Unfreeze
Present ===============================⇒ Future
State State
Freezing(Crystallise)

2. The Forcefield Analysis (Lewin) – A tool to map the forces driving and resisting change and for planning how to change the status quo.

Drivers [STATUS QUO] Resistors
————–→ ←——————————–

————————–→ ←————–

–→ ←-
Length of arrow = Force

Change can be achieved best by:
• Reducing resistors
• Increasing drivers

Metaphor: Physics
Kurt Zadek Lewin (September 9, 1890 – February 12, 1947) was a German-American psychologist, known as one of the modern pioneers of social, organizational, and applied psychology.[1]
Lewin (pronounced /ləˈviːn/, lə-veen) is often recognized as the “founder of social psychology” and was one of the first to study group dynamics and organizational development.
Biography
In 1890, he was born into a Jewish family in Mogilno, Poland (then in County of Mogilno, province of Posen, Prussia). He was one of four children born into a middle-class family. His father owned a small general store and a farm.[2] The family moved to Berlin in 1905. In 1909, he entered the University of Freiburg to study medicine, but transferred to University of Munich to study biology. He became involved with the socialist movement and women’s rights around this time.[2] He served in the German army when World War I began. Due to a war wound, he returned to the University of Berlin to complete his Ph.D., with Carl Stumpf (1848–1936) the supervisor of his doctoral thesis.
Lewin had originally been involved with schools of behavioral psychology before changing directions in research and undertaking work with psychologists of the Gestalt school of psychology, including Max Wertheimer and Wolfgang Kohler. He also joined the Psychological Institute of the University of Berlin where he lectured and gave seminars on both philosophy and psychology[2]. Lewin often associated with the early Frankfurt School, originated by an influential group of largely Jewish Marxists at the Institute for Social Research in Germany. But when Hitler came to power in Germany in 1933 the Institute members had to disband, moving to England and then to America. In that year, he met with Eric Trist, of the London Tavistock Clinic. Trist was impressed with his theories and went on to use them in his studies on soldiers during the Second World War.
Lewin emigrated to the United States in August 1933 and became a naturalized citizen in 1940. Earlier, he had spent six months as a visiting professor at Stanford in 1930[2], but on his immigration to the United States, Lewin worked at Cornell University and for the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station at the University of Iowa. Later, he went on to become director of the Center for Group Dynamics at MIT. While working at MIT in 1946, Lewin received a phone call from the Director of the Connecticut State Inter Racial Commission requesting help to find an effective way to combat religious and racial prejudices. He set up a workshop to conduct a ‘change’ experiment, which laid the foundations for what is now known as sensitivity training[3]. In 1947, this led to the establishment of the National Training Laboratories, at Bethel, Maine. Carl Rogers believed that sensitivity training is “perhaps the most significant social invention of this century.” [4]
Following WWII Lewin was involved in the psychological rehabilitation of former occupants of displaced persons camps with Dr. Jacob Fine at Harvard Medical School. When Eric Trist and A T M Wilson wrote to Lewin proposing a journal in partnership with their newly founded Tavistock Institute and his group at MIT, Lewin agreed. The Tavistock journal, Human Relations, was founded with two early papers by Lewin entitled “Frontiers in Group Dynamics”. Lewin taught for a time at Duke University.[5]
Lewin died in Newtonville, Massachusetts of a heart-attack in 1947. He was buried in his home town.

Work
Lewin coined the notion of genidentity,[6] which has gained some importance in various theories of space-time and related fields. He also proposed Herbert Blumer’s interactionist perspective of 1937 as an alternative to the nature versus nurture debate. Lewin suggested that neither nature (inborn tendencies) nor nurture (how experiences in life shape individuals) alone can account for individuals’ behavior and personalities, but rather that both nature and nurture interact to shape each person. This idea was presented in the form of Lewin’s Equation for behavior B=ƒ(P,E).
Prominent psychologists mentored by Kurt Lewin included Leon Festinger (1919–1989), who became known for his cognitive dissonance theory (1956), environmental psychologist Roger Barker, Bluma Zeigarnik, and Morton Deutsch, the founder of modern conflict resolution theory and practice.
Force field analysis
Force field analysis provides a framework for looking at the factors (forces) that influence a situation, originally social situations. It looks at forces that are either driving movement toward a goal (helping forces) or blocking movement toward a goal (hindering forces). The principle, developed by Kurt Lewin, is a significant contribution to the fields of social science, psychology, social psychology, organizational development, process management, and change management.[7]
Action research
Lewin, then a professor at MIT, first coined the term “action research” in about 1944, and it appears in his 1946 paper “Action Research and Minority Problems”.[8] In that paper, he described action research as “a comparative research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” that uses “a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action”.
Leadership climates
Lewin often characterized organizational management styles and cultures in terms of leadership climates defined by [9] (1) authoritarian, (2) democratic and (3) laissez-faire work environments. Authoritarian environments are characterized where the leader determines policy with techniques and steps for work tasks dictated by the leader in the division of labor. The leader is not necessarily hostile but is aloof from participation in work and commonly offers personal praise and criticism for the work done. Democratic climates are characterized where policy is determined through collective processes with decisions assisted by the leader. Before accomplishing tasks, perspectives are gained from group discussion and technical advice from a leader. Members are given choices and collectively decide the division of labor. Praise and criticism in such an environment are objective, fact minded and given by a group member without necessarily having participated extensively in the actual work. Laissez faire environments give freedom to the group for policy determination without any participation from the leader. The leader remains uninvolved in work decisions unless asked, does not participate in the division of labor, and very infrequently gives praise. (Miner 2005: 39-40) [10]

Change process
An early model of change developed by Lewin described change as a three-stage process. The first stage he called “unfreezing”. It involved overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing “mind set”. Defense mechanisms have to be bypassed. In the second stage the change occurs. This is typically a period of confusion and transition. We are aware that the old ways are being challenged but we do not have a clear picture as to what we are replacing them with yet. The third and final stage he called “freezing”. The new mindset is crystallizing and one’s comfort level is returning to previous levels. This is often misquoted as “refreezing” (see Lewin K (1947) Frontiers in Group Dynamics).

Lewin’s equation
The Lewin’s Equation, B=ƒ(P,E), is a psychological equation of behavior developed by Kurt Lewin. It states that behavior is a function of the person and their environment [11].
The equation is the psychologist’s most well known formula in social psychology, of which Lewin was a modern pioneer. When first presented in Lewin’s book Principles of Topological Psychology, published in 1936, it contradicted most popular theories in that it gave importance to a person’s momentary situation in understanding his or her behavior, rather than relying entirely on the past.[12]

Key Change Requirements

1. Dissatisfaction driven by the leader and the energizer of change
2. Felt Need by the Group
3. Critical mass to make things happen

(See MIT, Tavistock as above)

————————————————————————————————————-

2. Stages of Transition (Beckhard & Harris)

Present Desired Future
State ——-→ Transition phases ——-→ State

Diagnosis Execution Management Scenario Painting

Key issue is the different phases and need to manage the transition as well as involvement in diagnosis and scenario planning.

Methaphor – Ladder

Richard Beckhard was a pioneer in the field of organizational development. He co-launched the Addison-Wesley Organization Development Series and began the Organization Development Network in 1967.[1] His classic work, Organization Development: Strategies and Models, was published in 1969. Beckhard was an adjunct professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management from 1963-1984. He died on December 28, 1999.[2]
He helped to define organizational development as: “an effort (1) planned, (2) organization-wide, (3) managed from the top, to (4) increase organization effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organization’s ‘processes’, using behavioural-science knowledge”[3].

————————————————————————————————————-
Together with David Gleicher, he is credited with developing a Formula for Change. The formula proposes that the combination of organisational dissatisfaction, vision for the future and the possibility of immediate, tactical action must be stronger than the resistance within the organisation in order for change to succeed.

Gleicher Formula

VxDxFCS>R=C

———————————————————————————————————-

Leading Change – Leadership Style

Quadrant moving from directing (Task Focus) thru Coaching (Task & Individual) to Supporting (Individual) to Delegation (Empowered person in new change)

The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory, is a leadership theory conceived by Paul Hersey, a professor who wrote a well known book Situational Leader and Ken Blanchard, author of The One Minute Manager, while working on the first edition of Management of Organizational Behavior (now in its 9th edition).[1] The Theory was first introduced as “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership”.[2] During the mid 1970′s “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership” was renamed “Situational Leadership theory”.[3]
In the late 1970s/early 1980s the authors both developed their own Models using the Situational Leadership theory; Hersey – Situational Leadership Model and Blanchard et al. Situational Leadership II Model.
The fundamental underpinning of the Situational Leadership Theory is that there is no single “best” style of leadership. Effective leadership is task-relevant, and the most successful leaders are those that adapt their leadership style to the Maturity (“the capacity to set high but attainable goals, willingness and ability to take responsibility for the task, and relevant education and/or experience of an individual or a group for the task”) of the individual or group they are attempting to lead/influence. That effective leadership varies, not only with the person or group that is being influence, but it will also depend on the task, job or function that needs to be accomplished.[4]
The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory rests on two fundamental concepts; Leadership Style and the individual or group’s Maturity level.
Leadership styles
Hersey and Blanchard characterized leadership style in terms of the amount of Task Behavior and Relationship Behavior that the leader provides to their followers. They categorized all leadership styles into four behavior types, which they named S1 to S4:

S1: Telling – is characterized by one-way communication in which the leader defines the roles of the individual or group and provides the what, how, when, and where to do the task

S2: Selling – while the leader is still providing the direction, he or she is now using two-way communication and providing the socioemotional support that will allow the individual or group being influenced to buy into the process.
S3: Participating – this is now shared decision making about aspects of how the task is accomplished and the leader is providing less task behaviors while maintaining high relationship behavior.

S4: Delegating – the leaders is still involved in decisions; however, the process and responsibility has been passed to the individual or group. The leader stays involved to monitor progress.

Of these, no one style is considered optimal for all leaders to use all the time. Effective leaders need to be flexible, and must adapt themselves according to the situation.

Maturity Levels
The right leadership style will depend on the person or group being led – the follower. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Theory identified four levels of Maturity M1 through M4:

M1 – They generally lack the specific skills required for the job in hand and are unable and unwilling to do or to take responsibility for this job or task.

M2 – They are still unable to take on responsibility for the task being done; however, they are willing to work at the task.

M3 – They are experienced and able to do the task but lack the confidence to take on responsibility.

M4 – They are experienced at the task, and comfortable with their own ability to do it well. They able and willing to not only do the task, but to take responsibility for the task.
Maturity Levels are also task specific. A person might be generally skilled, confident and motivated in their job, but would still have a Maturity level M2 when asked to perform a task requiring skills they don’t possess.

Contingency theory

Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1972). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (2nd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall
Hersey, P. and Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources (3rd ed.) New Jersey/Prentice Hall

——————————————————————————————————–

Politics and Change (Cummings & Worley)

Power and internal politics is an issue. It is not just formulaic. Organizational culture is an idea in the field of organizational studies and management which describes the psychology, attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values (personal and cultural values) of an organization. It has been defined as “the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization.”[1]
This definition continues to explain organizational values, also called as “beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines, or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another.”[1]
Strong/weak cultures

Strong culture is said to exist where staff respond to stimulus because of their alignment to organizational values. In such environments, strong cultures help firms operate like well-oiled machines, cruising along with outstanding execution and perhaps minor tweaking of existing procedures here and there.
Conversely, there is weak culture where there is little alignment with organizational values and control must be exercised through extensive procedures and bureaucracy.
Where culture is strong—people do things because they believe it is the right thing to do—there is a risk of another phenomenon, Groupthink. “Groupthink” was described by Irving L. Janis. He defined it as “…a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when members’ strive for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives of action.” This is a state where people, even if they have different ideas, do not challenge organizational thinking, and therefore there is a reduced capacity for innovative thoughts. This could occur, for example, where there is heavy reliance on a central charismatic figure in the organization, or where there is an evangelical belief in the organization’s values, or also in groups where a friendly climate is at the base of their identity (avoidance of conflict). In fact group think is very common, it happens all the time, in almost every group. Members that are defiant are often turned down or seen as a negative influence by the rest of the group, because they bring conflict.
Innovative organizations need individuals who are prepared to challenge the status quo—be it group-think or bureaucracy, and also need procedures to implement new ideas effectively.

Typologies of organizational cultures
Several methods have been used to classify organizational culture. Some are described below:
Hofstede (1980[2]) demonstrated that there are national and regional cultural groupings that affect the behavior of organizations.
Hofstede looked for national differences between over 100,000 of IBM’s employees in different parts of the world, in an attempt to find aspects of culture that might influence business behavior.
Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture in his study of national influences:
Power distance – The degree to which a society expects there to be differences in the levels of power. A high score suggests that there is an expectation that some individuals wield larger amounts of power than others. A low score reflects the view that all people should have equal rights.
Uncertainty avoidance reflects the extent to which a society accepts uncertainty and risk.
Individualism vs. collectivism – individualism is contrasted with collectivism, and refers to the extent to which people are expected to stand up for themselves, or alternatively act predominantly as a member of the group or organization. However, recent researches have shown that high individualism may not necessarily mean low collectivism, and vice versa[citation needed]. Research indicates that the two concepts are actually unrelated. Some people and cultures might have both high individualism and high collectivism, for example. Someone who highly values duty to his or her group does not necessarily give a low priority to personal freedom and self-sufficiency
Masculinity vs. femininity – refers to the value placed on traditionally male or female values. Male values for example include competitiveness, assertiveness, ambition, and the accumulation of wealth and material possessions.
[edit]

Deal and Kennedy
Deal and Kennedy[3] defined organizational culture as the way things get done around here. In relation to its feedback this would mean a quick response and also measured organizations in it ion, such as oil prospecting or military aviation.

The Process Culture occurs in organizations where there is little or no feedback. People become bogged down with how things are done not with what is to be achieved. This is often associated with bureaucracies. While it is easy to criticize these cultures for being overly cautious or bogged down in red tape, they do produce consistent results, which is ideal in, for example, public services.

Charles Handy
Charles Handy[4] (1985) popularized the 1972 work of Roger Harrison of looking at culture, which some scholars have used to link organizational structure to organizational culture. He describes Harrison’s four types thus:

A Power Culture, which concentrates power among a few. Control radiates from the center like a web. Power and influence spread out from a central figure or group. Power desires from the top person and personal relationships with that individual matters more than any formal title of position. Power Cultures have few rules and little bureaucracy; swift decisions can ensue.

In a Role Culture, people have clearly delegated authorities within a highly defined structure. Typically, these organizations form hierarchical bureaucracies. Power derives from a person’s position and little scope exists for expert power. Controlled by procedures, roles descriptions and authority definitions. Predictable and consistent systems and procedures are highly valued.

By contrast, in a Task Culture, teams are formed to solve particular problems. Power derives from expertise as long as a team requires expertise. These cultures often feature the multiple reporting lines of a matrix structure. It is all a small team approach, who are highly skilled and specialist in their own markets of experience.

A Person Culture exists where all individuals believe themselves superior to the organization. Survival can become difficult for such organizations, since the concept of an organization suggests that a group of like-minded individuals pursue the organizational goals. Some professional partnerships can operate as person cultures, because each partner brings a particular expertise and clientele to the firm.

Edgar Schein
Edgar Schein, an MIT Sloan School of Management professor, defines organizational culture as:

“A pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way you perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems”(Schein, 2004, p. 17).

According to Schein, culture is the most difficult organizational attribute to change, outlasting organizational products, services, founders and leadership and all other physical attributes of the organization. His organizational model illuminates culture from the standpoint of the observer, described by three cognitive levels of organizational culture.
At the first and most cursory level of Schein’s model is organizational attributes that can be seen, felt and heard by the uninitiated observer – collectively known as artifacts. Included are the facilities, offices, furnishings, visible awards and recognition, the way that its members dress, how each person visibly interacts with each other and with organizational outsiders, and even company slogans, mission statements and other operational creeds.
The next level deals with the professed culture of an organization’s members – the values. At this level, local and personal values are widely expressed within the organization. Organizational behavior at this level usually can be studied by interviewing the organization’s membership and using questionnaires to gather attitudes about organizational membership.
At the third and deepest level, the organization’s tacit assumptions are found. These are the elements of culture that are unseen and not cognitively identified in everyday interactions between organizational members. Additionally, these are the elements of culture, which are often taboo to discuss inside the organization. Many of these ‘unspoken rules’ exist without the conscious knowledge of the membership. Those with sufficient experience to understand this deepest level of organizational culture usually become acclimatized to its attributes over time, thus reinforcing the invisibility of their existence. Surveys and casual interviews with organizational members cannot draw out these attributes—rather much more in-depth means is required to first identify then understand organizational culture at this level. Notably, culture at this level is the underlying and driving element often missed by organizational behaviorists.
Using Schein’s model, understanding paradoxical organizational behaviors becomes more apparent. For instance, an organization can profess highly aesthetic and moral standards at the second level of Schein’s model while simultaneously displaying curiously opposing behavior at the third and deepest level of culture. Superficially, organizational rewards can imply one organizational norm but at the deepest level imply something completely different. This insight offers an understanding of the difficulty that organizational newcomers have in assimilating organizational culture and why it takes time to become acclimatized. It also explains why organizational change agents usually fail to achieve their goals: underlying tacit cultural norms are generally not understood before would-be change agents begin their actions. Merely understanding culture at the deepest level may be insufficient to institute cultural change because the dynamics of interpersonal relationships (often under threatening conditions) are added to the dynamics of organizational culture while attempts are made to institute desired change.

Robert A. Cooke
The Organizational Culture Inventory: Culture Clusters
Robert A. Cooke, PhD, defines culture, as the behaviors that members believe are required to fit in and meet expectations within their organization. The Organizational Culture Inventory measures twelve behavioral of norms that are grouped into three general types of cultures:
Constructive Cultures, in which members are encouraged to interact with people and approach tasks in ways that help them, meet their higher-order satisfaction needs.
Passive/Defensive Cultures, in which members believe they must interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security.
Aggressive/Defensive Cultures, in which members are expected to approach tasks in forceful ways to protect their status and security.

The Constructive Cluster
The Constructive Cluster includes cultural norms that reflect expectations for members to interact with others and approach tasks in ways that will help them meet their higher order satisfaction needs for affiliation, esteem, and self-actualization.
The four cultural norms in this cluster are:
Achievement
Self-Actualizing
Humanistic-Encouraging
Affiliative
Organizations with Constructive cultures encourage members to work to their full potential, resulting in high levels of motivation, satisfaction, teamwork, service quality, and sales growth. Constructive norms are evident in environments where quality is valued over quantity, creativity is valued over conformity, cooperation is believed to lead to better results than competition, and effectiveness is judged at the system level rather than the component level. These types of cultural norms are consistent with (and supportive of) the objectives behind empowerment, total quality management, transformational leadership, continuous improvement, re-engineering, and learning organizations.

The Passive/Defensive Cluster
Norms that reflect expectations for members to interact with people in ways that will not threaten their own security are in the Passive/Defensive Cluster.
The four Passive/Defensive cultural norms are:
Approval
Conventional
Dependent
Avoidance
In organizations with Passive/Defensive cultures, members feel pressured to think and behave in ways that are inconsistent with the way they believe they should in order to be effective. People are expected to please others (particularly superiors) and avoid interpersonal conflict. Rules, procedures, and orders are more important than personal beliefs, ideas, and judgment. Passive/Defensive cultures experience a lot of unresolved conflict and turnover, and organizational members report lower levels of motivation and satisfaction.

The Aggressive/Defensive Cluster
The Aggressive/Defensive Cluster includes cultural norms that reflect expectations for members to approach tasks in ways that protect their status and security.
The Aggressive/Defensive cultural norms are:
Oppositional
Power
Competitive
Perfectionistic
Organizations with Aggressive/Defensive cultures encourage or require members to appear competent, controlled, and superior. Members who seek assistance, admit shortcomings, or concede their position are viewed as incompetent or weak. These organizations emphasize finding errors, weeding out “mistakes,” and encouraging members to compete against each other rather than competitors. The short-term gains associated with these strategies are often at the expense of long-term growth.

Elements
G. Johnson[6] described a cultural web, identifying a number of elements that can be used to describe or influence Organizational Culture:

The Paradigm: What the organization is about; what it does; its mission; its values.

Control Systems: The processes in place to monitor what is going on. Role cultures would have vast rulebooks. There would be more reliance on individualism in a power culture.

Organizational Structures: Reporting lines, hierarchies, and the way that work flows through the business.

Power Structures: Who makes the decisions, how widely spread is power, and on what is power based?

Symbols: These include organizational logos and designs, but also extend to symbols of power such as parking spaces and executive washrooms.

Rituals and Routines: Management meetings, board reports and so on may become more habitual than necessary.

Stories and Myths: build up about people and events, and convey a message about what is valued within the organization.
These elements may overlap. Power structures may depend on control systems, which may exploit the very rituals that generate stories which may not be true.

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument
Robert Quinn and Kim Cameron researched what makes organizations effective and successful. Based on the Competing Values Framework, they developed the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument that distinguishes four culture types. See their book: Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture.
Competing values produce polarities like: flexibility versus stability and internal versus external focus. These two polarities were found to be most important in defining organizational success.

The polarities construct a quadrant with four types of culture:

Clan Culture
- Internal focus and flexible – A friendly workplace where leaders act like father figures.

Adhocracy Culture
- External focus and flexible – A dynamic workplace with leaders that stimulate innovation.

Market Culture
- External focus and controlled – A competitive workplace with leaders like hard drivers

Hierarchy Culture
- Internal focus and controlled – A structured and formalized workplace where leaders act like coordinators.

Cameron & Quinn found six key aspects that will make up a culture. These can be assessed in the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) thus producing a mix of these four archetypes of culture. Each organization or team will have its unique mix of culture types. By assessing the current organizational culture as well as the preferred situation, the gap and direction to change can be made visible. This can be the first step to changing organizational culture.

Organizational culture and change
There are a number of methodologies specifically dedicated to organizational culture change such as Peter Senge’s Fifth Discipline. These are also a variety of psychological approaches that have been developed into a system for specific outcomes such as the Fifth Discipline’s “learning organization” or Directive Communication’s “corporate culture evolution.” Ideas and strategies, on the other hand, seem to vary according to particular influences that affect culture.

Cummings & Worley (2005, p. 491 – 492) give the following six guidelines for cultural change, these changes are in line with the eight distinct stages mentioned by Kotter (1995, p. 2)3:

1. Formulate a clear strategic vision (stage 1,2 & 3 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2)
In order to make a cultural change effective a clear vision of the firm’s new strategy, shared values and behaviors is needed. This vision provides the intention and direction for the culture change (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 490).

2. Display Top-management commitment (stage 4 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2)
It is very important to keep in mind that culture change must be managed from the top of the organization, as willingness to change of the senior management is an important indicator (Cummings & Worley, 2005, page 490). The top of the organization should be very much in favor of the change in order to actually implement the change in the rest of the organization. De Caluwé & Vermaak (2004, p 9) provide a framework with five different ways of thinking about change.

3. Model culture change at the highest level (stage 5 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2)
In order to show that the management team is in favor of the change, the change has to be notable at first at this level. The behavior of the management needs to symbolize the kinds of values and behaviors that should be realized in the rest of the company. It is important that the management shows the strengths of the current culture as well; it must be made clear that the current organizational does not need radical changes, but just a few adjustments. (See for more: (Deal & Kennedy, 1982; Sathe, 1983; Schall; 1983; Weick, 1985; DiTomaso, 1987)

4. Modify the organization to support organizational change
The fourth step is to modify the organization to support organizational change.

5. Select and socialize newcomers and terminate deviants (stage 7 & 8 of Kotter, 1995, p. 2)
A way to implement a culture is to connect it to organizational membership, people can be selected and terminate in terms of their fit with the new culture (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 491).

6. Develop ethical and legal sensitivity
Changes in culture can lead to tensions between organizational and individual interests, which can result in ethical and legal problems for practitioners. This is particularly relevant for changes in employee integrity, control, equitable treatment and job security (Cummings & Worley, 2005, p. 491).

Change of culture in the organizations is very important and inevitable. Culture innovations is bound to be because it entails introducing something new and substantially different from what prevails in existing cultures. Cultural innovation is bound to be more difficult than cultural maintenance. People often resist changes hence it is the duty of the management to convince people that likely gain will outweigh the losses. Besides institutionalization, deification is another process that tends to occur in strongly developed organizational cultures. The organization itself may come to be regarded as precious in itself, as a source of pride, and in some sense unique. Organizational members begin to feel a strong bond with it that transcends material returns given by the organization, and they begin to identify with in. The organization turns into a sort of clan.

Entrepreneurial culture
Stephen McGuire defined and validated a model of organizational culture that predicts revenue from new sources. An Entrepreneurial Organizational Culture (EOC) is a system of shared values, beliefs and norms of members of an organization, including valuing creativity and tolerance of creative people, believing that innovating and seizing market opportunities are appropriate behaviors to deal with problems of survival and prosperity, environmental uncertainty, and competitors’ threats, and expecting organizational members to behave accordingly.

Elements of Entrepreneurial Culture
People and empowerment focused
Value creation through innovation and change
Attention to the basics
Hands-on management
Doing the right thing
Freedom to grow and to fail
Commitment and personal responsibility
Emphasis on the future

———————————————————————————————————

——————————————————————————————————–

Social Psychology:

Key rules:

Cognitive dissonance: is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions.[2] Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.
Experience can clash with expectations, as, for example, with buyer’s remorse following the purchase of an expensive item. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise,[2] dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment. People are biased to think of their choices as correct, despite any contrary evidence. This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling irrational and destructive behavior.
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression “sour grapes”) is expressed in the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour. This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one’s dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern “adaptive preference formation.”

Reactance is an emotional reaction in direct contradiction to rules or regulations that threaten or eliminate specific behavioral freedoms. It can occur when someone is heavily pressured to accept a certain view or attitude. Reactance can cause the person to adopt or strengthen a view or attitude that is contrary to what was intended and also increases resistance to persuasion. An example of such behavior can be observed when an individual engages in a prohibited activity in order to deliberately taunt the authority who prohibits it, regardless of the utility or disutility that the activity confers. People using “reverse psychology” are playing on at least an informal awareness of reactance, attempting to influence someone to choose the opposite of what they request.
Reactance also explains denial as it is encountered in addiction counseling. According to William R. Miller[1] “Research demonstrates that a counselor can drive resistance (denial) levels up and down dramatically according to his or her personal counseling style.” Use of a “respectful, reflective approach” described in Motivational Interviewing and applied as Motivation Enhancement Therapy (MET), rather than by argumentation, the accusation of “being in denial” and direct confrontations, lead to motivation to change and avoid the resistance and denial, or reactance, elicited by strong direct confrontation.[2] For a complete review of how confrontation became popular in addiction treatment, see Miller, W.R. & White, W.[3]

HUMANS CANNOT COPE WITH UNCERTAINTY

The Grieving Process: The progression of states is:[2]

Denial—”I feel fine.”; “This can’t be happening, not to me.”
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of positions and individuals that will be left behind after death.

Anger—”Why me? It’s not fair!”; “How can this happen to me?”; “Who is to blame?”
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Any individual that symbolizes life or energy is subject to projected resentment and jealousy.

Bargaining—”Just let me live to see my children graduate.”; “I’ll do anything for a few more years.”; “I will give my life savings if…”
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, “I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time…”

Depression—”I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”; “I’m going to die… What’s the point?”; “I miss my loved one, why go on?”
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect oneself from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.

Acceptance—”It’s going to be okay.”; “I can’t fight it, I may as well prepare for it.”
In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with his mortality or that of his loved one.

Kübler-Ross originally applied these stages to people suffering from terminal illness, later to any form of catastrophic personal loss (job, income, freedom). This may also include significant life events such as the death of a loved one, divorce, drug addiction, the onset of a disease or chronic illness, an infertility diagnosis, as well many tragedies and disasters.

Kübler-Ross claimed these steps do not necessarily come in the order noted above, nor are all steps experienced by all patients, though she stated a person will always experience at least two. Often, people will experience several stages in a “roller coaster” effect—switching between two or more stages, returning to one or more several times before working through it.[2]

SELF TALK – WHAT RECORDS ARE THEY PLAYING IN THEIR MINDS

—————————————————————————————————–
Change Model – Kotter (Harvard)

1. Establish sense of urgency
2. Form a powerful guiding coalition
3. Create a vision
4. Communicate the vision
5. Empower others to act on the vision
6. Create short term wins
7. Consolidating and increasing change
8. Institutionalising change into the culture

—————————————————————————————————

Pre-requisites for successful change – Brockbank (Michigan)

————————————————————————————————————-

Cracking the Code of Change (Nohria)

O&E Change

The key lesson is that it is here, it is the future and it works.

Since 1987, the Human Resource Competency Study (HRCS) has been used to determine what knowledge and abilities are necessary for HR professionals to be successful.

Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank, from The RBL Group and the Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan, completed Round 5 of the HRCS with the assistance of global research partners.

Round 6 is now in progress.

Over 10,000 individuals participated in the 2007 study, making this the largest global study on HR competencies. Two HR Competency program options have been developed to meet the needs of HR professionals at every level of an organization.

The 2007 areas were:
- Credible Activist
- Organizational Executor
- Business Ally
- Talent Manager & Organization Designer
- Culture & Change Steward
- Strategy Architect

Employers do expect to fund their annual bonuses fully for workers in 2011, as corporate profits have increased, according to survey data from consultancy Towers Watson.

The Salary Budget Survey of 773 U.S. companies, conducted by Towers Watson Data Services in June and July 2011, found that companies are planning pay increases that will average 2.8 percent in 2012 for their salaried nonexecutive employees.

This represents a moderate increase from the average 2.6 percent raise workers are receiving in 2011 and 2.6 percent they received in 2010.

Similar raises for 2012 are planned for executives.

Companies are being prudent to keep costs in line but also recognize the need to reward their top performers or risk losing them to competitors and, as a result, continue to differentiate pay raises based on individual performance.”

According to the Towers Watson survey, workers who receive the highest performance ratings will be in store for median salary increases of 4.5 percent, which is 80 percent more than workers with average ratings will receive (2.5 percent). Workers with below-average performance ratings are expected to receive median merit increases of 1.4 percent.

Message for Managers:
Be prudent with costs, watch the trends and mind the performers.

This is the first NLRB decision regarding social media websites that didn’t target the organization’s social media policy.

The NLRB’s clearly expressed view is that employers cannot simply prohibit employees from communicating through social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook. The board views use of these sites as the modern-day equivalent of conversations around the water cooler.

Message for employers:

This is a relatively new area with new challenges.

The law is developing globally.

!!!! Be careful in over-reacting to social media posts and have a very strong and communicated social media policy!!!!!!

Source: SHRM UPDATES