 320 universities and from 23 out of the 42
countries, representing Europe, North and Latin America, and Asia. This means a response rate
of 23% in terms of universities and a coverage of 55% in terms of countries. From these 23
countries, a total of 1201 papers and 1226 books were listed.
The analysis of books did not fall within the scope of this study. Analysis of papers prevailed
over analysis of books, as books are likely to cover a broader range of perspectives on
organizational change, which consequently makes such analysis less informative. Furthermore,
modifications in curricula are easier made by replacing papers than by replacing books.
However, not including books in the analysis holds a risk for a potential bias as courses usually
primarily rely on books.
17
universities, 35 were top 200 universities, 14 were partner universities of the Faculty for
Economics and Business of the University of Groningen, and the University of Groningen itself
was included as well. Appendix 1 displays all countries and universities that were approached
for this research, from the universities and countries in italics adequate data was collected, and
the universities and countries in both italics and boldface were included in the analysis.
Figure 2: Countries included in the research, included in the dataset, and included in the analysis.
A total of 1201 papers remained to be coded and analyzed. 80 Papers amongst these were used
more than once by various countries, universities, or faculties, reducing the total amount by
136 papers and resulting in a total amount of 1065 unique papers. Of this amount, 104 papers
could either not be found by using EBSCO Business Source Premier or Google Scholar or were
not relevant for the subject of this study as they were either unrelated to an organizational
change context or unrelated to values as expressed by Boonstra (2003). Therefore, the final
amount of coded papers is set at 961 papers. For analyzing them the procedure as described in
the method section was followed. A final list of search terms and codes can be found in
appendix 4 and a detailed coding scheme of the 961 papers can be found in
appendix 5
2.
2
Appendix 5 is voluminous and is not comprised in the printed version of this thesis. If you
would wish to examine the coding table, please contact the author.
Legend
18
Preference across change approaches
Of the 961 papers, a majority of 457 papers could be assigned to Theory E in terms of Boonstra
(2003). 240 Of them deal with Theory O, and a minority of 78 papers deal with Theory C. 151
Papers take a perspective that can be classified as a combination of Theory E & O, and 35
papers share values of Theory O & C. As the data shows, Theory E appears to be the dominant
change approach, followed by Theory O, and Theory C being the change approach that is the
least represented in international university curricula.
Figure 3: Division of papers among change approaches.
Regions and preference for change approaches
Using Taras et al.’s (2012) determination of scores on the four cultural dimensions, the 14
countries in the sample can be clustered in cultural regions. Doing so results in the clusters as
in table 3. The notion that Europe should be considered as a set of regions rather than one region
(Hofstede, 1980; Taras et al., 2012) is adopted in this research by dividing Europe into three
culturally distinct regions: Central Europe, Western Europe, and Scandinavia. Adding Asia and
North America brings the number of regions in this analysis to five. Cultural similarity seems
to correspond with geographical proximity, of which the Netherlands is an exception. The
Netherlands shows a cultural profile similar to that of the Scandinavian countries and therefore
gets classified in the Scandinavian culture cluster.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Theory E Theory O Theory E&O Theory C Theory O&C Papers
19
Cultural profile
Region Country Power
Distance Individualism Masculinity
Uncertainty Avoidance
Asia Hong Kong 0,56 -0,19 0,05 -0,37
South Korea 0,69 -0,12 0,45 0,46
Central Europe Austria -1,29 -0,07 1,15 -0,03
Czech Republic -0,47 0,08 0,39 0,24 Greece -0,12 -0,72 0,23 1,29 Switzerland -0,57 0,4 0,73 0,14 Scandinavia Denmark -1,17 0,48 -0,92 -1,31 Finland -0,09 0,23 -0,58 -0,03 The Netherlands -0,11 0,89 -0,91 -0,27 Norway -0,94 0,57 -1,14 -1,37 Sweden -0,76 0,69 -0,95 -0,94 Western Europe Belgium 0,37 0,59 0,19 0,88 United Kingdom 0,03 0,93 0,83 -0,61
North America United States of America
-0,27 0,42 0,4 -0,14
Table 3: Clusters of cultural regions.
20 Table 4: Taxonomy of regions, countries, cultural profiles, and change approach
21
Clusters of countries can be distinguished by examining their cultural profiles. However, no
similar clustering for change approach preference can be made by examining the standardized
means for change approach preference, as they are broadly scattered. This situation is not
satisfactory for answering the research question because the least that is required is a set of
cultural clusters and a set of change approach preference clusters to check for matches or
mismatches. In an attempt to resolve this issue, a hierarchical cluster analysis based on
within-group linkages was performed for culture as well as for change approaches. The number of
clusters was forced to be five for both of the analyses as one could expect to see five clusters
for culture (see table 3 and 4) and five clusters for change approach preference (a preference
for Theory E, Theory O, Theory C, Theory E & O, and Theory O & C). For performing the
cluster analysis for the change approach preference, the standardized means for the change
approaches were used.
The outcome of the cluster analysis shows that clusters based on culture do not correspond with
clusters based on change approach preference, which can be seen in table 5. Moreover, the
cluster analysis shows dissimilarity between the cultural clusters that were initially formed and
those formed based on statistics. Given the geographical proximity within cultural clusters that
appeared in the initial clustering but is diminished in the second set of cultural clusters, the
chances are that performing the cluster analysis also corrected for researcher’s tendency to
interpret data in accordance to their own beliefs (Weick, 1995). However, after having
performed the initial analysis and having it redone statistically, the findings of this research can
be extended with the notion that regions while being dispersed in terms of culture display a
similar pattern in change approach preference. Despite some countries (Austria, Finland, and
Belgium) that deviate, results show an overall preference for Theory E despite cultural
differences.
23 E O C E & O O & C Power Distance 0,980 0,793 0,050 0,510 0,026* Individualism 0,864 0,498 0,572 0,523 0,711 Masculinity 0,624 0,920 0,140 0,417 0,320 Uncertainty Avoidance 0,899 0,629 0,943 0,555 0,669 * = <0,05 sig.
Table 6: Results of the regression analysis.
DISCUSSION
The vast majority of investigated papers advocates Theory E and/or Theory O. Planned change,
or Theory E in terms of Boonstra (2003), is derived from the work of Kurt Lewin and does not
only underpin Theory E. Also Theory O finds its practical and philosophical foundation in the
work of Lewin (Burnes, 2014). Planned change has been of great significance for contemporary
organizations (Burnes, 2014). Despite the common theoretical foundations of Theory E and
Theory O, the findings of this research do justify the distinction between the two streams. The
created clusters show a generic preference for Theory E over all of the other change approaches,
including Theory O, despite cultural differences over regions and despite the theoretical origin
that Theory E shares with Theory O (Boonstra, 2003; Burnes, 2014). The question rises why
Theory E specifically is so popular.
Dunphy and Stace (1988) disentangle planned change (Theory E) from the more incremental
organizational development approach (Theory O) and state that Theory E is the more effective
change approach. Despite their research being over twenty years old, the scenarios they use are
still relevant: incremental changes in the environment, organizations, and technology as well
as radical changes in organizational structure or industry reorganization are conditions that still
are present in today’s organizational environment. According to Dunphy and Stace (1988),
these scenarios create conditions that require planned change transformations rather than the
application of incremental OD approaches. Besides, the perception of organizations being
subject to external forces advocates a Theory E perspective on organizational change (Boonstra,
2003) in the first place. This position vis-à-vis (effective) organizational change is enforced by
stating that organizations usually lack the pro-activity that is required for anticipating on the
changing scenarios from the OD perspective (Dunphy & Stace, 1988).
24
Resource-Based view has been the most eminent application of the concept of strategy for the
last two decades (Lockett, Thompson & Morgenstern, 2009) and views the firm-specific
configuration of the available resources as the key to organizational performance and,
ultimately, sustainable competitive advantage (Burnes, 2014). The concepts of strategic
planning and optimal resource configuration in order to gain a competitive advantage that in
turn creates economic (shareholder) value shows great similarity with the focus of Theory E
(Boonstra, 2003). With the revival of strategic planning (Burnes, 2014; De Wit & Meyer, 2010)
and the Resource-Based view having been considerably influential over the last 20 years
(Ordanini & Rubera, 2008), the significant popularity of Theory E might not come
unexpectedly. Even though Theory E is the oldest of change approaches, it still applies to many
contemporary managerial contingencies.
Despite the merits of Theory E that are adopted by the majority of regions, Austria and Finland
deviate from the other regions in the sense that Theory O is preferred over the other change
approaches. (NB: this causes these countries to be treated as regions, as the latter serves as the
level of analysis of this research.) The sample size of Austria is only small (k=5), but Finland
(k=24), while being culturally similar to the Netherlands, shows an odd profile in terms of
change approach preference. More than half of the papers in use in Finnish universities
advocate Theory O, whereas the Netherlands fit in the generic profile, including a preference
for Theory E. This is contradicting the findings of Fagenson-Eland, Ensher, and Burke (2004),
who hypothesize and generally find a large similarity in OD application between Finland and
the Netherland. In this light, the findings of this research are unanticipated.
Apparently, cultural difference nor similarity cannot account for the dominance of either
Theory E or Theory O. Beer and Nohria (2000) make several assumptions on the connection
between national culture and change approach preference. For instance, Beer and Nohria (2000)
assume that Theory E enjoys greater preference in the USA, whilst Theory O being more
popular in Europe and Asia. Moreover, Fagenson-Eland et al. (2004) use Hofstede’s
dimensions in order to predict the likelihood of OD interventions, and so does Jaeger (1986).
This research started out with similar expectations on the existence of a relation between
national culture and change approach preference, but no such relation was identified due to the
vast preference for Theory E across culturally distinct regions. Thus, the findings and
assumptions of previous studies in this vein (Jaeger, 1986; Beer and Nohria, 2000;
Fagenson-Eland et al., 2004) were not supported.
25
upon. Given the insights that were gained during this research, the relevance of adapting
management styles to the preference of subordinates (House et al., 2002) or the notion that
change programs need to be tailored to the (cultural) traits of change recipients in order to be
successful (Jaeger, 1986; Burnes & Jackson, 2011) deserve contemplation.
However, apart from the arguable preference for Theory E, the chances are that the research
instrument of this study has skewed the findings in favor of Theory E. Not only do the
theoretical concepts that underlie planned change cover two of the three change approaches in
terms of Boonstra, Theory E and Theory O (Boonstra, 2003), the concept of planned change
has been around for much longer than the concept of continuous, emergent organizational
change (Burnes, 2014), or Theory C in terms of Boonstra (2003). This makes for a more
developed research field, with the concept of planned change being discussed more extensively
and by a multitude of authors. This would logically translate into a larger relative presence of
planned change oriented literature in university curricula. Theory C perspectives on
organizational change have only been around since the 1980s (Burnes, 2014) and therefore the
field of research is a lot less mature and saturated than the research field on planned change.
Additionally, there is another principle that can cause the preference for Theory E to be
overestimated. Despite the need of curricula to foster contemplation among students (George,
2011), theory and practice need to be closely related from a pedagogic point of view
(Stenhouse, 1983). Given the solution-based orientation of contemporary education, it might
be that the rather clear-cut and goal oriented planned change approaches prevail over usage of
literature on the more abstract Theory C perspective on organizational change.
CONCLUSION
Contributions
Findings
This thesis offers a unique insight in change approach preference in an intercultural and
international context. It generates and makes use of a very broad yet exclusive dataset, sourced
from a plurality of countries and geographical and cultural regions. A thorough analysis of this
rich dataset revealed that Theory E, and planned change in general, is the most preferred
organizational change approach.
26
Does the dominant change approach differ across cultural regions? If so, can this different
preference be related to cultural differences?
Generally, the dominant change approach does not differ across cultural regions. We can say
so as data from different cultural regions was gathered and analyzed, but generally no difference
in the dominant change approach was identified. Exceptions on the dominance of Theory E can
be found in Austria and Finland where Theory O is the dominant change approach, and in
Belgium, where the preference for Theory E equals the preference for Theory O. For the
countries that do differ in the dominant change approach, no explanation could be found in
cultural dissimilarity. The reverse also appears to be true, as culturally distinct regions show a
similar preference for change approaches. A holistic view on culture comprising the four
Hofstede dimensions did not elucidate the lack of correspondence between clusters based on
culture and clusters based on organizational change approach, and neither did a regression
analysis of the individual culture dimensions that was performed additionally.
Theoretical contributions
First of all, this thesis succeeds in identifying a generally dominant change approach. Planned
change enjoys significantly greater preference than continuous change. Within the concept of
planned change, Theory E enjoys greater preference than Theory O. This outcome adds to the
understanding of change approach conceptualization: not only can three organizational change
approaches be distinguished; they also can be prioritized by the magnitude of their application.
Additionally, this thesis extends the significance of planned organizational change. The
significance of planned change in organizational life was already acknowledged (Burnes,
2014); its significance in educational life is newly discovered.
27
Managerial implications
Apart from contributions to existing literature, this thesis also holds implications for
practitioners in the field of organizational change. A general preference for planned change
approaches was identified. Following the reasoning of Burnes and Jackson (2011), that this
thesis started out with and that stated that change agents best align the value configuration of a
change initiative with that of the change recipients if a change initiative is to be effective, in
general change managers will be most successful if they take a planned change perspective.
Within this concept of planned change, Theory E values will find a more substantial recognition
among change recipients when compared to Theory O values. Theory C values were generally
least appreciated. This implies that change initiatives taking a continuous change perspective
are the least likely to be resembled in the values that change recipients hold.
Based on the findings of this research, taking a Theory E approach on organizational change
can now be recommended as the safe choice for successful change execution in the majority of
investigated countries. Exceptions of this rule of thumb can be found in the case of Austria and
Finland where Theory O values are the most appreciated, and in Belgium, where Theory O is
as preferred as much as Theory E. However, in Belgium, still a preference for planned change
can be identified.
Finally, the implications that cultural differences were supposed to hold for effective change
management styles were not supported by this thesis. Theory E values generally were most
appreciated throughout various culturally distinct regions.
Propositions
Coming up with propositions was among the objectives of this thesis. Based on the findings,
five propositions can be put forward. The majority of investigated papers advocates Theory E
and/or Theory O. Both theories are part of the realm of planned change. The number of papers
advocating continuous change is outclassed by the figure of papers advocating planned change.
Hence:
1. Planned organizational change approaches enjoy the greater preference compared to
continuous organizational change approaches.
28
2. Within the realm of planned organizational change, Theory E is more preferred than
Theory O.
Based on the former two propositions and the findings of this thesis in general, it is to be
concluded that Theory E is the dominant change approach. Hence:
3. Theory E is the dominant organizational change approach.
Austria and Finland were the only two countries that deviated in the sense that Theory E is not
the dominant change approach in these countries. Instead, Theory O is the dominant change
approach in Austria as well as Finland. Hence:
4. If, in a region, Theory E is not the dominant change approach, the then dominant
change approach is most likely to be Theory O.
However, the explanation of this deviation of the generally dominant change approach of
Austria and Finland was not found in their national culture, as their cultures show a similarity
with other countries that does not return in change approach preference. The reverse also
appears to be true: culturally distinct regions show a similar preference for change approaches.
Hence:
5. No relation can be found between culture and a preference for organizational change
approach.
These propositions can be used in future theory-testing oriented research designs.
Limitations
29
A respondent bias can be found with the universities represented in the dataset. Universities
were approached based on their ranking on a Western Top 200 university ranking, or based on
the fact that they are a partner university of a Western university. Even though this was done
to preserve practical and academic relevance of included universities, it also leads to a
Western-oriented dataset.
Furthermore, this research worked with the assumption that university curricula give an
appropriate reflection of national preferences. The extent to which this working assumption is
true has not yet been tested.
Suggestions for further research
The findings of this thesis unlock several alleys for further research. In the first place, a very
rich dataset was created. This dataset is feasible for further investigation. A large amount of
books that are part of university curricula was gathered, but as a consequence of the relatively
short time span for this thesis, analysis of this major part of the dataset has been impossible so
far. Moreover, the limited scope of this thesis urged for a very strict and pragmatic view on the
organizational change approach an academic paper advocates. Not only are papers often more
nuanced than this, reality certainly is. The robustness of findings will benefit from a more
sophisticated analysis of the dataset, preferably with more elaborated crosschecking than was
the case now.
Also, a more advanced statistical analysis of the current dataset could yield more insight. For
example, a correspondence analysis could gain more insight in the clustering of countries into
regions for culture as well as change approach preference. Additionally, quantification of
change approach preference and identification of patterns in this distribution has not been
performed yet.
Apart from further investigation of the current dataset, chances lie in the extension of this
dataset. Relevant countries such as Germany, France, and Japan have not made it to the analysis
for various reasons, but analysis of these countries certainly would be interesting. Moreover,
inclusion of non-Top 200 universities or non-partner universities would reduce the Western
bias that is present in the current dataset.
30
only enhance the need for further investigation in order to gain understanding on the relation
between national culture and the relative effectiveness of change management.
REFERENCES
Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H., & Bij, H. van der. (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations – A
Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students (2
ndedition). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, W.P., & Carroll, G.R. (1995). Modeling internal organizational change. Annual Review
Sociology, 21, 217-36.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the Code of Change. Harvard Business Review,
May-June, 133-141.
Boonstra, J. (2003). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning: Reflections and
Perspectives. Published in: Dynamics in Organizational Change and Learning.
Chichester: Wiley.
Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J.L., Saint Lamont, S., Neath, A.,
& Whitby, E. (2005). No Going Back: A Review of the Literature on Sustaining
Organizational Change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 189-205.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (4
thedition). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5
thedition). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing Change (6
thedition.) Harlow: Pearson Education.
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure in Organizational Change: An
Exploration of the Role of Values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133-162.
Crossan, M.M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A Multi-Dimensional Framework of Organizational
Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6),
1154-1191.
Cummings, T.G., & Huse, E.F. (1989). Organizational Development and Change (4
thedition). St Paul, MN USA: West.
De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2010). Strategy: Process, content, context (4
thedition). Cengage:
Andover.
Dunphy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. 1988. Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned
Organizational Change: Beyond the O.D. Model. Organization Studies, 9(3).
Fagenson-Eland, E., Ensher, E.A., & Burke, W.W. 2004. Organization Development and
31
George, M.A. 2011. Preparing Teachers to Teach Adolescent Literature in the 21
stCentury.
Theory into Practice, 50 182-289.
Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency Perspective of Organizational
Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Academy of Management
Review, 10, 421-434.
Hayes, J. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Change Management (2
ndedition). London:
Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations. (2
ndedition). Sage Publications.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World
Business, 37, 3-10.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D.J. (1969). National character: the study of modal personality and
social cultural systems. In Lindzey, G., & Aronson, E. (ed). Handbook of social
psychology (vol. 4, pp. 418-506). New York: McGraw-Hill (originally published, 1954).
Jaeger, A.M. 1986. Organizational Development and National Culture: Where’s the Fit?
Academy of Management Review, 11(1) 178-190.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., Du Luque, M.S., & House, R.J. (2006). In the Eye of the Beholder:
Cross Cultural Lessons in Leadership from Project GLOBE. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.
Kirkman, B.L., Lowe, K.B., & Gibson, C.B. (2006). A Quarter Century of Culture’s
Consequences: A Review of Empirical Research Incorporating Hofstede’s Cultural Values
Framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(3), 285-320.
Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
Lee, K., Scandura, T.A., & Sharif, M.M. (2014). Cultures have consequences: a configural
approach to leadership across two cultures. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 692-710.
Lockett, A., Thompson, S., & Morgenstern, U. (2009). The development of the resource-based
view: a critical appraisal. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1)m 9-28,
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s Model of National Cultural Differences and Their Cultural
Consequences: A Triumph of Faith – A Failure of Analysis. Human Relations, 55(1),
89-118.
32
Ordanini, A., & Rubera, G. (2008). Strategic capabilities and internet resources in procurement:
a resource-based view of B-to-B buying process. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, 28(1), 27-52.
Sasaki, I., & Yoshikawa, K. (2014). Going Beyond National Cultures – Dynamic Interaction
Between Intra-National, Regional, and Organizational Realities. Journal of World
Business, 49, 455-464.
Scheffknecht, S. (2011). Multinational Enterprises – Organizational Culture versus National
Culture. International Journal of Management Cases, 13(4), 73-78.
Schwartz, H., & Davis, S. (1981). Matching corporate culture and business strategy.
Organizational Dynamics, 10, 30-48.
Stenhouse, L.1983. The Relevance of Practice to Theory. Theory into Practice, 22(3)
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B.L. (2012). Improving National Cultural Indices Using a
Longitudinal Meta-analysis of Hofstede’s Dimensions. Journal of World Business, 27,
329-341.
Thomson-Reuters. (2014). Times Higher Education World University Ranking 2014-2015.
Retrieved from:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking.
Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2003). Critical Issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE National Culture
Models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482.
Viljoen, J. (1997). Strategic Management (Planning and Implementing Successful Corporate
Strategies). In Mitchell, J., Young, S., & McKenna, S. (2002). Strategic Management and
Change Management and the National Training Framework: Core ideas. Brisbane,
Queensland: Australian National Training Authority.
Watkins, M. (2013). What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should We Care? Harvard
Business Review, May 15, 2013.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.
33
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: An overview of all countries and universities included in the sample
p.34
Appendix 2: Total list of papers used for the courses taught at foreign universities
p.40
Appendix 3: Total list of books used for the courses taught at foreign universities
p.198
Appendix 4: Final list of search terms and codes, based on Boonstra’s (2003) classification
p.303
34
Appendix 1: An overview of all countries and universities included in the sample
Country University T o p 2 0 0 Univ er sit y F E B P a rt ner Univ er sit y P a pers B o o ks Co ded
1 Austria 1 Johannes KeplerUniversität x
2 Universität Innsbruck x
3 University of Vienna x x x x x
4 Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration
x
2 Belgium 5 Ghent University x x
6 HEC - ULg Business School (Université de Liege)
x
7 ICHEC Brussels Management School x
8 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven x x x x x
9 Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Business
x 10 Université Catholique de Louvain x x
11 University of Antwerp x x x x x
3 Brazil 12 Insper x
13 Sao Paulo School of Business, Economics and Accountancy
x
4 Canada 14 Concordia University x
15 McGill University x
16 McMaster University (Degroote School of Business) x x 17 Queen's University x 18 Université de Sherbrook x 19 Université Laval x 20 University of Alberta x x
21 University of British Columbia x
22 University of Montreal x
23 University of Ottawa x x
24 University of Toronto x
25 University of Victoria x x
5 Chili 26 PUC de CHILE x
27 Universidad de Chile x
6 China 28 Fudan University x x
29 Peking University x x x
30 Renmin University of China x
31 Shanghai Jiaotong University x
32 Sun Yat-Sen University Business School
x
33 Tongji University x
34 Tsinghua University x
35 University of Nottingham, campus NINGBO China
x 36 Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University x
7 Colombia 37 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana x
8 Czech
Republic
38 Prague University of Economics x x x x
39 Technical University of Ostrava x
9 Denmark 40 Aarhus University x x x x
41 Copenhagen Business School x
42 Technical University of Denmark x
43 University of Copenhagen x x x x
44 University of Southern Denmark x
35
46 Aalto’s University School of Business x x x x
47 Hanken School of Economics x
48 Oulu Business School x
49 Turku School of Economics x
50 University of Helsinki x
51 University of Tampere x
52 University of Vaasa x
11 France 53 Audencia Group x
54 Burgundy School of Business / Groupe ESC DIJON
x
55 École de Management Strasbourg x
56 ÉcoleNormaleSupérieure x
57 ÉcoleNormaleSupérieure de Lyon x
58 ÉcolePolytechnique x
59 EMLYON Business School x
60 ESSEC Business School x
61 Grenoble Graduate School of Business x
62 Groupe Sup de Co Montpellier x
63 IAE Aix Graduate School of Management
x
64 IESEG School of Management x
65 KEDGE Business School - campus Bordeaux
x 66 KEDGE Business School - campus
Marseille
x
67 NEOMA Business School x
68 Rennes School of Business x x
69 SKEMA Business School x
70 TELECOM Business School x
71 Toulouse Business School x
72 Université de Rennes x
73 Université Joseph Fourier x
74 Université Pantheon-Assas Paris II x
75 Université Paris IX Dauphine x
76 Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7 x
77 Université Paris-Sud x
78 Université Pierre et Marie Curie x
12 Germany 79 Albert-Ludwigs-Universität x
80 Cologne Business School x
81 EberhardKarlsUniversität x 82 Europa-UniversitätViadrina x 83 FreieUniversität Berlin x x 84 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg x 85 Georg-August-Universität x x 86 Goethe-Universität x
87 HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management x 88 Humboldt-Universität x x 89 Julius-Maximilians-UniversitätWürzburg x 90 Karlsruhe Institute of Technology x 91 Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität x
92 Otto Friedrich Universität x
36
99 University of Mannheim x
100 Universität Regensburg x
13 Greece 101 Athens University of Economics and
Business
x x x x
14 Hong Kong 102 Chinese University of Hong Kong x x
103 City University of Hong Kong x x x x x
104 Hong Kong Baptiste University x
105 Hong Kong Polytechnic University x 106 Hong Kong University of Science and
Technology
x
107 Lingnan University x
108 Tongji University x
109 University of Hong Kong x x
15 Hungary 110 Corvinus University of Budapest x
111 EötvösLoránd University x x
16 Indonesia 112 GadjahMada University x
113 IT Bandung x
114 University of Indonesia x x
115 University of Surabaya x
17 Ireland, Republic of
116 National University of Ireland, Galway x 117 University of Limerick / Kemmy
Business School x 18 Italy 118 LiberaUniversitàInternazionaledegliSt udiSociali 'LUISS' x 119 Politecnico di Milano x 120 ScuoleNormale di Pisa x
121 University of Rome Tor Vergata x x
122 University of Padova x
19 Japan 123 Kyoto University x x
124 Osaka University x
125 Tohoku University x x
126 Tokyo Institute of Technology x
127 University of Tokyo x
20 Latvia 128 The Stockholm School of Economics in Riga
x
129 University of Latvia x
21 Malaysia 130 Monash University Malaysia x
131 Universiti Putra Malaysia x
132 University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus x 22 Mexico 133 InstitutoTecnológicoAutónomo de México x 23 The Netherlands
134 Delft University of Technology x x
135 Eindhoven University of Technology x
136 Erasmus University Rotterdam x x
137 Leiden Universiteit x
138 Maastricht University x x x x
139 Radboud University Nijmegen x x x x
140 University of Amsterdam x x x x
141 University of Groningen x x x x
142 Utrecht University x
143 VU University of Amsterdam x x x x
144 Wageningen University and Research Center
x x
24 Norway 145 Norwegian Business School x x x x
146 Norwegian School of Management x
147 Norwegian University of Science and Technology
x
148 University of Oslo x x x x
