Cultural alignment in response to strategic organizational change: new considerations for a change framework.

Most modern-day managers would quickly agree that the shared values, attitudes, commitments, beliefs, and overall patterns of thinking socially constructed among members of an organization have a tremendous influence on its long-term effectiveness and performance. The impact of an appropriate organizational culture on the well-being of the business organization has been explicitly recognized by many organizational researchers (Dennison, 1984; Camerer and Vespalian, 1988; and Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). Tunstall (1986) proposes that a company's culture is the amalgam of shared values, behavior patterns, mores, symbols, attitudes, and normative ways of conducting business that, more than its products or services, differentiate it from all other companies. Further, culture may influence what organizational strategies are selected and whether they are successful (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993; Marcoulides and Heck, 1993; Wilkins and Dyer, 1988). Existing cultural orientations may be quite supportive of the mission and success of a firm at a particular point, but not at all appropriate when significant strategic change becomes necessary. This paper addresses the need for cultural evaluation, feedback, and possible change facilitation as needed to successfully align with necessarily imposed strategic change.

Culture has traditionally been recognized as a consideration in the strategy implementation process (Bourgeois and Brodwin, 1984; Nutt, 1986; Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986). Culture is assumed to explain the success of some organizations (Peters and Waterman, 1982), to represent an essential element in effectiveness of organizations if it fits the strategy (Schwartz and Davis, 1981), to act as a determinant of strategy (Ackerman, 1982), or as an influence on the implementation of strategic decisions (Schwartz and Davis, 1981). Such claims contribute to the recognition that culture plays a large role in the overall implementation of strategy. As such, culture must play a critical role when dramatic, significant strategic change is mandated.

Figure 1 represents a conceptualization of the relationship between management, culture, and strategy. It is proposed that culture change is an imperative element of management's efforts to: 1) influence the overall orientation and collective workplace themes and attitudes of human resources which, in turn, 2) guide necessary human behaviors, which 3) are part of an implementation effort called for by a particular strategy, which 4) is a response to a significant shift in the demands and restrictions of an ever changing company and strategy. This being the case, organizational culture, as it currently exists, must pose a critical contingency upon both the planning and implementation of future strategies (Schneider and De Meyer, 1991). Mintzberg (1987) convincingly argues that strategy evolves in an incremental fashion, in which case planning and implementation are so interwoven through time that they are virtually inseparable. The argument made here is that cultural aspects of the organization can significantly affect the implementation of strategy and thus must be addressed in the planning of strategy. As part of an evolving process in which feedback and evaluation play a recurring role, the culture of an organization can be better used for competitive advantage by either designing strategy to maximize the current organizational culture, or by gently shaping the culture through intervention when needed strategic change creates a misalignment. As described, this model overlays the entire incremental and iterative process of planning, implementation, and evaluation (Mintzberg, 1987).

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Though culture change has been considered broadly as part of an overall implementation effort, little conceptual literature to date has presented an integrative literature review and synthesis of the cultural variables which impact the implementation of sizable strategic change. It is this paper's objective to address cultural aspects in some depth in order to make evaluation, derive feedback, and facilitate cultural change as needed for achieving fit to strategy. To this end, the model proposed recognizes cultural impact on strategic implementation and assumes that alignment of culture to strategy is essential for overall organizational effectiveness.

Aspects of Culture

Few concepts in organizational theory have as many different and competing definitions as does organizational culture. Even though some disagreement and ambiguity have been noted in the numerous attempts to define culture in the organization, certain elements repeatedly emerge in nearly all definitions (Deal and Kennedy, 1982). Schall gives a rather in-depth, all-encompassing definition: "Culture is a relatively enduring, interdependent, symbolic system of values, beliefs, and assumptions evolving from and imperfectly shared by interacting organizational members that allows them to explain, coordinate, and evaluate behavior and to ascribe common meanings to stimuli encountered in the organizational context" (1983: 11).

Further, it is a direct manifestation of human interaction and it can be thought of as a force which orients and directs the behavior of individual members (Saffold, 1988; Wilkins and Ouchi, 1983). It defines behavior and the way in which a firm conducts its business (Peters and Waterman, 1982), and it expresses values and beliefs that organizational members share (Siehl and Martin, 1981). In so doing, it explains the group's core feelings about business which dictate organizational behavior. When we think of culture in this way, the distinction between the organization's culture and such important organizational traits as overall strategy and structure becomes blurred. This may be due, in part, to the complexity of culture and the difficulty associated with measuring it. If it is construed as a multidimensional, multilevel concept (Nahavandi and Malekzadeh, 1988), it can be more handily evaluated as to its impact on other specific organizational variables. Further, few organizations have singular cultures. Frequently there exists a single dominant culture and various subcultures, depending on the organization. The following discussion represents an attempt to identify the literature's coverage on the various levels and effects of culture, as well as the relationship between culture and organizational effectiveness. These aspects of culture are vital to the extent that they can be identified and evaluated for their impact on implementation needs during a major strategic change.

Levels of Culture

Organizational culture is shaped through forces at multiple levels. Fombrun (1983) identified and described three major levels of culture: the societal level, the industry level, and the organizational level. He believed that understanding the interplay between the levels of culture is vital for accurate analysis and modification. One limitation of Fombrun's (1983) view is the assumption of singular, dominant cultures for each, when in fact, many subcultures may exist at each level. Sackman (1992) showed that different forms of knowledge and learning were important at different strategic points within the organization due to the interplay of subcultures. Still, it has been shown that alignment of dominant cultures within society, industry, and the organization will better position the firm for effective achievement of its objectives (Cartwright and Cooper, 1993; Cox and Blake, 1991).

The societal level of culture represents the cultural values, attitudes, and meanings which the members bring to the organization. This level is influenced by such things as the educational system, the political system, the economic system, and the social structure of the larger society. The organization operates within this general, cultural "atmosphere." This level influences the strategies, mission, objectives, and practices of the organization in often subtle but very real ways. For example, the strategic thrust of the organization must be consistent with the societal culture in which it operates in order to maintain legitimacy and approval and to maintain effective human resource operations. This very general level is often an ethical, legal, and social guide to conducting business in a society.

The essence of the industrial level of culture can be realized by thinking of the dramatic differences among various industries. There are dominant values or beliefs of an organization which are espoused by a majority of the organizations in that industry. Industries develop prominent styles over time which have a remarkable influence on such things as decision making, political stances, member life styles, and even dress codes.

The organizational level of culture is most easily recognized as being related to strategy. implementation and organizational effectiveness (Peters and Waterman, 1982; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Sackman, 1992). The ease or difficulty of changing a culture is dependent on how "deep-seated" the integral parts of the existing organizational culture are. Culture is manifested in behavioral norms, hidden assumptions, and human nature (Peters and Waterman, 1982). Each of these variables occurs at a different "level of depth" in the overall culture (Kilmann et al., 1986). Deep-seated cultural values are very difficult to change and are influenced strongly by themes emanating from both the industrial and societal levels. Most cultural aspects, however, are subject to some degree of change.

The behavioral norms of the firm, which dictate behavior and are the unwritten rules of the game (Kilmann et al., 1986), are only just below the surface of experience. These tend to indicate the "modus operandi" of the employees. For example, one may hear employees saying "don't rock the boat," "do the minimum to get by," or "everybody around here cheats on their expense account" (Kilman et al. 1986). Behavioral norms are consciously understood and accepted. When asked, most individuals can list the behavioral norms that operate in their work groups and can even suggest what new set of norms would be more effective for achieving higher performance and morale. Due to their "shallow" nature, behavioral norms will be quite susceptible to change.

Hidden assumptions represent the fundamental beliefs or values behind decisions and action (Kilmann et al., 1986). These pertain in large part to the decision makers and managers of the firm, who are the guiding force to much of a company's culture. These assumptions are a major force in shaping strategy in that they pertain to the nature of the environment, the wants and needs of various stakeholders, the decision-making process of stakeholders, and the actions stakeholders are likely to take, both now and in the future. Hidden assumptions include such guiding cognitions as "the economy will steadily improve," "the customer will continue to appreciate what the firm produces," or "new technology is more important than service" (Kilmann et al., 1986). These assumptions are likely to distort reality to the degree that they shape perceptions of and assumptions about the external environment and the condition of the firm.

The final and deepest level of organizational culture is the collective manifestation of human nature; that is, the collection of human dynamics, wants, motives, and desires that make a human work group unique. Groups tend to exhibit certain characteristics which are collectively created through years and years of interaction. For example, cultures develop common languages and ways of thinking which unconsciously direct every activity performed by members within the culture. We often hear people remark that a certain activity or way of thinking has become "second nature." Human nature is very important to corporate culture because to understand how any group functions, we must understand which issues it is likely to emphasize or ignore, what information it is likely to select or retain, and how it is likely to distort information.

Impact of Culture

Writers in organizational theory often argue that culture must have some specific properties in order to be effective. Most notable among these is that it must be "strong." Strong cultures have been called stable, thick and widely shared, cohesive and tightly knit, homogenous, coherent, and fully articulated (Schein, 1984; Schall, 1983; Sathe, 1983; Ouchi and Price, 1978; and Weick, 1985). However, strength is imprecisely defined and only touches on portions of the entire cultural framework. These and other methodological problems call for us to move beyond descriptions of strength to more advanced, multifaceted categories to assess the total impact of culture on the organization. To this end, Saffold (1988) has developed eight categories (based in part on the work of Louis (1985)) which seem better suited to evaluate the cultural phenomena. These categories are divided into two groups: measures of cultural dispersion and measures of cultural potency.

Saffold presents four measures of cultural dispersion: sociological penetration, psychological penetration, historical penetration, and artifactual penetration. Sociological penetration is the degree to which cultural manifestations are shared across different groups or subcultures within the organization. Psychological penetration occurs when members of an organization or subculture deeply internalize the values, meanings, and assumptions of the cultural milieu. These members could be considered organizational patriots due to their deep belief in the system. Historical penetration is created when particular cultural themes remain stable over a long period of time. Organizational members will preserve the culture over time and transmit this to new members. Artifactual penetration develops when intangible elements of the culture become embodied in visible cultural artifacts such as portraits, titles, awards, regular meetings, or dress. This institutionalizes the values of the culture. These four measures of cultural dispersion detail the specific areas of cultural penetration across the organization.

The second group of measures which assists in cultural evaluation is cultural potency. This group focuses on the power of the cultural paradigm itself to act as an influence on behavior. The four categories within this group include elemental coherence, symbolic potency, strategic fit, and alloplasticity. Elemental coherence assesses the degree of coherence between the elements of culture. An example of this is the level of consistency between physical and cultural artifacts and the organization's deeper values and assumptions. Symbolic potency describes the extent to which symbols can affect the organization. It is likely that a culture with powerful living symbols will be able to mobilize emotion and loyalty more easily than a culture with less symbolic content. Strategic fit measures the fit of the culture with internal human resource capabilities and other organizational capabilities, as well as its compatibility with external demands. In this paper, we view this measure as an ultimate goal of cultural change and as part of a major strategic change. Alloplasticity, the final category, ties culture to change. Cultures that are highly alloplastic can adapt readily without undue workplace trauma, whereas more rigid cultures suffer impaired ability to compete in the face of a major change.

Saffold's proposals enable both theorists and practitioners to gain a more holistic view of the multiple impacts of culture on the organization and its effectiveness.

Culture and Organizational Effectiveness

So what is an appropriate culture? How do we go about describing the beliefs, orientations, values, symbols, and other rather abstract characteristics which are appropriate for a given strategic situation? This decision is a situational one and may require tailoring. However, an excellent example has been shown by Marcoulides and Heck (1993) who operationalize organizational culture through examination of latent variables: organizational structure and purpose, organizational values, task organization, climate, and individual values and beliefs. They found that these variables can affect organizational performance.

We must determine what makes a culture effective and how one can tell if a culture is operating effectively. In very general terms, we can expect an appropriate culture to guide the human element of the organization in such a way that organizational effectiveness will be enhanced rather than hindered. From a strategic viewpoint, organizational effectiveness might be measured in terms of whether or not strategy is successfully implemented, or whether organizational objectives are achieved, which should entail successful strategy formulation and implementation. Davis (1984) argues that it is likely that even a highly developed, coherent, broadly supported culture change program will fail to enhance effectiveness if it does not facilitate organizational survival and movement towards its goals.

We posit that maintaining a positive relationship between culture and effectiveness should be one of the organization's primary objectives. A well designed strategic management process in which alignment is continually sought between organizational elements, external elements and choice of strategy (Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986) will include appraisal of organizational culture. Two propositions emerge for the organization when confronted with external persuasion for significant strategic change: (1) Either the existing culture appears complementary to the changes imposed by new strategy, or (2) Some cultural change may be deemed necessary in order to affect and maintain organizational effectiveness.

Managers would be remiss, however, if they attempted to diagnose and change culture with no frame of reference as to the influences on and of culture. In the same vein, managers would soon encounter trouble if they attempted to alter an organization's culture with no generic guiding framework. The remainder of this paper describes in some detail the nature of dramatic strategic change and proposes a generic model for initiating culture change. This change is viewed as truly a controlled process, giving adequate consideration to the cultural aspects considered thus far. This should provide both theorists and practitioners with a guiding framework for understanding the actual change process.

Strategic Change

The need for an organization to undergo significant strategic change can be brought about for a number of reasons: poor performance (D'Aveni, 1989), environmental turbulence and uncertainty (Koberg, 1987), resource shifts (Castrogiovanni, 1991), risk reduction (Bromiley, 1991), or simply managerial preference (Hambrick and Mason, 1984). Regardless of the impetus for such a change, the need to align all aspects of the organization with the new strategy is of vital importance to overall effective performance, as well as survival. Perceptions of environmental uncertainty and organizational control influence these strategic choices. Cultural differences may affect the interpretation of strategic issues and the response to needed strategic changes (Schneider and De Meyer, 1991).

Although most strategists favor an adaptive theory of organizational behavior, a thorough adaptation of all elements is frequently difficult to achieve in short time. Ackerman (1982) argues that defining a solution and implementing it is not enough, but often requires a transition management to gently reduce problems, make clear why change is needed and increase the prospects of successful change.

March (1981) suggests that organizations are continually changing, although change is not always controlled. Chakravarthy (1982), however, asserts that the process of continuously adapting to the changes in a firm's environment is the essence of strategic management. It is an adaptive process and one that is predicated on the resources that it commands, both externally and internally. Further, the nature of management processes within these firms influences the state of adaptation sought. Chakravarthy's (1982) suggestions are designed to affect and manage fit between elements of the organization and strategies selected. The effective use of human resources must include culture evaluation and management if strategy is to be successfully adapted to the organization.

Burgelman (1991) proposes that strategy results, in part, from retention of those elements that have worked well in the past, and selection of viable new elements, based on administrative and cultural mechanisms. Whereas in the former an organization's character can be maintained through induced processes, in the latter new autonomous processes will be necessary to foster the new character or elements required. As such, the induced processes concern initiatives that are within the scope of the organization's current strategy and that build on existing learning processes within the organization. The autonomous processes concern initiatives which emerge outside of the current organization realm and that provide the potential for new organizational learning.

In a study of culture and subcultures within the organization, Sackman (1992) found that different aspects of organizational design and control were important to various subcultures. The subcultures tended to form within the organization on the basis of division, tenure, function, or hierarchy. Four culturally based processes were found to be present, regardless of subculture. These were the ways in which: (1) tasks were accomplished; (2) people related to each other; (3) adaptation and change were accomplished; and (4) new knowledge was acquired and existing knowledge was perpetuated. To the people in an organization, these processes are unique, real, and important as they represent basic aspects of their organizational existence. These cultural elements represent a major force in guiding the human element, which has been identified here as a major force in determining a strategy's effectiveness.

Organizational effectiveness typically requires some degree of fit between organizational culture and strategy. Achieving cultural adaptation entails not only induced processes of new organizational learning, but some reaffirming process of getting there. Change is not achieved overnight and is not achieved without some pain. Care must be taken that the new strategies, rules, and systems are learned and that the transition aids the learning process.

The Model

Wilkins and Ouchi (1983) argue that organizations should give serious attention to their cultures when they confront any of the following conditions: diversification opportunities, changes in strategy, rapid growth, subculture conflict, and retrenchment. Tunstall (1986) posits that culture changes more by evolution than by edict and, as such, the change must be a slow, continual process which is directed rather than a fast, quick fix which is imposed. The following model will provide both researchers and practitioners a theoretical base by which the rather complex change process can be better understood and facilitated.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Wilkins and Dyer (1988) argue that cultural change cannot occur as though it were independent of the particular traits of the culture being ghanged. Each culture has idiosyncratic qualifies and must be modified uniquely. Firms' abilities to invoke autonomous learning processes will differ widely. The existence and strength of division among subcultures will vary from organization to organization. With these caveats in mind, the resulting model is specific enough to provide a directional framework for initiating cultural change, yet general enough to incorporate the idiosyncracies that each organizational setting presents. This proposed framework synthesizes and integrates the cultural changes described by Beck (1987), Tunstall (1986), Deal and Kennedy (1982), and Sathe (1983).

1. Evaluate the Nature of the Strategic Change.

What is the nature of the strategic changes that have made cultural change necessary in order to maintain effectiveness? Why was strategic change warranted? In the example of AT&T (Tunstall, 1986), the threats and opportunities presented by deregulation were the major points of discussion. The prudent organization must also evaluate the magnitude of the change and the conditions that have precipitated change. These will include the long-term implications to the industry, the market, suppliers, and the firm. If changes are large and unique then a cultural change may be necessary. However, small, constant adjustments do not warrant a one-time change in culture but rather adjustments of specific behaviors related to the particular human demands. Autonomous learning processes will likely cause the culture to gradually evolve to fit the cumulative change.

How will the shift affect the focus of organizational effort over the next several years? Consider IBM's realization that it would be necessary to shift emphasis away from mainframe computers toward personal computers (Kirkpatrick, 1992). For one, the orientation of employees had to move from an emphasis on service and technical support to marketing and mass manufacturing. The shift was dramatic and had implications for the entire focus of effort and company orientation.

2. Identify Key Elements in the New Strategic Setting.

The second stage of the model requires management to look more closely at exactly what key human elements are necessary for success in the new setting. The key factors of success should be directly related to organizational effectiveness, and broken down to their most basic elements. At this early stage, culture is not yet of primary concern, but emphasis in "scanning" should be placed on identifying key areas where specific human efforts may be most important. In the case of AT&T, one of these key elements was aggressive marketing (Tunstall, 1986). Due to deregulation, AT&T faced competition in areas where it was previously nonexistent. To be effective, AT&T was forced to target their market and aggressively pursue it. By identifying critical variables needed for effectiveness in the new environment, the organization's management began to see areas where "a new orientation" or "a new emphasis" was necessary.

3. Define Effectiveness.

Because we defined this construct using very situational terms, we should recognize that each managerial team in different organizations will have their own definition for organizational effectiveness (average sales per month, profits, stock price, market share, etc.). The point is that to measure the effectiveness of cultural change efforts, we must first state the firm's notions of organizational effectiveness (Wiener, 1988). The goals and objectives of the firm must be itemized and assigned priorities before culture change can be managed. We argue that culture modification is only effective to the extent that organizational effectiveness is achieved.

4. Measure Key Elements in Present Culture.

This is a difficult task that may take a great deal of time and a variety of measurement methods, including random observation, interviewing, and analyzing the interaction during work group meetings. In some cases, measurement could be as easy as qualitatively determining present existence, while in other cases, measurement could entail charting the number of occurrences of various events over time. The measurement of these key variables should provide useful information. It is suggested here that measurements might be obtained on such key organizational cultural variables as those recommended by Marcoulides and Heck (1993). These include latent indicators of organizational structure and purpose, organizational values, task organization, climate, and individual values and beliefs.

First, measurement will illustrate how much of a change is needed as well as identify the areas in which the present culture is lacking. Secondly, the measurement will isolate key elements for effectiveness in which the corporation is deficient, thus allowing for concentration on a few specific items. The result is a set of tangible items on which the facilitation of change will focus.

5. Determine the Depth of Culture of Key Elements.

After the key elements for effectiveness have been identified and their frequency in the current organizational culture measured, the depth of culture at which these key elements exist must be determined. The purpose of this is to gauge the difficulty in achieving change. If values, beliefs, assumptions, and orientations need changing for the organization to operate effectively in the new environment, a cultural change is necessary (Sathe, 1983). If these elements are extremely deep-seated, a long-term, concerted, controlled evolution will be necessary.

6. Assess the Cultural Dispersion and Potency in the Organization.

Using the categories proposed by Saffold (1988) to evaluate the cultural element, management can assess the culture's overall potential for change. For example, it may be easier to initiate change in a weak culture, but it could be very difficult to sustain the modification. A strong culture may create significant resistance to change, but if it has a high degree of alloplasticity, it will be able to facilitate and sustain this change. Once the assessment of the current culture is complete, an appropriate modification program which meets the needs of the individual culture under analysis must be chosen.

7. Determine Strategy-Culture Match or Mismatch.

Even with significant strategic change mandated, the present culture may be deemed suitable for effective implementation of new strategies. In such an instance, management can simply proceed with the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of new strategies. When the cultural evaluation suggests a mismatch, however, it is recommended that managers continue with this model.

8. Design the Cultural Intervention.

There are numerous ways to change culture in the organization. Some take a long period of time while others have immediate impact. Wiener (1988) reports that the most effective method is through recruitment, selection, and staffing. Change is facilitated through the selection and placement of new employees whose orientation is congruent with the desired culture. For example, a company moving into an entirely different market (unrelated diversification) will likely hire a number of experts from other companies to help guide the new effort. A new style of manufacturing may call for bringing new employees aboard.

A second method of intervention is organizational socialization. In this process, the values of the members are brought in line with those of the organization (Etzioni, 1961). This process normally occurs shortly after the employees are hired, and may be a way to gradually inculcate the various work groups with a new culture. Organizational socialization may take place formally or informally, possibly through orientation of new employees or through a series of communications to existing employees. Socialization may be useful in the organization and maintenance of shared value systems (Van Mannen and Schein, 1979).

The third method of intervention involves basic communication and probably represents the most effective and most widely used method of culture change (Sathe, 1983). Culture can be communicated through explicit or implicit means (Sathe, 1983). Explicit forms of communication include: announcements, pronouncements, memos, briefs, lectures, videos, signs, etc. Implicit forms of communication include rituals, ceremonies, awards, stories, etc. Research shows that implicit forms of communication tend to be more effective in changing culture than explicit forms of communication (Sathe, 1983). However, both explicit and implicit communication must be relied on to provide external justification for the new strategy and persuade organizational members to adopt the new cultural beliefs and values.

9. Implement the Intervention Strategy.

The interests and satisfaction of the members of the organization must be of top priority during the implementation phase for change is not possible without cooperation from personnel. As can be imagined, resistance can be a strong influence on cultural norms in the future.

Kilmann (1986) states that there are three basic techniques of program implementation: the top-down approach, the participative approach, and the subculture approach. Top-down or imposed changes usually result in changes that are difficult to sustain, even though they may be easy to bring about. In other words, top-down approaches may result in overt compliance, but no covert acceptance. Participative approaches to culture change are difficult and time consuming, but the commitment and acceptance to the change is superior to a top-down approach. Individuals feel a shared ownership for the "changed atmosphere," which subsequently improves performance. The shared ownership of cultural changes adds to the new cultural setting. Improved performance, in addition, boosts pride and comradery. The subculture approach is necessary when an organization possesses cultural heterogeneity or geographical dispersion. This may be the most realistic of the techniques, especially in today's global environment. Employing this method allows for each subculture to be treated individually and the differences that exist in these subcultures are isolated and addressed. This ensures a more thorough and meticulous implementation of the intervention strategy, thus enabling change in each subculture. This method is time consuming and expensive and calls for a great deal of input from the different subcultures.

10. Evaluate, Report and Give Feedback

Evaluation is not a singular event but a necessary, ongoing component of successful interventions, which must be periodically free-tuned to achieve optimal results. In the evaluation process, both the frequency of the key elements and overall effectiveness must be observed. Methods of evaluation could include monitoring, measuring effectiveness, or comparison of elemental frequency with original baseline measures gained during the internal organizational analysis. An increase in the key element frequency combined with a stagnation of organizational effectiveness could mean that the key elements were not defined correctly. The culture, in other words, has changed with minimal or detrimental impact on organizational effectiveness.

Depending on the evaluation, management may need to return to one of the earlier stages of the model. For example, a fit may not have been obtained for any of the following reasons: the strategic change was not fully understood, the key human elements were misconstrued or were ambiguous, the company's present culture was misunderstood or ambiguous, a poor plan may have been formulated, implementation may have been conducted poorly, or employees were unwilling to cooperate. Each of these problems occur at a different stage of the model.

The results of the intervention should be conveyed, of course, to employees. They should take pride in effectively bringing about a "new attitude," for example, a "new emphasis on production quality" or as Ford's culture has indicated, "Quality is Job 1."

Conclusion

The most important triggering events for cultural modification are strategic shifts and their subsequent impact on effectiveness. The organizational culture will impact the formulation of a new strategy, which in turn will have a reciprocal effect on the modification of the present culture to meet the new strategy's needs. If this culture change takes place employing the proposed modification framework, as delineated in Figure 2, the influence on human actions and behaviors will be positive and should enable the organization to achieve their goals and objectives, thus realizing organizational effectiveness. Galbraith and Kazanjian (1986) spoke of culture as the cohesiveness that binds the entire strategic "adaptation" effort of the company. This glue represents a rather abstract and confusing component of the mass network of human interaction known as the organization. It is clear, however, that culture can either facilitate or severely hinder a chosen strategy and further understanding of cultural influences may be paramount to full understanding of effective strategic change.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Managerial Implications

There are numerous implications that the proposed model holds for managers who wish to alter their organizational culture in the wake of a strategic shift. First and foremost, the derived model provides managers with a clear, concise, step-by-step process in which change can be induced. As a general framework of cultural modification, it gives broad theoretical reasoning for an overall process which will necessarily call for tailoring appropriate to a particular situation. Secondly, the proposed model allows managers to gauge the success of the culture change using tangible, "bottom-line" measures of effectiveness. Culture modification should not be evaluated as a process for its own sake, but its success or failure should he determined by whether or not this change will enhance organizational effectiveness under a new strategy. The final managerial implication of the derived model is that it helps managers distinguish between a behavioral change and cultural change. When changes in shared beliefs, values and hidden assumptions are needed, a modification in behavior will neither generate the support nor provide the permanency necessary to properly align the culture with a new strategy (Beck, 1987; Wiener, 1988). For managers, the practical importance of this model is that it allows practitioners to understand and organize the constellation of variables that could influence or adversely affect successful culture change.

We have proposed a model that is deemed appropriate for strategic shifts that appear to require cultural intervention or adjustment. We must concede, however, that it may sometimes be best to alter strategy to fit a deep-seated culture. In instances in which culture is deeply manifest, it may still be strategically more viable and possible to design strategy in some way to take advantage of its existing cultural elements. Further, although controlled evolution is stressed when change is deemed necessary, there may be situations when quick, even radical changes may sometimes be effective and/or appropriate.

Research Implications and Limitations

The major contribution and research implication of this paper lies within its synthesis and integration of the various aspects of the organizational culture literature. Past research in the area of organizational culture has been fragmented and dispersed. This paper is an attempt to help fill a large gap in the literature by providing researchers with an orderly, underlying framework upon which future research may build.

Unfortunately, several pitfalls in the culture research field still exist. One limitation that we addressed earlier is the situational nature of culture. No research has derived, as yet, certain consistent characteristics which are present in all or even most effective cultures. Past research has dealt with the study of culture only on a case-by-case (case analysis) basis. Due to this idiosyncratic nature of culture, the researcher's ability to apply quantitative techniques are inappropriate, and further operationalization of this construct is severely hindered. Another limitation lies in the difficulty in gauging an individual's hidden assumptions, attitudes or human nature, without encountering some type of research or subject bias (experimenter bias, social desirability bias, etc.). These limitations may currently hinder the development of culture research, but they do provide exciting future opportunities for scholars wishing to make an impact in a "wide-open" area of research.

References

Ackerman, L.S. 1982. "An In-depth Look at Managing Complex Change." Organizational Dynamics 11 (1): 46-66.

Beck, R. 1987. "Vision, Values, and Strategies: Changing Attitudes and Culture." Academy of Management Executive 1(1): 33.

Bourgeois, L., and D. Brodwin. 1984. "Strategy Implementation: Five Approaches to an Elusive Phenomenon." Strategic Management Journal 5: 241-264.

Bromiley, P. 1991. "Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance." Academy of Management Journal 34: 37-59.

Burgelman, R.A. 1991. "Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaption: Theory and Field Research." Organizational Science 2(3): 239-261.

Camerer, C., and A. Vespalian. 1988. "The Economic Efficiency of Corporate Culture." Strategic Management Journal 9: 115-126.

Cartwright, S., and C.L. Cooper. 1993. "The Role of Culture Compatibility in Successful Organizational Marriage." Academy of Management Executive 7(2): 57-70.

Castrogiovanni, G. 1991. "Environmental Munificence: A Theoretical Assessment." Academy of Management Review 16: 542-565.

Chakravarthy, B.S. 1982. "Adaption: A Promising Metaphor for Strategic Management." Academy of Management Review 7(1): 35-44.

Cox, T., and S. Blake. 1991. "Managing Cultural Diversity: Implications for Organizational Competitiveness." Academy of Management Executive 5(3): 45-56.

D'Aveni, R. 1989. "The Aftermath of Organizational Decline: A Longitudinal Study of the Strategic and Managerial Characteristics of Declining Firms." Academy of Management Journal 32: 577-605.

Davis, S. 1984. Managing Corporate Culture. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Deal, T., and A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Dennison, D. 1984. "Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line." Organizational Dynamics 13(2): 5-22.

Etzioni, A. 1961. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press.

Fombrun, C. 1983. "Corporate Culture, Environment, and Strategy." Human Resources Management 22: 139-152.

Galbraith, J., and K. Kazanjian. 1986. Strategy Implementation: Structure, Systems, and Processes. St. Paul: West.

Hambrick, D., and P. Mason. 1984. "Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of its Top Managers." Academy of Management Review 9: 193-206.

Kilmann, R., M. Saxton, and R. Serpa. 1986. "Issues in Understanding and Changing Culture." California Management Review 28(2): 87-94.

-----. 1986. "Five Steps for Closing Culture Gaps." In Gaining Control of Corporate Culture. Eds. R. Kilmann, M. Saxton, and R. Serpa. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 350-369.

Kirkpatrick, David. 1992. "Breaking Up IBM." Fortune. (July 27): 45-55.

Koberg, C.S. 1987. 'Resource Scarcity, Environmental Uncertainty, and Adaptive Organizational Behavior." Academy of Management Journal 30(4): 798.

Louis, M. 1985. "An Investigator's Guide to Workplace Culture." In Organizational Culture. Eds. P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 73-93.

March, J.G. 1981. "Footnotes to Organizational Change." Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 563-577.

Marcoulides, G.A., and R.H. Heck. 1993. "Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model." Organization Science 4(2): 209-225.

Mintzberg, H. 1987. "Crafting Strategy." Harvard Business Review (July-August): 66-75.

Nahavandi, A., and A. Malekzadeh. 1988. "Acculturation in Mergers and Acquisitions." Academy of Management Review 13(1): 79-90.

Nutt, P. 1986. "Tactics of Implementation." Academy of Management Journal 29: 230-261.

Ouchi, W., and R. Price. 1978. "Hierarchies, Clans, and Theory Z: A New Perspective on Organizational Development." Organizational Dynamics 7(2): 25-44.

Peters, T., and R. Waterman. 1982. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row.

Sackman, S.A. 1992. "Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge." Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 140-161.

Saffold, G. 1988. "Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving Beyond Strong Culture." Academy of Management Review 13: 546-558.

Sathe, V. 1983. "Implications of Corporate Culture: A Manager's Guide to Action." Organizational Dynamics 12(2): 5-23.

Schall, M. 1983. "A Communications-rules Approach to Organizational Culture." Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 557-581.

Schein, E. 1984. "Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture." Sloan Management Review 25(2): 3-16.

Schneider, S.C., and A. De Meyer. 1991. "Interpreting and Responding to Strategic Issues: The Impact of National Culture." Strategic Management Journal 12(4): 307-320.

Schwartz, R., and S. Davis. 1981. "Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy." Organizational Dynamics 10(1): 30-48.

Siehl, C., and J. Martin. 1981. "Learning Organizational Culture." Working paper, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.

Tunstall, W. 1986. "The Breakup of the Bell System." California Management Review 28(2): 110-124.

Van Mannen, J., and E. Schein. 1979. "Toward a Theory of Organizational Socialization." In Research in Organizational Behavior. Ed. B. Staw. Greenwich, CN: JAI Press. 209-264.

Weick, K. 1985. "The Significance of Corporate Culture." In Organizational Culture. Eds. P. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 381-389.

Wiener, Y. 1988. "Forms of Value Systems: A Focus on Organizational Effectiveness and Culture Change and Maintenance." Academy of Management Review 13(4): 534-545.

Wilklins, A., and W. Dyer. 1988. "Toward Culturally Sensitive Theories of Culture Change." Academy of Management Review 13(4): 522-533.

-----, and W. Ouchi. 1983. "Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship Between Culture and Organizational Performance." Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 468-481.

RELATED ARTICLE: Figure 2: Cultural Change Framework

1. Evaluate the Nature of the Strategic Change

2. Identify Key Elements in the New Strategic Setting

3. Define Effectivenes

4. Measure Key Elements in the Present Culture

5. Determine the Depth of Culture of Key Elements

6. Assess the Cultural Dispersion and Potency in the Organization

7. Determine Strategy-Culture Match or Mismatch

8. Design the Cultural Intervention

9. Implement the Cultural Intervention Strategy

10. Evaluate, Report, and Give Feedback

(Results of No. 9 may lead management to return to an earlier stage for reevaluation.)