Managing Strategic Change: A cultural perspective u6 p80

It is complex to manage change. There are interconnected sets of causes and consequences. As mentioned in earlier posts, there may be resistance to change proposals; this will make strategy implementation harder.

Sometimes people are enthusiastic and willing to contribute towards ideas for change.

You have to be aware of the overall strategic direction of the organisation and also have deep knowledge of operational activities at individual level. The capability to handle change is a potential source of competitive advtantage, and a highly valued managerial competence in its own right.

Studies of corporate turnarounds (see previous posts) recommend hiring new leaders and managers from outside the organisation, arguing that insiders are often reluctant to undertake sufficient radical change necessary for recovery. However, process theorists (Johnson, Mintzberg etc) consider, for example, that managing change is all about politics. Johnson said it is a patient process of coaching, bargaining and manoeuvring to change minds, as change is primarily about people.

A plan alone is unlikely to be enough to change people and the way they behave. If you are serious about change you will be trying to alter deeply embedded taken-for-granted beliefs and assumptions that people hold, and that the organisation holds as a single entity.

Johnson (1987, 2000) proposed the cultural web as a model for mapping and managing change. It is a tool to surface and explore the core assumptions of your paradigm. He argues that the everyday aspects of the organisation are altered as part of a change programme. This may entail changing cultural identifiers such as processes, behaviours, routines or symbols. The cultural web has the following elements that make it up:-

paradigm - the set of assumptions about an organisation which is held in common and taken for granted
power structures - apply to the most powerful groups of managers in the organisation, likely to be the ones most strongly supporting the core assumptions and beliefs
organisational structure - likely to reflect the power structures and highlight key internal relationships and emphasise what is important. It will include formal and informal structures and norms.
control systems - measurement and reward systems that monitor and focus attention on the activities that the organisation values and considers important
routines - ways in which members of the organisation behave towards each other, and that link different parts of the organisation. The "way we do things around here" and taken-for-granted assumptions.
- rituals - reinforce the routines and consist of special occasions and events that signal what is valued, eg collecting money for presents on special occasions, or working late at night or at weekends because everyone else does.
stories - told by members of the organisation to each other, to outsiders, new recruits etc to flag up important historical info and personalities, as well as organisational "mavericks". They may sometimes be myths, ie not true. Their power is in what they are telling members of the organisation about what matters.
symbols - logos, offices (size and style), parking spaces, perks, job titles, language and vocabulary.

The cultural web shows how these elements come together to determine the nature of the organisation's paradigm (core identity).

Three are soft, intangible - symbols, stories, rituals/routines. Three are hard, tangible - power structure, organisation structure and control systems.

Often, most attention is paid to the tangible areas, partly because they look easiest to change. Johnson argues that the only way to really change an organisation is to adress the soft areas, which is a great deal more difficult.