PREFERENCE FOR CHANGE APPROACH AND THE ROLE OF NATIONAL
CULTURE
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
MSc Business Administration – Change Management
August 2015 Kim Griek Oosterweg 41b 9724CC Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6-52345600 E-mail: kdi.griek@gmail.com Student number: 2378485 Supervisor:
Dr. C. Reezigt (University of Groningen)
Co-Assessor:
Change is something that is continuously present in organizational life. However, a remarkable aspect of organizational change efforts is an inherently high failure rate. In trying to explain this high failure rate, this study examines the preferred change approach in Europe and Asia, whether it differs and if cultural differences at a national level can explain these findings. It answers the question ‘Does the preference for change approach differ across cultural regions, and if so, can these preferences be related to national cultural differences?’ A systematic analysis of university curriculums resulted in a database of 33 universities divided over four regions in Europe and Asia, that were clustered based on their national culture values provided by Taras et al. (2012). The coding process resulted in five change approach combinations based on the categorization used by Boonstra (2003). The findings of clustering countries based on national values indicate that Theory E is the most preferred change approach regardless of national cultural values. An explanation for the preference for Theory E can be related to the dominance of planned change in the change management literature. However, if countries are clustered on the basis of preferred change approach, one region prefers Theory O over Theory E, where the national cultural values crucial to organizational culture support this preference. Based on the results and the propositions made in the discussion, future researchs needs to investigate why countries prefer a certain approach to change. Furthermore, because this study is the first to investigate approaches to change across national boundaries and could not include all European and Asian countries, future research should focus on including more countries and universities to enrich the dataset further.
This research was done in collaboration with two other researchers. As a result of a shared project an overlap in text will be present.
Keywords:
1
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
Organizational change approaches ... 5
Culture ... 7
Cultural differences and the preference for a dominant change approach ... 8
METHODS ... 10 Research Method ... 10 Change approach ... 10 Culture ... 11 Data Gathering ... 11 Sample selection ... 11 Data collection ... 11 Data analysis ... 14 1. Coding scheme ... 14
2. Determining the change approach ... 14
3. Determining cultural influence ... 15
Quality criteria ... 15
RESULTS ... 17
Preference for Change Approach and Culture ... 20
Mid-Europe ... 20
Mid-East Europe... 20
Scandinavia-oriented countries ... 21
Asia ... 22
Comparing regions on change approach and national cultural values ... 22
Mid-Europe versus Mid-East Europe, Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia ... 22
Mid-East Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia ... 25
Scandinavia-oriented countries versus Asia ... 27
Refocus: cluster countries based on change approach ... 28
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 30
The same preference for change approach, but differences in national cultural values ... 30
Categorization based on change approach and cultural values ... 31
Preference for change approach and organizations ... 31
2
Theoretical implications ... 32
Practical implications ... 33
Limitations ... 33
Future research directions ... 34
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 35
REFERENCES ... 36
APPENDICES ... 39
Appendix 1: Overview of all universities approached and included in the dataset ... 40
3
INTRODUCTION
Change is an ever-present feature of organizational life where contemporary organizations have the choice to either change or die (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes, 2004). Despite the relevance of change, evidence shows that approximately 70% of change initiatives fail (Siegal et al. 1996; Burnes & Jackson, 2011). Where this failure can be attributed to remains by and large unknown (Buchanan, 2005).
Amongst other researchers, Burnes & Jackson (2011) suggest that a potential reason for change failure might be the lack of alignment of cultural values for change initiatives and those wishing to implement such initiatives. Cummings & Huse (1989) discuss culture in the context of organizations. Accordingly, among basic assumptions, values, norms, and artifacts, can be seen as one of the major layers of culture. Sasaki & 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 as early as from Hofstede (1980) has shown that culture varies to a great extent over geographical regions. Even though his theory has been challenged over time (e.g. McSweeney, 2002; Kirkman et al., 2006; Sasaki and Yoshikawa. 2014), authors such as Burnes (2009:219) and Sasaki and Yoshikawa (2014) show that the core of his theory still is vividly reflected in current organizational life.
According to Boonstra (2003) ‘theories and practices of change and learning are rooted in deeply held assumptions and values’(p. 3). It is in the interest of a change agent to know the values of its recipients and their implicit models if he is to align the values of the change initiative within the organization in order to reduce the chance of change failure (Burnes & Jackson, 2011). According to Hofstede (2001) organizations are a function of the implicit models in the minds of its members who are bound by culture, where organizational cultures distinguish between organizations holding their national environment constant. Assuming that organizations wish to fit in with their environment in order to make their efforts sustainable (Buchanan et al., 2005), and given that the national culture is represented in this environment, organizational environments influence organizational culture and organizational change processes (Schwartz & Davis, 1984). Whereas the values in the national cultures are likely to vary over nations (Hofstede, 1980), it follows that the values of change initiatives ought to vary as well if they are to be aligned with those of the organization (Cummings & Huse, 1989; Sasaki & Yoshikawa, 2014).
4 thereby focusing on Europe and Asia. This research assumes, that different preferences in change approaches can be explained by national cultural differences. Thus, research question of this study is:
Does the preference for change approach differ across cultural regions, and if so, can these preferences be related to national cultural differences?
5
LITERATURE REVIEW
This section reviews the organizational approaches to change, the national culture dimensions and makes assumptions about whether a different preference for change approach can be connected to differing national cultural values.
Organizational change approaches
Buchanan et al. (2005) showed that contemporary organizations only have two choices, organizations face either organizational change or organizational decline. Beer & Norhia followed the same line of reasoning, they stated that most organizations “have accepted that they must either change or die” (Beer & Norhia, 2000:1). However, accepting to change, is not a recipe for success in that most change initiatives are doomed to fail. According to Beer & Nohria (2000), this stems from differing views on how people approach change in their organizations and the misunderstandings of the nature and process of change itself. These misunderstandings are not only limited to practitioners wishing to implement change, but also to researchers whom differ in their definition of change. According to Barnett & Carroll (1995) change can be conceptualized in terms of process (referring to how change occurs) and content (describing what in an organization actually changes). Moran & Brightman define change management as ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever-changing needs of external and internal customers’ (Moran & Brightman, 2001:111).
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 share the concept of change as being a constant, their view of the process of change differs. Beer & Nohria (2000) identify two theories that identify the differing views of the process of 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 emergent, focusing on the development of organizational capabilities, building trust and commitment. Boonstra (2003) builds further upon the theories of Beer & Norhia, adding Theory C, an approach which incorporates continuous changing and constructing realities.
6 In contrast with Theory E, Theory O approaches change as emergent, less planned and programmatic (Boonstra, 2003). Key in Theory O is that organizational development should keep pace with the quality of working life. The interests of individuals and the organization need to be integrated (Boonstra, 2003; Burnes, 2009). Beer & Nohria (2000) also indicate that proponents of Theory O argue that focusing solely on profit might harm organizations, thus, emphasizing the need for individual and organizational learning (2000:134). Organizational effectiveness and a humanist orientation coexist, placing the role of the change agent, not as being an expert, but rather one who facilitates collaboration between managers and employees. Theory E appears to be most suitable in situations where an identified problem is not too complex, and where the change is seen as episodic and with a stable end situation. This differs from Theory O which appears to be more suitable when the issue is complex and no evident solution is available, thus focusing on continuous changing and improving change abilities (Boonstra, 2003).
Although Theory E and O differ, both mainly focus on matching organizational structure, individual competencies, human relations and technologies to environmental contingencies (Boonstra, 2003). In understanding the tensions between Theory E and Theory O, Boonstra (2003) argues for another theory, Theory C. Theory C approaches organizing, changing and learning as ‘an active process in which people construct their relationships, activities and meanings’ (2003:7). Changing is ‘a collaborative approach in which everyone contributes as an expert’ (2003:8). Change is a continuous process focused on sensemaking, interrelations and interweaving activities, in which each individual is involved. It is a process of transformation and reconstruction, a continuous activity where people collaborate, interact and make sense of their own social realities. Learning 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 Theory C is more fundamental as compared to Theory O. Survival depends on the alignment with the organizational environment, emphasizing the importance of alert reactions and daily contingencies which will drive organizational change (Boonstra, 2003).
7 Culture
‘Culture’ has been defined in many ways (Minkov & Hofstede, 2011; Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012), the one most quoted is the definition by Hofstede (2001): ‘Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another’ (Hofstede, 2001:15).
Based on the theoretical foundation of Inkeles & Levinson (1969), Hofstede (1980) made a major contribution to understanding national culture by identifying his four initial dimensions of culture: power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance. And though Hofstede’s conceptualization has been widely criticized (McSweeney. 2002; Venaik & Brewer, 2013; Sasaki & Yoshikawa, 2014), Taras, Steel & Kirkman (2012) deliver evidence that Hofstede’s model still is relevant. By performing a meta-analysis of ‘studies that report cultural values of their participants measured using models and a methodology comparable with those devised by Hofstede’ (Taras et al., 2012:331). Taras et al. (2012) provide a reestablishment of the values of 49 countries from all over the world for Hofstede’s four initial dimensions.
The research of Taras et al. (2012) incorporates only the four initial Hofstede dimensions, because of the more recently added dimensions (long-term versus short-term orientation and indulgence versus constraint, see: Hofstede, 2001; Minkov & Hofstede, 2011; Scheffknecht, 2011) no sufficient data was available (Taras et al., 2012). Following Taras et al. (2012), power distance is defined as ‘the extent to which the less powerful persons in a society accept inequality in power and considers it as normal’. Individualism is ‘the degree to which people prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of groups’, masculinity refers to the degree to which masculine values prevail over feminine values, whereas 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).
8 of the mind that distinguishes the members of one organization from another’ (Hofstede, 2001:391). Watkins (2013) showed that organizational culture is shaped by other cultures, especially the national culture it operates in. According to Webster & White (2010) the essence of organizational culture is determined by the national culture. Additionally, Scheffknecht (2011) argued that national and regional cultural values cannot be avoided in organizational culture building. Both Webster & White and Scheffknecht align with Hofstede’s (2001) reasoning that organizational culture is bound by its national culture.
Cultural differences and the preference for a dominant change approach
Beer & Nohria (2000) indicated that national culture can cause a particular change approach to be more common in comparison with other cultures. They showed that companies in the United States will make more use of Theory E as a change strategy than Theory O (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Choosing Theory E has to do with the fact that the focus of US organizations lies primarily on stock price and profit. Beer & Norhia also comment on Asian and European organizations, stating that they are ‘more likely to adopt an O strategy to change’ (Beer & Nohria, 2000:134). Choosing this strategy is caused by the high value that is placed on employee commitment by organizations in these cultures. Although Beer & Norhia give an indication that national culture has an effect on the preference for a change approach, they do not elaborate on this. Lee, Scandura, & Sharif (2014) concluded in their research that the use of theories and practices of organizational change cannot simply be the same across cultures. As explained above, national culture is a complex phenomenon made up out of four initial dimensions. Each of these dimensions differ per national culture and influences organizational behavior in a unique way (Hofstede, 1980; Taras et al. 2012). Therefore, it is assumed that the difference in change approach can be explained by differing values on the national cultural dimensions as given by Hofstede (1980) and Taras et al. (2012).
10
METHODS
To answer the research question ‘Does the preference for change approach differ across cultural regions, and if so, can these preferences be related to national cultural differences?’ a combined theory testing and theory development approach was used. The aim of this research was to identify whether there is a preference for change approach and if this differs between Asian and European cultures. These different preferences can be explained by differing values on the national cultural dimension. This was done explicitly in Europe and Asia. A theory development approach was used to identify a preference for a dominant change approach. After the dominant change approach per region was defined, the national cultural differences were compared to see if the dominant change approach was influenced by these national cultural differences. A theory development approach was used to uncover new insight into the change management field about the different preferences for change approach and the link with national cultural differences, however, due to the explanatory and descpritive nature of this research hypothesis testing was not a possibility (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Therefore, testing hypothesis is a next step in this research field. This research will sought to come forward with propositions that added value to the existing literature (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012), based on the exploratory nature of this research endeavor, and feasible for further research.
This section provides justifications for the choices concerning the research method, data gathering and data analysis and reviews those methods for quality assurance.
Research Method
Change approach
11 approaches of Boonstra (2003), or a combination of these change approaches, which simplifies the process of data gathering.
Culture
For defining the culture of countries/regions involved, the framework of Taras et al. (2012) was used. It incorporates the initial four cultural dimensions of Hofstede (1980), but 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. Hereby Taras et al. (2012) provide a revalued framework for determining the cultural configuration of all countries in the dataset of this research. Taras et al. (2012) standardized the scores of the four cultural dimensions (Mean = 0, SD = 1) by not exceeding -2 and +2 were zero indicates a neutral position, -2 is a low score on the cultural dimension and +2 is a high score on a cultural dimension. For this research the 40-year average scores for the cultural dimensions as represented in their work was used.
Data Gathering
In this section, the procedures surrounding the sample selection and data collection are discussed further, focusing solely on Europe and Asia.
Sample selection
The starting point of the data gathering process was to identify universities within Europe and Asia suitable for this research. To ensure that all relevant universities were taken into account, the ranking of the top 200 universities worldwide by Thomson-Reuters (2014), provided the original list from which the reviewed universities were selected. Universities included in this systematic analysis were not limited to only business schools, as other courses that taught courses related to change management could provide equal insights into cultural values. Additionally, the faculty partner network was used to collect curricula to further broaden the sample size.
Data collection
As mentioned above two sources were used for data collection. Top 200 universities
12 TABLE 1
Search terms University Curricula
Business Business Communication Change Management
Consultancy Continuous Change Decision Making
Dynamic Engineering Entrepreneurship
Emergent Change Human Resource Management Information
Innovation Leadership Manage/Managing
Organizational Behavior Organizational Change Organizational Development
Planned Change Project Management Strategy
Strategic Management Technology Transformation
If course information was found on the university website relating to organizational change, course overviews and syllabus were scanned for literature, via the criteria as is mentioned below. If this literature was sufficient, the literature was saved in a word document containing the country, the university where the course is taught, the date the information was found, the program in which the course is taught, the course itself, an overview of what the course is about and the literature itself. If no satisfactory amount of data was to be found on the university website via mentioned procedure, the university was approached via e-mail with an information request. This request for information contained questions whether any courses related to organizational change were being taught at their university, if there was any course information about the courses concerned available, and what literature students following those courses needed to study. The literature sent via e-mail as well were saved in the word document via above mentioned procedure.
FEB partner universities
Parallel to the data collection of the Top 200 universities, all partner universities of the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen (FEB partner universities) were sent an information request as well, containing questions on whether they teach courses related to organizational change. Literature sent from these partner universities was saved following the above-mentioned procedure. If no response was received, a reminder request was sent once.
Inclusion criteria
13 Overall, 35 countries in Europe and Asia were included in the sample, referring to a total of 221 universities. Amongst these 221 universities, 94 were top 200 universities and 149 were FEB partner universities. The University of Groningen itself was included as well.
FIGURE 1
The Countries included in the research
Books were not included in this research due to time limitations of the researcher, the broad and multiple perspectives present in academic books, and the assumption that academic books mostly present an overview of change approaches. The literature collected was limited to articles as they are easier to retrieve than academic books and provide a more in depth and personal opinion of the writers of that article. However, limiting the literature to just articles creates slanted data as certain universities use books to teach the dominant approach and articles to compensate and balance the information. After restricting the inclusion criteria to just articles the final included curricula were thirteen countries and 33 universities.
14 TABLE 2
Country clusters culture
Mid-Europe Power Distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance
Belgium 0.37 0.59 0.19 0.88
United Kingdom 0.03 0.93 0.83 -0.61
Mid-East 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
Greece -0.12 -0.72 0.23 1.29
Switzerland -0.57 0.40 0.73 0.14
Scandinavia-oriented countries Power Distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty Avoidance 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
Asia Power Distance Individualism Masculinity Uncertainty
Avoidance
Hong Kong 0.56 -0.19 0.05 -0.37
South Korea 0.69 -0.12 0.45 0.46
(Source: Taras, Steel, & Kirkman, 2012)
Data analysis
The data gathering process resulted in a list of articles for the courses taught at the universities in Europe and Asia. This list of data served as input for the coding process. This coding process consisted of three steps. First a coding scheme was built, the second step included the coding process itself, and the third step was to build a taxonomy. These steps are described in further detail below.
1. Coding scheme
The first step in the coding process was to build a database in order to prepare the data for analysis. This database contained all literature in alphabetic order retrieved from universities in Europe and Asia, which was appropriate for coding. The database registers the literature’s author, title, complete reference, regions it is published in, and university and course it is used for each publication. Articles were searched for by using the University of Groningen’s SmartCat search engine. The total list of articles as used for the courses taught at the universities as included in this research is provided on an additional memory stick.
2. Determining the change approach
15 of codes was open to additions derived from the coding process. The search terms and codes can be found in the table in appendix 2.
In order to identify the change approach per country, the literature mentioned in the database was searched for and analyzed for a preference for either: Theory E, Theory O, or Theory C, or a combination of either Theory E and Theory O, or a combination of Theory O and Theory C. A combination of Theory E and Theory C is not included in this research, as these change approaches contradict each other in such an extent that they are mutually exclusive. The sentences relating to the approaches were marked, coded and evidence was collected and placed in an additional coding table. If all three approaches were present in an article, or if the combination Theory E and Theory C was present, each theory was counted for as 1, resulting in a total score of 3 points for one article or two. Based on these codes, a prevalent change approach was assigned to the article under investigation. If an article could not be found, it was removed from the dataset. If only an abstract or a summary of an article was available, this part was analyzed. If an article could not be coded or marked, notes were taken in an extra document. The researcher kept a constant record of whether an article could be analyzed and when this analysis was performed in the database. All articles and note-documents were saved, and evidence of the codes, and the prevalent change approach were submitted in a word-version coding table, so later quality controls could be made, eliminating as much of the researcher’s bias as possible. This coding table is provided on the additional memory stick.
3. Determining cultural influence
The final step in the coding process was to use the data identified to build a taxonomy. This taxonomy consists of the literature and the categorization in one of the five change approaches: Theory E, Theory O, Theory C, Theory E and O, or Theory O and C and the number of articles devoted to one of these five categories per country. This taxonomy is used to identify the influence of culture on the approach to change. To do so, the change approaches and the scores relating to national culture based on Taras et al. (2012) were added. A quantitative analysis of the taxonomy resulted in the findings as are discussed in the result section.
Quality criteria
16 the findings might be dependent upon the researcher's search efforts. The personal background of the researcher is shaped by a Dutch education, which has a Western bias. This Western bias can also be enhanced because data was collected from internationally oriented universities, which might mean that they are western focused initially. However, by adopting the procedure as described before, the impact of this bias should be reduced to as much as possible within in the researchers’ abilities.
17
RESULTS
Within this section the results of this research will be presented. As table 2 showed, four regions based on the cultural country clusters of Taras et al. (2012) are included in this research. These four regions are represented by thirteen countries consisting of: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Norway, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Figure 2 portrays those countries included.
18 TABLE 3:
Change approach scores per region
Region: Change approach:
Number of Universities
Theory E
Theory O Theory C Theory E&O Theory O&C Mid-Europe Total: Belgium 2 6 4 0 4 1 15 United Kingdom 11 155 56 29 44 11 295* Total region 161 60 29 48 12 310 Mid-East Europe Austria 1 1 2 1 0 1 5 Czech Republic 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Greece 1 3 2 1 1 0 7 Switzerland 2 14 10 2 8 3 37 Total region 19 14 4 9 4 50 Scandinavia-oriented countries Denmark 2 10 9 4 6 4 33** Finland 1 3 12 0 8 1 24 The Netherlands 5 47 30 12 22 7 118** Norway 2 41 17 9 8 6 81** Sweden 3 52 27 6 21 4 110 Total Region 153 95 31 65 22 366 Asia Hong Kong 1 7 5 0 2 0 14 South Korea 1 18 7 1 5 1 32 Total Region 25 12 1 7 1 46 Total: 358 181 65 129 39 772
* United Kingdom includes 4 Articles with Theory E and C (each Theory counted as one)
** Denmark, The Netherlands and Norway all include one article (a total of 3 articles) with Theory E, O, and C (each Theory counted as one).
19 TABLE 4:
Data Change scores and Taras et al. (2012) combined
Change Approach scores National Culture scores:
Region:
Theory E Theory O Theory C Theory E&O
Theory O&C
Power Distance
20 Within this section a quantitative analysis of each region provides the preferred change approach in that region, followed by a comparison of the change approach scores and national culture scores as are provided in table 4. Finally, all four regions will be compared.
Preference for Change Approach and Culture
Based on table 3 and table 4, each country and region is analyzed based on its preference for change approach and its national culture scores
Mid-Europe
Change Approach scores
Table 3 illustrates that the total amount of articles coded in Mid-Europe is 310, provided by thirteen universities in total. Belgium scores its preference for change approach based on two universities and 15 articles, whereas the United Kingdom scores its preference for change approach based on eleven universities and 295 articles. As table 4 indicates, both Belgium (0.40) and the United Kingdom (0.53) score Theory E as the preferred change approach, with an average weight of 0.47. In the regional level Theory E is followed by Theory O (0.23), Theory E&O (0.21), Theory O&C (0.06) and Theory C (0.05). On a country level, both countries differ in that the United Kingdom sequences Theory O second, followed by Theory E&O, Theory C, and Theory O&C. Belgium prefers Theory O and Theory E&O equivalent followed by Theory O&C, and does not value Theory C.
National Culture scores
The above analysis of change approach scores indicates that Belgium and the United Kingdom both approach change in a similar way. However, comparing the change approach scores with the national culture scores in table 4, some differences can be found. Belgium and the United Kingdom both value power distance, individualism, and masculinity positively, differing only in height when it comes to these values. However, they differ in their value of uncertainty avoidance. The United Kingdom provides uncertainty avoidance with a negative value, -0.61, whereas, Belgium provides uncertainty avoidance with a positive value, 0.88.
Mid-East Europe Change Approach scores
21 Theory C and Theory E&O equally (0.14) and does not value Theory O&C. Switzerland differs and places Theory E&O (0.22) third, followed by Theory O&C (0.08) fourth and Theory C (0.05) fifth.
National Culture scores
The national culture scores and the individual country scores both differ when it comes to scores on change. Table 4 illustrates that all countries score negative on power distance, varying in -0.12 for Greece up to -1.29 for Austria. Only Greece scores individualism with a high negative value of -0.72, whereas Austria (-0.07), Czech Republic (0.08) and Switzerland (0.40), do not vary greatly on individualism. All Mid-East European countries score positive when it comes to masculinity, with Austria scoring the highest (1.15). On the uncertainty avoidance dimension, Austria scores the lowest (-0.03), the Czech Republic and Switzerland see uncertainty avoidance similarly, scoring it 0.24 and 0.14, whereas Greece favors uncertainty avoidance most, with a score of 1.29.
Scandinavia-oriented countries Change Approach scores
As table 3 illustrates, a total of 366 articles are coded to determine the preferred change approach for the Scandinavia-oriented countries. On a regional level, table 4 indicates that Theory E is preferred most with an average weight of 0.36, followed by Theory O (0.30), Theory E&O (0.20), Theory C (0.08) and Theory O&C (0.07). However, some differences can be seen between the regional and country level. Finland differs from the region level scores in that it values Theory O (0.50) to be the preferred approach to change, followed by Theory E&O (0.33), Theory E (0.13), Theory O&C (0.04), and it does not provide any value for Theory C. For Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden no major differences are found compared to the regional level. All four countries prefer Theory E as the approach to change followed by Theory O. As table 4 indicates, the valuation of Theory C, Theory E&O and Theory O&C does differ to some degree.
National Culture scores
22 Asia
Change Approach scores
Asia based it scores on a total of 46 articles provided by two universities. On region level, table 4 indicates that Theory E is preferred with an average weight of 0.53, followed by Theory O (0.29), Theory E&O (0.15) and Theory C and O&C (0.02). On a country level, Hong Kong and South Korea have the same categorization of preferred change approaches, which is equal to the region level categorization.
National Culture scores
Asia illustrates the same categorization of change approaches, however, they do not illustrate the same categorization of national culture scores. Both countries value power distance most positively, but differ in their further categorization of national culture scores. Hong Kong scores masculinity second (0.05), individualism third (-0.19) and uncertainty avoidance last (-0.37). South Korea, on the other hand, scores both uncertainty avoidance (0.46) and masculinity (0.45) almost equally, whereas individualism scores lowest with -0.12.
All regions together, as seen in table 4, illustrates that Theory E is valued most with an overall weight of 0.47, followed by Theory O (0.27), Theory E&O (0.16) and Theory C and O&C (0.06). Although, regions differ individually, Mid-East Europe and Asia illustrate the same values, whereas Mid-Europe and the Scandinavia-oriented countries differs in theirs.
The following section compares the different regions based on the preferred change approach and their scores on the national culture dimensions.
Comparing regions on change approach and national cultural values
As the different regions are analyzed individually in the above section, this section focuses on comparing the regions. The tables in this section provide the weighted averages per country as is illustrated in table 4. Abbreviations are used for the change approach dimensions (E, O, C, E&O, O&C) and national culture dimensions (PD, I, M, UA). The categorization is the same as table 4. First, Mid-Europe is compared with Mid-East Europe, the Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia. Followed by a comparison of Mid-East Europe with the Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia, where after the Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia are compared last.
Mid-Europe versus Mid-East Europe, Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia
23 Mid-Europe versus Mid-East Europe
Table 4.1a illustrates the values of the preferred change approach in Mid-Europe and Mid-East Europe on region level and the national culture scores on country level.
TABLE 4.1a
Mid-Europe versus Mid-East Europe
Mid-Europe E O C E&
O
O& C
Mid-East Europe E O C E& O
O& C Average weight 0.47 0.23 0.05 0.21 0.06 Average weight 0.50 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.07
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Belgium 0.37 0.59 0.19 0.88 Austria -1.29 -0.07 1.15 -0.03
United Kingdom 0.03 0.93 0.83 -0.61 Czech Republic -0.47 0.08 0.39 0.24
Greece -0.12 -0.72 0.23 1.29
Switzerland -0.57 0.40 0.73 0.14
Change approach
As the above analysis, in table 4.1a, illustrate there are differences between the Europe and East Europe regions when it comes to the preferred approach to change. Both Europe and Mid-East Europe value Theory E (0.47; 0.50) as the preferred approach to change followed by Theory O (0.23; 0.24), though they differ in their categorization of Theory C, Theory E&O and Theory O&C.
National Culture
Table 4.1a illustrate that Mid-Europe and Mid-East Europe differ in their scores on the national culture dimensions. Belgium and the United Kingdom value power distance positively (0.37; 0.03) whereas power distance scores negative values in Mid-East Europe countries. The scores of individualism fluctuate across both regions. Belgium and the United Kingdom value individualism with positive scores (0.59; 0.93), as well does the Czech Republic and Switzerland (0.08; 0.40); whereas, Austria and Greece value individualism with negative scores (-0.07; -0.72). Table 4.1a illustrates that both regions approach masculinity equal; however, difference can be seen in their scores on uncertainty avoidance. Austria and the United Kingdom both score a negative value for uncertainty avoidance (-0.03; -0.61), whereas Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece and Switzerland all score positive values.
Mid-Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries
24 TABLE 4.1b
Mid-Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries
Mid-Europe: E O C E& O O& C Scandinavia-oriented countries: E O C E& O O& C Average weight 0.47 0.23 0.05 0.21 0.06 Average weight 0.36 0.30 0.08 0.20 0.07
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Belgium 0.37 0.59 0.19 0.88 Denmark -1.17 0.48 -0.92 -1.31
United Kingdom 0.03 0.93 0.83 -0.61 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
Change approach
Table 4.1b indicates that, overall, both the Mid-European countries and the Scandinavia-oriented countries perceive their preference for change approach similarly; furthermore, with both having Theory E as the preferred approach to change. Both regions differ in that the Mid-European countries value Theory O&C (0.06) over Theory C (0.05), whereas the Scandinavia-oriented countries value Theory C (0.08) over Theory O&C (0.07). However, the differences between the both values are rather small.
National Culture
As table 4.1b illustrates, both regions differ in their scores on national culture. Belgium has the highest score on uncertainty avoidance (0.88), whereas the United Kingdom (-0.61), Denmark (-1.31), Finland (-0.03), the Netherlands (-0.27), Norway (-1.37) and Sweden (-0.94) value this dimension negative. All countries in the Mid-Europe region and the Scandinavia-oriented countries score positive on individualism, though the scores on masculinity between both regions differ. The United Kingdom and Belgium value masculinity positive (0.83;0.19) whereas all the Scandinavia-oriented countries value masculinity negative. This as well holds for the power distance dimension.
Mid-Europe versus Asia Change Approach
When comparing the regions of Mid Europe and Asia table 4.1c illustrates that some minor differences exist in preference for change approach. Both regions value Theory E as the approach to change, followed by Theory O, and Theory E&O. Both regions differ in that the Mid European countries value Theory O&C (0.06) first and then Theory C (0.05), where the Asian countries values Theory C and Theory O&C (0.02) equal.
National Culture
25 value power distance and masculinity positively, but more discrepancy can be found in the values reflecting individualism and uncertainty avoidance. Uncertainty avoidance is valued positive by both Belgium (0.88) and South Korea (0.46), whereas the United Kingdom (-0.61) and Hong Kong (-0.37) value these national cultural dimension negative. Individualism scored positive both for Belgium (0.59) and the United Kingdom (0.93), whereas Hong Kong (-0.19) and South Korea (-0.12) valued individualism negative.
TABLE 4.1c Mid-Europe versus Asia
Mid Europe: E O C E&
O O& C Asia: E O C E& O O& C Average weight 0.47 0.23 0.05 0.21 0.06 Average weight 0.53 0.29 0.02 0.15 0.02
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Belgium 0.37 0.59 0.19 0.88 Hong Kong 0.56 -0.19 0.05 -0.37
United Kingdom 0.03 0.93 0.83 -0.61 South Korea 0.69 -0.12 0.45 0.46
Mid-East Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries and Asia
Table 4.1d and 4.1e illustrate the values of the average weight of change approach scores and the national culture scores of the Mid-East European countries, the Scandinavia-oriented countries and the Asian countries.
Mid-East Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries
Table 4.1d provides the average weight of change approach scores and the national culture scores of the Mid-East European and the Scandinavia-oriented countries.
TABLE 4.1d
Mid-East Europe versus Scandinavia-oriented countries Mid-East Europe: E O C E&
O O& C Scandinavia-oriented countries: E O C E& O O& C Average weight 0.50 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.07 Average weight 0.36 0.30 0.08 0.20 0.07
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Austria -1.29 -0.07 1.15 -0.03 Denmark -1.17 0.48 -0.92 -1.31
Czech Republic -0.47 0.08 0.39 0.24 Finland -0.09 0.23 -0.58 -0.03
Greece -0.12 -0.72 0.23 1.29 The Netherlands -0.11 0.89 -0.91 -0.27
Switzerland -0.57 0.40 0.73 0.14 Norway -0.94 0.57 -1.14 -1.37
Sweden -0.76 0.69 -0.95 -0.94
Change Approach
26 National Culture
Table 4.1d illustrates that there are differences in the scores on national culture. Both regions have power distance of negative values; varying from Austria and Denmark with -1.29 and -1.17 respectively, and Greece who scores power distance -0.12 and Finland with a score of -0.09. The two regions perceive individualism differently. The Scandinavia-oriented countries all see individualism as the most positive feature in their national culture, within Mid-East European countries these values fluctuate. Austria and Greece score individualism -0.07 and -0.72 respectively, while the Czech Republic scores power distance 0.08 and Switzerland scores power distance 0.40. Furthermore, the scores on masculinity differ as well in both regions. Where all Mid-East European countries score masculinity positive, all Scandinavia-oriented countries score negative on masculinity. Uncertainty avoidance scores fluctuate. The Czech Republic (0.24), Greece (1.29) and Switzerland (0.14) score uncertainty avoidance positive, whereas Austria scores uncertainty avoidance similar as the Scandinavia-oriented countries.
Mid-East Europe versus Asia Change Approach
As table 4.1e illustrates, a small difference between the Mid-East Europe and the Asia region can be noticed when it comes to their preference for change approach. Both regions prefer Theory E, followed by Theory O and Theory E&O as their categorization in change approaches, with varying values per approach. Where they do differ is in that Asia equally values Theory C and Theory O&C (0.02), whereas Mid-East Europe values Theory C (0.10) over Theory O&C (0.07).
TABLE 4.1e
Mid-East Europe versus Asia Mid-East Europe: E O C E&
O O& C Asia: E O C E& O O& C Average weight 0.50 0.24 0.10 0.09 0.07 Average weight 0.53 0.29 0.02 0.15 0.02
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Austria -1.29 -0.07 1.15 -0.03 Hong Kong 0.56 -0.19 0.05 -0.37
Czech Republic -0.47 0.08 0.39 0.24 South Korea 0.69 -0.12 0.45 0.46
Greece -0.12 -0.72 0.23 1.29
Switzerland -0.57 0.40 0.73 0.14
National Culture
27 distance 0.56 and South Korea scores power distance 0.69. Austria (-0.07) and Greece (-0.72) score individualism as negative, as do Hong Kong (-0.19) and South Korea (-0.12), whereas the Czech Republic (0.08) and Switzerland (0.40) score individualism positively. Both regions score masculinity positive and both regions fluctuate in their score on uncertainty avoidance. Austria (-0.03) and Hong Kong (-0.37) score uncertainty avoidance negative, whereas the Czech Republic (0.24), Greece (1.29), Switzerland (0.14) and South Korea (0.46) score uncertainty avoidance positive.
Scandinavia-oriented countries versus Asia
In the above section the individual countries of Asia and the Scandinavia-oriented countries have already been analyzed. In this section, these two regions are compared.
Change approach
Table 4.1f illustrates that there are some differences in the weighted change approach scores of the Scandinavia-oriented countries and the Asian countries. Both regions prefer Theory E (0.36; 0.53), followed by Theory O (0.30; 0.29) and Theory E&O (0.20; 0.15), and differ in their categorization of Theory C and Theory O&C. The Scandinavia-oriented countries value Theory C (0.08) above theory O&C (0.07), where Asia prefers both Theory C and Theory O&C equally (0.02).
TABLE 4.1f
Scandinavia-oriented countries versus Asia Scandinavia-oriented countries: E O C E& O O& C Asia: E O C E& O O& C Average weight 0.36 0.30 0.08 0.20 0.07 Average weight 0.53 0.29 0.02 0.15 0.02
PD I M UA PD I M UA
Denmark -1.17 0.48 -0.92 -1.31 Hong Kong 0.56 -0.19 0.05 -0.37
Finland -0.09 0.23 -0.58 -0.03 South Korea 0.69 -0.12 0.45 0.46
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
National Culture
28 Within this section, the analysis of the different regions have indicated that, although cultural differences exist, the overall change approaches are similar, but that the dominance in preference of change approach fluctuates. This is remarkable because this means that the preference for a change approach is not necessarily influenced by differences in national culture. In the next section, the focus is on change approach clusters and the combination with power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Refocus: cluster countries based on change approach
As the above section indicated, the preferred change approach per country and region does not differ across national borders. As described in the literature review section, Hofstede (2001) argued that for an organizational culture not all but only two national cultural dimensions are crucial: power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, this section focuses on country clusters based on their change approach scores and both power distance and uncertainty avoidance. This new focus on change approach clusters and power distance and uncertainty avoidance can offer insights on the influence of cultural differences in preference for change approach. The country clusters based on the change approach scores are visually displayed in table 5. The approaches are categorized based on color of preference, were dark red refers to the most preferred change approach descending to the brightest variant of red, which indicates the least preferred change approach.
TABLE 5:
Categorization based on Preferred Change Approach
Change Approach scores National Culture scores
1 2 3 4 5
29 For Europe 1, all countries categorize the change approaches in a similar way, though their values on power distance and uncertainty avoidance differ. Sweden and the Netherlands both value power distance (-0.76; -0.11) and uncertainty avoidance (-0.94; -0.27) negative, the United Kingdom values both national culture dimensions positive, whereas Switzerland values power distance negative and uncertainty avoidance positive. Furthermore, table 5 illustrates that the countries in EUAsia 1 value their change approaches similar as well. However, both countries approach power distance and uncertainty avoidance different. South Korea values both power distance (0.69) and uncertainty avoidance (0.46) with positive scores, whereas Denmark values both power distance (-1.17) and uncertainty avoidance (-1.31) with negative scores. The countries clustered in EUAsia 2 value Theory E and Theory O similar, but differ somewhat in their valuation of Theory C, E&O and O&C. Their national culture scores on power distance and uncertainty avoidance, however, all differ. As table 5 illustrates, Europe 2 is the only country cluster which values Theory O as the preferred approach to change, though they differ in their valuation of the other change approaches. However, both Finland and Austria value power distance and uncertainty avoidance in a similar way. Both countries value uncertainty avoidance equal (-0.03), whereas power distance, though valued negatively in both countries, differs in its degree of valuation.
30
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This thesis analyses the preferences for change approach dimensions within different geographical regions and provides insights into the current knowledge in change management by addressing the question: Does the preference for change approach differ across cultural regions, and if so, can these preferences be related to national cultural differences? A systematic analysis of university curricula was adopted to be able to identify the preferred change approach across the different regions, where these regions where clustered based on their national cultural values as provided by Taras et al. (2012). A total of 762 coded articles were collected and put together into a taxonomy, which provided 772 change approach scores across the different regions, where the change approaches were being categorized by Boonstra’s (2003) identification of change approaches.
Based on comparison of cultural cluster regions all regions in Europe and Asia prefer Theory E as the approach to change followed by Theory O, regardless of the different national cultural values. However, the preference of change approach differed to a small extent with the categorization of Theory E&O, Theory C and Theory O&C. By re-categorizing the country clusters based on their preference for change approach and then only focusing on the power distance and the uncertainty avoidance dimensions, provided new insight. There was no relation found when comparing the scores on power distance and uncertainty avoidance for the different country clusters preferring Theory E. However, for Europe 2 the country cluster consisting of Austria and Finland a relation between preference for change approach and national cultural values was found. Both countries preferred Theory O as the approach to change and both countries valued power distance and uncertainty avoidance negative.
This section will further elaborate on the findings of this research and compare them with existing literature to form propositions. Furthermore, this section will describe the limitations of this research and the possibilities for future research. Finally, this section will explain the theoretical and managerial implications of these findings.
The same preference for change approach, but differences in national cultural values
31 Proposition 1: Regardless of national cultural values Theory E is preferred
It can be questioned if clustering countries based on their national values is the correct manner of researching the preference for change approach. Between countries differences in national values are noticed, even if the same countries prefer the same approach to change.
Categorization based on change approach and cultural values
Hofstede (2001) believes that not all national cultural values determine how an organization functions. Crucial dimensions of organizational culture are power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Power distance answers the question who does what in an organization, whereas uncertainty avoidance answers the questions how one assures that what needs to be done will be done (Hofstede, 2001). A high value for power distance and a high value for uncertainty avoidance are compatible with Theory E, where change is seen as a top-down, planned change approach (Boonstra, 2003). A negative value for power distance means striving for equality, whereas a negative value for uncertainty avoidance translates itself towards continuous change or an iterative change process. The unpredictability of change is not something people need to avoid. These negative values for power distance and uncertainty avoidance can be translated to Theory O, where change is seen as bottom up, iterative and an emergent approach (Boonstra, 2003). When clustering the countries based on their preference for change approach, no relationship is found between the cultural values and the preference for Theory E. However, the country cluster that values power distance and uncertainty avoidance negatively, preferring equivalence and change, is as well the country cluster with a preference for Theory O. The second proposition includes:
Proposition 2: Cultural values do matter if Theory O is preferred
Preference for change approach and organizations
32 Oswick, 2011). Though this sense making and socially constructing understandings of change gets more attention in change management literature (Boonstra, 2003; By, Burns, & Oswick, 2011; Weick, 2011), a dominant focus is still on “diagnosing and correcting breakdowns in implementing change” (Van de Ven & Sun, 2011: 59.). Though there are countries that value Theory C and the combination of Theory O&C, the preference remains Theory E or Theory O. Therefore, the third proposition of this research is:
Proposition 3: Most organizations, as do most countries, prefer stability to sense making. Preference for change approach and leadership
Leadership attributes and behaviors are a reflection of organizational practices, which in turn reflect national cultures (Kopelman, Brief, & Fuzzo, 1990). According to Siegal et al. (1996) geopolitical boundaries, which have been hallmarks in history, are fading. This indicates that a country’s national culture plays a role, but that geographical categorization based on national cultural differences does not necessarily provide the answer. House, Javidan, Hanges, & Dorfman (2002) also investigated national culture, and their research project the GLOBE (Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effectiveness) examined the impact of culture on leadership to determine what works and what does not in different cultural regions. They argue that there are those who believe that some aspects of leadership are universally accepted because they transcend cultural boundaries. As leadership is a main features of the way an organizational changes (Burnes, 2004), the preference of change approach can as well transcend cultural boundaries. This can explain why the different regions in this research all adopt Theory E, followed by Theory O and Theory E&O as the preferred approach to change. Therefore, the fourth proposition in this research is:
Propositions 4: Change agents possess certain leadership traits that transcend cultural boundaries; therefore, the preference of change approach does as well transcend cultural boundaries.
Theoretical implications
33 management literature (e.g.: Boonstra, 2003; Luecke, 2003; Burnes, 2009; By, Burns, & Oswick, 2011; Weick, 2011; Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). Moreover, this research provides insight that, though other perspectives of approaching change exist, a larger and more solid platform has to be created for less developed theories in approaching change. Finally, countries preferring Theory O show negative values for power distance and uncertainty avoidance.
Practical implications
In considering which change approaches are preferred in the analyzed countries, this research provides practitioners insights into how organizations in these countries and regions approach change. The implication that organizations are shaped by their national environment may be true, but this does not necessary mean that the national culture provides the foundation to the preferred change approach. Practitioners have to be aware that in many Westernized nations, organizations still prefer a planned approach to change, even if their national cultural values do not fear change and prefer equality in relationships. Moreover, the results do have warning signals; the fact that most organizations still prefer to adopt a planned approach to change can be part of the reason why change efforts fail. Therefore, practitioners should be careful in blindly trusting on this preferred change approach, because the continuously changing environment does not give the space to carefully plan change. In addition, this study and its results suggest that the preference for other change approaches, such as Theory C, as there are countries and regions that include this change approach.
Limitations
34 Therefore, this research has to be extended and include a broader diversity of countries, such as; France, Germany, Poland, Russia, North Korea, and Japan.
Future research directions
35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
36
REFERENCES
Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H., & Bij, H. van der. (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations – A Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students (2nd edition). 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). Breaking the code of Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
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.
Boonstra, J.J. (2004). 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. Burke, W.W. (2009). Understanding organizations: The process of diagnosis. In W.W. Burke,
D.G. Lake & J.W. Paine (Eds), Organization Change: A comprehensive reader (pp. 259-272). San Fransisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Burke, W.W., Lake, D.G., & Paine, J.W. (Eds). (2009). Organization change: A comprehensive reader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (4th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education.
Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5th edition). Harlow: Pearson Education. Burnes, B. (2014). Managing Change (6th edition). 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.
By, T.R., Burnes, B, & Oswick, C. (2011). Change Management: The Road Ahead. Journal of Change Management, 11(1), 1-6.
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 (4th edition). West: St Paul, MN USA.
37 Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency Perspective of Organizational Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 421-
434.
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. (2nd edition). Sage Publications.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, 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).
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.
Kopelman, R.E., Brief, A.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282-318).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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. Luecke, R. (2003). Managing Change and Transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
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.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2011). The evolution of Hofstede’s doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 10-20.
38 Pettigrew, A. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice. Organization Science, 1(3), 267-992.
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(1), 30-48.
Siegal, W., Church, A.H., Javitch, M., Waclawski, J., Burd, S., Bazigos, M., Yang, T-F., Anderson-Rudolph, K., Burke, W.W. (1996). Understanding the management of change. An overview of managers’ perspectives and assumptions in the 1990s. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(6), 54-80.
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. Retrieved from: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world- ranking.
United Nations. (2013). Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Retrieved from:
http://millenniumindicators.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm.
Ven, Van de, A.H., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 58-74.
Venaik, S., and Brewer, P. (2003). Critical Issues in the Hofstede and GLOBE National Culture Models. International Marketing Review, 30(5), 469-482.
Watkins, M. (2013). What Is Organizational Culture? And Why Should We Care? Harvard Business Review, May 15, 2013.
Webster, C., & White, A. (2010). Exploring the national and organizational culture mix in service firms. Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 38, 691-703.
Weick, K.E. (2011). Reflections: Change agents as change poets - On reconnecting flux and hunches. Journal of Change Management, 11(1), 7-20.
