THE DOMINANCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE APPROACHES AND THEIR LINK TO NATIONAL CULTURE

THE DOMINANCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE APPROACHES AND

THEIR LINK TO NATIONAL CULTURE

MSc BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION – CHANGE MANAGEMENT

FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

Janneke ter Veen

S2589664

Nieuwe Blekerstraat 42a

2

ABSTRACT

This research investigates the global 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 the regions

North America, Europe, and Asia. Findings include a general preference for planned change

approaches over organizational development and continuous change approaches. No link was

found between national cultural differences and change approach preference, suggesting that

cultural values do not influence the preference for a particular change approach.The

contributions of this research include new insights in the appropriateness of different

organizational change approaches when deployed in different cultural contexts.

N.B. This thesis is one of the three theses discussing the dominance of change approaches.

Therefore, there will be considerable overlap between this thesis and the other two theses.

Key words

Change management, planned change, organizational development, continuous change,

culture, intercultural change management.

Acknowledgements

3

CONTENTS

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 ... 11

Inclusion criteria ... 11

Data analysis ... 14

Preparing for coding ... 14

Coding and determining 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 ... 22

Findings... 22

Propositions ... 25

Limitations ... 26

Contributions ... 27

Suggestions for future research ... 28

Concluding remark ... 28

REFERENCES ... 28

4

INTRODUCTION

As Beer and Nohria (2000) state, 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

is the lack of alignment of values between those who initiate change and 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 enjoys greatest preference by

academics or practitioners in different cultural regions. Therefore the goal of this study is to

identify the dominant change approach in several regions in order 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 andCarroll

(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

1

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. 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 solution is

evident, focusing on continuous changing and improving change abilities (Boonstra, 2003).

7

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 focuses on changing and

learning as interactive processes ‘in which people construct their relationships, activities and

meanings, [and] the basic assumptions and methodology of organizational change are

constructed in a new way’ (Boonstra, 2003:7). Theory C provides ways to understand biases

in organizing and changing (Boonstra, 2003).

Using Beer and Nohria (2000) and Boonstra (2003), change management approaches can be

divided in three change approaches: Theory E, O, and C. So far, based on current literature, it

is unknown 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

changes within cultures. By doing so, Taras et al. (2012) provide us with a re-establishment 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 the initial four Hofstededimensions, as for 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

useof theories and practices for organizational change cannot simply be the same across

cultures. As explained above, national cultures are complex and score differently on the

Hofstede dimensions, like power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty

avoidance. Each of these dimensions 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 come up with

propositions that add 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

10

approaches taught at universities represent the change approaches preferred by practitioners

in a given country.

Last, finding out what change approach organizations use can be a difficult and time

consuming process, due to difficulties in retrieving this data when sourced from an

organizational context. Literature taught at universities is easier to retrieve and more likely to

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 usually 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

11

Data collection

This research incorporates Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and Latin America. Initially,

the websites of the top 200 universities of the selected countries were visited and scanned for

course information. If course information was found on the university website, their

curriculum was scanned for the search terms as can be found in the table below.

Search terms University Curricula

Business Engineering Organizational Change

Business Communication Entrepreneurship Organizational Development Change Management Human Resources Management Planned Change

Consultancy Information Project Management

Continuous Change Innovation Strategic Management

Decision Making Leadership Strategy

Dynamic Manage/Managing Technology

Emergent Change Organizational Behavior Transformation

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 writer 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 the data collection procedure, a cultural

profile based on Taras et al. (2012) was madeeach country included. 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 the dataset was secured

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

Malaysia

1,38

-0,95

0,11

0,32

Legend

13

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

Canada

0,02

0,61

0,24

-0,25

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 1: 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 took

place, 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 determining the change approach

15

indications 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, 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):

(1)

Justification of research method

16

their course material in English, which might mean that they are western focused

initially. However, by adopting the broad range of search terms in the data gathering process

and sticking to the theoretical underpinnings of the different change 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 crosscheckingof the first fifty analyzed papers and every tenth paper

thereafter.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, Europe, 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.

17

Cancelling books, data of 42 universities representing 14 countries, representing North

America, Asia, and Europe, was left. This reduces the response rate for this research to 13%

in terms of universities and a coverage of 33% in terms of countries. Amongst these 42

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).

Legend

18

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 inappendix 5

2

.

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 show, 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.

2

Appendix 5 is voluminous and therefore it is not comprised in the printed version of this thesis. If the reader wishes to examine the coding table, please contact the author,who will provide the coding table.

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

In order to answer the research question and combine the cultural differences and the

prevalence of change approaches, a taxonomy is built comprising the five cultural regionsthis

study is based on. This taxonomy adds these regions score on the preference for change

approaches E, O, C, E & O, and O & C, denoted in absolute numbers (k) as well as means ( )

and standardized means (z).

20

Cultural profile Change approach

Region Country Power

Distance Indivi-dualism Mascu-linity Uncer-tainty Avoidance E O C E & O O & C Total k z k z k z k z k z

Asia Hong Kong 0,56 -0,19 0,05 -0,37 7 0,50 0,27 5 0,36 0,70 0 0,00 -1,15 2 0,14 -0,18 0 0,00 -0,89 14 South Korea 0,69 -0,12 0,45 0,46 17 0,52 0,37 8 0,24 -0,30 1 0,03 -0,67 5 0,15 -0,06 2 0,06 0,19 33 Central Europe Austria -1,29 -0,07 1,15 -0,03 1 0,20 -1,21 2 0,40 1,03 1 0,20 2,04 0 0,00 -1,74 1 0,20 2,71 5 Czech Republic -0,47 0,08 0,39 0,24 1 1,00 2,72 0 0,00 -2,30 0 0,00 -1,15 0 0,00 -1,74 0 0,00 -0,89 1 Greece -0,12 -0,72 0,23 1,29 3 0,43 -0,08 2 0,29 0,11 1 0,14 1,08 1 0,14 -0,18 0 0,00 -0,89 7 Switzerland -0,57 0,4 0,73 0,14 13 0,36 -0,42 10 0,28 0,03 3 0,08 0,13 8 0,22 0,72 2 0,06 0,19 36 Scandinavia Denmark -1,17 0,48 -0,92 -1,31 11 0,32 -0,62 9 0,26 -0,14 4 0,12 0,76 6 0,18 0,27 4 0,12 1,27 34 Finland -0,09 0,23 -0,58 -0,03 3 0,13 -1,55 13 0,54 2,19 0 0,00 -1,15 8 0,33 1,95 0 0,00 -0,89 24 The Netherlands -0,11 0,89 -0,91 -0,27 45 0,38 -0,32 32 0,27 -0,05 13 0,11 0,60 23 0,19 0,38 5 0,04 -0,17 118 Norway -0,94 0,57 -1,14 -1,37 43 0,52 0,37 17 0,20 -0,64 10 0,12 0,76 8 0,10 -0,62 5 0,06 0,19 83 Sweden -0,76 0,69 -0,95 -0,94 48 0,50 0,27 21 0,22 -0,47 5 0,05 -0,35 18 0,19 0,38 4 0,04 -0,17 96 Western Europe Belgium 0,37 0,59 0,19 0,88 5 0,33 -0,57 5 0,33 0,45 0 0,00 -1,15 4 0,27 1,28 1 0,07 0,37 15 United Kingdom 0,03 0,93 0,83 -0,61 149 0,53 0,41 57 0,20 -0,64 27 0,10 0,44 40 0,14 -0,18 9 0,03 -0,35 282 North America United States of America -0,27 0,42 0,4 -0,14 111 0,52 0,37 59 0,28 0,03 13 0,06 -0,19 28 0,13 -0,29 2 0,01 -0,71 213

Total 457 240 78 151 35 961

21

Cultural profile Change approach preference

Region Country Power

Distance

Indivi-dualism Masculinity

Uncertainty

Avoidance Region Country E O C E & O O & C

1 Hong Kong 0,56 -0,19 0,05 -0,37 1 Hong Kong 0,27 0,70 -1,15 -0,18 -0,89

South Korea 0,69 -0,12 0,45 0,46 South Korea 0,37 -0,30 -0,67 -0,06 0,19

Belgium 0,37 0,59 0,19 0,88 Switzerland -0,42 0,03 0,13 0,72 0,19

Greece -0,08 0,11 1,08 -0,18 -0,89

2 Czech Republic -0,47 0,08 0,39 0,24 Denmark -0,62 -0,14 0,76 0,27 1,27

Switzerland -0,57 0,40 0,73 0,14 The Netherlands -0,32 -0,05 0,60 0,38 -0,17

Austria -1,29 -0,07 1,15 -0,03 Norway 0,37 -0,64 0,76 -0,62 0,19

United Kingdom 0,03 0,93 0,83 -0,61 Sweden 0,27 -0,47 -0,35 0,38 -0,17

United States of America -0,27 0,42 0,4 -0,14 United Kingdom 0,41 -0,64 0,44 -0,18 -0,35

United States of America 0,37 0,03 -0,19 -0,29 -0,71

3 Greece -0,12 -0,72 0,23 1,29 2 Czech Republic 2,72 -2,30 -1,15 -1,74 -0,89 4 Denmark -1,17 0,48 -0,92 -1,31 Norway -0,94 0,57 -1,14 -1,37 3 Austria -1,21 1,03 2,04 -1,74 2,71 Sweden -0,76 0,69 -0,95 -0,94 4 Finland -1,55 2,19 -1,15 1,95 -0,89 5 Finland -0,09 0,23 -0,58 -0,03

The Netherlands -0,11 0,89 -0,91 -0,27 5 Belgium -0,57 0,45 -1,15 1,28 0,37

22

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 the

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.

Due to the explorative nature of a cluster analysis no distinction between dependent and

independent variables can be made. Whereas this research assumed a correlation between

cultural profile and a change approach preference but no correlation on a regional level in

these terms was identified, an attempt was made to identify the influence of the cultural

dimensions individually on the change approach preference. This was done by performing a

regression analysis of the scores on the cultural dimension on the standardized scores on

change approach preference, of which the correlations can be found in table 6. However, only

the correlation between power distance and the preference for a combination of Theory O and

C appeared to be significant (p=0,026 on a 95% confidence level).

Change approach

Cultural dimension

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

Findings

23

values measured by Taras et al. (2012). Clustering the countries based on their preference for

a certain change approach or based on their cultural profile does not show any overlaps. This

implies that the preference for change approach is not related to cultural differences.As can be

seen from the taxonomy, the order of preference for the change approaches does not differ

across regions based on the values measured by Taras et al. (2012): for all countriesthe

preferred order of Theory E, Theory O, the combination of Theory E and Theory O, Theory

C, and the combination of Theory O and Theory C is valid. An exception to this order of

preference are Austria and Finland, preferring the use of Theory O over the use of Theory E;

Belgium, preferring both Theory E and Theory O to the same extend, and the Czech

Republic, preferring only Theory E (only one article coded).

As mentioned earlier, Beer and Nohria (2000) suggested the preference for the use of Theory

E for America, and the use of Theory O for Asia and Europe. Findings of this research

however show different results: a preference for the use of Theory E globally, without any

link to cultural differences. The global preference for the use of Theory E is not

completelystartling. A planned approach to changing is the oldest theory used by

organizations, starting as early as the Industrial Revolution in the eighteenth century (Burnes,

2014). At the time, the attitude towards employees was based on two basic propositions: labor

should be tightly controlled and closely supervised, and labor is the main controllable

business cost (Burnes, 2014). Burnes states that ‘the Industrial Revolution was the pivotal

event that shaped the world into the form we now see around us’ (2014:8).

Authors investigating planned approaches to change (similar to Theory E) in depth are

Martinsons, Davison, and Martinsons (2009), who conducted research in sixcountries with

differingcultural values. They focused on cases containing ‘a genuine re-engineeringproject in

that it aimed to drasticallyimprove key measures of business performance;focused on

cross-functionalprocesses,

such

as

product/service

innovationand/or

customer

24

any national culture are hidden and visible elements of culture may be considered

insignificant, creating a major stumbling block to planned change, suggesting that not

particular cultural values, but unknown or unconsidered cultural values are critical for a

change approach to succeed. That cultural values in itself are not connected to the success of

a change initiative underpins the results of this research suggesting that no link to national

cultural values is needed in order for a change approach to be preferred most by

organizations.

Results of the taxonomy show that Theory O is generally the second preferred change

approach (leaving aside exceptions, like Finland). Jaeger (1986) examined Hofstede's cultural

dimensions in relation to Organizational Development (OD) values (in accordance with

Theory O), and found that OD values are usually very different from the cultural values as

measured by Hofstede. The only exceptions to this were the Scandinavian countries (Norway,

Sweden and Denmark) whose cultural values were found to be hardly different from those of

OD.Johnson and Golembiewski (1992) used this data from Jaeger's (1986) research to test the

relationship between success rates of OD and the degree-of-fit between OD values and the

values of national cultures. Results suggested that OD projects from countries with substantial

differences in their fit between OD values and cultural values were consistently reported as

more successful. The results of these studies suggest that no fit between Theory O and a

country's cultural values is needed for a change initiative to be successful. This statement that

the change approach is independent from a national culture supports the results of this

research.

25

Greiner’s (1998) model of growth, namely phase 5: collaboration. Greiner states that phase 5

‘emphasizes spontaneity in management action through teams and the skillful confrontation

of interpersonal differences’ (1998:62) and that ‘social control and self-discipline replace

formal control’ (1998:62). Although team performance increases and formal control systems

are simplified, hierarchy does not disappear completely, as it does with Theory C. Besides,

Burnes (2004) states that the continuous transformation model of change (in accordance with

Theory C) is most applicable in organizations that must develop the ability to change

themselves continuously in order to survive. Burnes states that ‘this is particularly the case in

the fast-moving sectors such as retail and computers’ (2004: 890). The applicability as

depicted by Burnes (2004) and Greiner (1998) substantiates the results of this research,

suggesting that Theory C is the least preferred change approach.

The use of the combination of Theory E&O is more preferred over the use of the combination

of Theory O&C. Beer and Nohria (2000) state that Theory E and Theory O can be sequenced,

as well as simultaneously used. They even state that the ‘simultaneous use of O and E

strategies is more likely to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage’ (2000:138). The

finding that Theory C is the least preferred theory, its limited applicability as discussed above,

could partially explain the unpopularity of the use of the combination of Theory O&C.

Propositions

Based on the above, several propositions can be made. In the first place, Theory E is the

preferred change approach, followed by Theory O and Theory C respectively. The use of

Theory E is preferred by the vast majority of the countries in the dataset of this

study.Therefore, the first proposition is as follows:

1. Theory E is the global dominant change approach.

Second, the preference for a change approach is unrelated to the national cultural values of an

organization. Although no country prefers the use of Theory E, O or C to the same extend, the

same order of preference goes for the vast majority of countries in the dataset; with Theory E

being the most preferred change approach, followed by Theory O, a combination of the

former two, Theory C, and a combination of Theory O & C respectively. Therefore, the

second proposition is as follows:

26

Third, the same order of preference is valid for the vast majority of countries, namely Theory

E being the preferred change approach, followed by Theory O, a combination of Theory E &

O, Theory C, and a combination of Theory O & C. Austria, Belgium, and Finland are

exceptions to this order, with Theory O being preferred by both Austria and Finland, and

Theory E and O being preferred to the same extent by Belgium. Taking these exceptions into

account, the third proposition is as follows:

3. Theory E is the preferred change approach, followed by Theory O, the combination of

Theory E & O, Theory C, and the combination of Theory O & C respectively.

These propositions can be used for future research.

Limitations

Some limitations of this research must be acknowledged. There are some factors that could

have enhanced the results of this study, with regard to the universities that were selected.

These universities are included in the Thomson-Reuters (2014) top 200 university ranking or

member of the partner network of the Faculty for Economics and Business of the University

of Groningen. In addition, the courses and literature needed to be in English in order for the

researchers to be able to investigate the literature. These factors may cause the data to be of a

more western oriented nature, possibly influencing the results. In addition, books are left out

of the scope of this researchdue to practical constraints. Adding books to the dataset would

increase the richness of the results and would add a number of very interesting countries to

the dataset that provided their course materialcontaining only books and not papers. Another

limitation possibly influencing the results is caused by the researchers of this study. The

process of searching data and coding this data could be influenced by the western orientation

of the researchers, as they have enjoyed their courses at a Dutch university. The literature

could also be misinterpreted by the researchers during the coding process. By means of

triangulation an attempt is made to reduce this limitation.

The context of this research possibly limits its generalizability. The research is conducted

using literature provided by universities, assuming that the course material is brought to the

national professional field. The current context also hardly contains non-western oriented

universities as mentioned above, possibly influencing the results.

27

dataset. Including data from these countries, and increasing the amount of literature of other

countries (e.g. Czech Republic, Austria, and Greece) could lead to a shift in results of this

research.

The data collection of this research is impacted by data which the researchers could not open,

data which was not accessible in terms of language (e.g. Russia, Japan, and South-America)

or in terms of public access. Sample size was also decreased by universities that did not

deliver courses for change management on a graduate level.

Finally, this study is based on the three change approaches as depicted by Beer and Nohria

(2000) and Boonstra (2003). In order for the literature to be classified as one of the five

change approaches, this scope urged for a pragmatically black or white categorization, while

the reality is often more nuanced.

CONCLUSION

Contributions

The research question of this study sought provide more insight in if different cultural regions

preferred a different dominant change approach and if this different preference could be

related to cultural differences. To answer the research question a taxonomy is build and a

cluster analysis is presented. The results of this research suggest that Theory E is preferred,

followed by Theory O, a combination of the former two theories, Theory C, and a

combination of Theory O & C. Results also suggest that the preference for a particular change

approach does not depend on particular cultural values.

28

Suggestions for future research

The results of this research areinteresting;however a number of improvements can lead to

more reliable results. Therefore, this research suggests several directions for further research.

Firstly, it is recommended to address the factors mentioned concerning the western-bias of the

universities and countries included in the dataset. Including universities from countries that

are non-western oriented might provide future researchers with different results.Including

universities that are not part of the partner-network, a top 200 ranking, or courses solely in

English could result in a different distribution of the change approaches. Including more

universities from countries that are currently underrepresented and adding countries to the

dataset like Germany and Japan will refine the results of this study. The first step in doing this

might be to include books to the dataset, increasing the amount of literature and countries

within the dataset. Secondly, future researchers might question the applicability of using data

provided by curricula of universities for this research. It might be interesting to collect data

using interviews, observations, and/or document reviews, providing the researcher with the

possibility of direct back and forth interaction with various parties involved in the change

processes. A third direction for future research is to refine the coding process. In this research

a strict set of change approaches was adopted. This implies that there are only three change

approaches, and the possibility to create combinations within these approaches, creating a

total of five options. This may leave out some of the richness of the data. Opting for more

change approaches or another set of change approaches could lead to a more refined answer

to the research question. A final research direction would be to explain the implications of

national culture regarding organizational change. Results of this research show that the

preference of a particular change approach is not dependent upon the values of a national

culture.Future research is needed to determine what influence national culture exactly has on

organizational change, bearing in mind that cultural values can change over the course of

years (Taras, et al. 2012).

Concluding remark

Burnes (2004) states that there is no “one best way” to manage change. He states that ‘the key

issue for managers is to understand what they are trying to achieve, the context in which their

organization is operating and the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches to

change’ (2004:899).

29

Aken, J.E. van, Berends, H., &Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem Solving in Organizations – A

Methodological Handbook for Business and Management Students (2

nd

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) 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). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?

International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 886 – 902.

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change (5

th

_{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.

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

th

_edition).

St Paul, MN USA: West.

DiBella, A.J. (1996). Culture and planned change in an international organization: a

multi-level predicament. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 4(4), 352-372.

Ginsberg, A., &Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency Perspective of Organizational

Strategy: A Critical Review of the Empirical Research. Academy of Management

Review, 10, 421-434.

Greiner, L.E. (1998). Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow. Harvard Business

Review, 76(3), 55-68.

Hayes, J. (2007). The Theory and Practice of Change Management (2

nd

edition). 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,

30

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). Organization Development and National Culture: Where's the Fit?

Academy of Management Review, 11(1), 178-90.

Johnson, K.R., & Golembiewski, R.T. (1992). National culture in organizationdevelopment: a

conceptual and empiricalanalysis. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management 3(1), 71-84.

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.

Martinsons, M.G., Davison, R.M., & Martinsons, V. (2009). How

CultureInfluencesIT-enabledOrganizationalChange andInformationSystems. Communications of the ACM,

52(4), 118-123.

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.

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.

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:

31

Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2013).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.

Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review

of Psychology, 50, 361-386.

Yin, R.K. (1994).Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2003).Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3

th

edition). London: Sage.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

Overview of all countries and universities included in the sample

32

Appendix 2:

Total list of papers used for the courses taught at foreign universities

39

Appendix 3:

Total list of books used for the courses taught at foreign universities

194

Appendix 4:

Final list of search terms and codes, based on Boonstra’s (2003)

298

classification

32

Appendix 1: Overview of all countries and universities included in the sample

Country University Top 200

University

FEB Partner University

Papers Books Coded

1 Austria 1 Johannes Kepler Universität 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