Case Study
Page 1 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Week 7: Leadership and Organizational Culture Management
Learning Objectives:
7.1 Introduction
The material of the whole module was carefully chosen in order to address the most
important aspects of organizational culture management. Our efforts culminated in the creation
of an integrative framework which allowed us to observe the dynamic interactions occurred
during culture change. The recommended framework, as presented in the reading of Week 5,
was based upon the ‘competing values framework’ (CVF) (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The
CVF involves two activities, which are considered to be critical in terms of the final culture
type each organization adopts: the integration process and the differentiation process (you may
want to refer back to Figure 5.3 in order to refresh your memory about the two processes).
Although the recommended integrative framework did provide a means of understanding the
ongoing tensions between different culture types, there was no actual explanation about how
exactly the integration and differentiation processes are perceived by the senior management
team of an organization. Given that those processes are directly associated with leadership
effectiveness in organizations we must explore the importance of leadership in organizational
culture management (Dearlove, 2003). In this context, the remaining features of the CVF, i.e.
the individuality/flexibility and the stability/control attributes will also be discussed in order to
be able to identify which leadership style is most compatible with the CVF and, hence, the
recommended dynamic integrative framework. In order to explore the leadership concept in
organizational culture, we will first examine the relationship between leadership and stress and
the relationship between stress, leadership and organizational culture change. This is simply
because stress appears as the primary factor of leadership ineffectiveness in the literature
• Understand the importance of leadership in organizational culture
management
• Understand the role of leadership in the processes associated with the
cultural dynamics in organizational culture change
• Understand the role of emotional intelligence and socialization in
organizational culture and culture change.
Page 2 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
(Bass, 1990). Subsequently, we will briefly discuss the role of emotional intelligence and
socialization in organizational culture and culture change.
Page 3 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.2 Organizational leadership and stress
Recently, the importance of leadership in organizations have grown dramatically due to the
realization that leadership effectiveness strongly draws upon the cultural and ideological
context of the organization. Derue, et al. (2011) tried to identify a number of factors
contributing to the necessity of understanding leadership effectiveness. More specifically, the
authors claimed that it is important to first and foremost understand the psychological
pressures that normally accompany leadership effectiveness because those pressures often
become the main driver of success or failure in leading an organization. Below, we explore
seven such pressures, as follows: loneliness at the top, feeling envied, being watched, setting
organizational objectives, fear of losing power, guilt and a very steep learning curve. These
factors are briefly described below in order to enable us to understand the role of stress in
organizational leadership.
1. Loneliness at the top. An organizational leader is aware of the fact that an executive
position changes the composition of his/her network. This means that old relationships
may not be maintained due to time restrictions and the new connections that must be
pursued, as a result of the position itself.
2. Feeling envied. Executives in most organizations would find themselves being the
object of envy by many people, other organizations, governmental agencies, etc. Most
leaders will find being an object of envy highly-disturbing and stressful.
3. Being watched. Senior executives of large organizations are constantly observed by
government officials, analysts, journalists, etc. With every action under severe scrutiny,
leaders may find particularly stressful even the simplest day-to-day operation.
4. Defining organizational objectives. Trying to identify organizational objectives is not
an easy task. Every leader must try to weight in different factors, such as resource
constraints, risk, responsibility, brand, challenge, future management strategies, long-
term objectives, etc. It is worth noting that, nowadays, 1 in 3 CEOs are leaving their
positions involuntarily due to their incapacity to fulfil certain expectations (Lucier, et
al. 2007). The prospect of an unstable future is contributing to the stress levels of
organizational leaders.
5. Fear of losing power. Kets de Vries (2006) found that high-level positions bring a lot
of power, which may become addictive. In this case, the fear of losing something that
might have been difficult to obtain can be very stress-inducing.
Page 4 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
6. Guilt. Many leaders are characterised by the feeling of guilt knowing that many people
around them might have made sacrifices in order to support their success. This may
involve family members and friends. This feeling is particularly stressful to many
leaders, who may find it difficult to manage.
7. A very steep learning curve. Organizational leaders must recognize that in a
knowledge-driven economy, skills and competencies are short-lived and they must
always be ready to learn new and innovative things. However, leaders normally have
no discretionary time to dedicate to learning and, therefore, the actual learning curve
associated with their professional development becomes really steep.
The above factors indicate how easy it is for a leader to exhibit neurotic behaviour,
elevating stress among his/her subordinates. There are different types of stress-driven
leadership behaviours. For example, a dramatic leader requires constant attention and craves
excitement; a suspicious leader is constantly on the watch for possible attacks on the
organization; a detached leader is withdrawn and reduces interaction to the minimum; a
depressive leader focuses on how to strengthen his/her self-confidence ignoring employees’
needs; a compulsive leader is obsessed with perfectionism; etc.
The stress-inducing factors mentioned above and the resulting leadership behaviours may
cause serious problems of anxiety across the organization, negatively influencing key
operational processes. Bass & Stogdill (1990) found that certain leaders tend to show concern
for people, whereas other leaders tend to focus on objectives (person-focused vs task-focused
leadership). The person-focused leaders were shown to be the ones who were trying hard to
ensure that integration processes remained their main priority, i.e. they focused on maximizing
efficiency through integrating different operational processes within the organization. On the
other hand, the task-focused leaders focused on improving the differentiation processes of the
organization from its competitors, i.e. they focused on enhancing the organization’s
comparative advantage and competitiveness. Given that stress is a highly-individualistic
experience, we cannot, easily, generalise any empirical results associated with the role of stress
on organizational leadership. However, it is well-accepted that the physical and mental health
of a leader, his/her prior leadership and working experiences, the degree of his/her emotional
awareness, good social interaction skills, educational level consistent with the requirements of
the job and the perception of control in management have all been identified as potential
stress-relieving factors.
Page 5 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
In the context of leadership, the ‘battle’ between the stress-inducing factors and the stress-
relieving factors would, eventually, define the level of the possible negative effect of stress on
leadership effectiveness (Bass, 1990). In order to explore this, we will now return to the
variables associated with the integrative dynamic framework we recommended in the Week’s
5 reading. Through the recommended integrative framework, we may observe the effect of
stress on leadership processes indirectly influencing the type of prevailing culture, following a
particular culture change, within an organization. This is normally achieved through
influencing the four different variables comprising the CVF, i.e. the individuality/flexibility
attribute, the differentiation process, the stability/control attribute and the integration process.
Page 6 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.3 Stress, leadership and organizational culture change
In the reading of Week 5 (Figure 5.3), we discussed the importance of the ‘competing
values framework’ (CVF) in the recommended integrative dynamic framework for
organizational culture change. The CVF was based on the psychological model of
organizational culture, constructed by Cameron & Quinn (2011), which emphasised the
‘trading-off’ process of values taking place during culture change. In order to enable ourselves
to utilise those findings in this reading, Figure 7.1 was generated summarising the key-points
of the CVF’s four different types of culture, i.e. the clan culture, the adhocracy culture, the
hierarchy culture and the market culture. Similarly, Table 7.1 presents the constituent elements
of culture, i.e. assumptions, values, artifacts and symbols according to the CVF.
Figure 7.1 Summary points of the Competing Values Framework (CVF)
Page 7 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Table 7.1 The constituent elements of culture according to the Competing Values Framework (CVF)
Page 8 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
The six stress-inducing factors stated before are associated with psychological processes, which
are capable of influencing the choice of leadership style/behaviour. For example, ‘loneliness at the top’
and ‘feeling envied’ are factors capable of directly influencing the probability of a leader becoming
highly-competitive (market culture). Similarly, ‘being watched’ and the ‘fear of losing power’ are
factors, which may easily influence the degree of coordination, effective communication and self-
regulation needed in order for a leader to strengthen his/her sense of gaining control (hierarchy culture).
The uncertainties associated with the decision-making processes of ‘defining short-term and long-term
organizational objectives’ may be reflected in a leadership style of a facilitator (clan culture), i.e. a
leader who wants the majority of the organizational members to be actively supportive of his/her
efforts. Finally, the factors ‘feeling guilty’ about success or the realization that a ‘steep learning curve’
requires demanding and continuous efforts are normally associated with the leadership style of an
innovator, i.e. someone who wants to inspire the feeling of ‘giving back’ to society through the
generation of new organizational value, as well as the alleviation of stress in learning new things
through the encouragement of innovative performance in all different seniority levels or organizational
sectors. Based on the information provided in Table 7.1, we are able to observe that different leadership
styles may, indeed, be associated with different culture types, albeit the exact causal relationship has not
yet been confirmed in the literature. The key point is that leaders are considered to be ‘transmitters of
culture’ because they adopt their leadership style in order to align it with the dominant values and
understandings representing the new prevailing organizational culture following change (House &
Aditay, 1997).
However, apart from the dynamic ‘trading-off’ process of values, our integrative framework, as
presented in the reading of Week 5, specified another cultural dynamic psychological process, which
was presented as a necessary condition for a new culture to be established within an organization, i.e.
the personalisation of change process. As stated there, the personalisation of change process simply
refers to the individual psychological process in which each employee is going through in order to
internalise the values and meanings of the new upcoming culture and, eventually, accept it as the
newly-established culture representing their value system. This process could involve questioning of
behaviours or competencies and serious resistance towards some particular values or symbols.
Nonetheless, the personalisation of change process implies that the chosen leadership style may be the
most important indicator for determining the specific quadrant in which the organisation would position
itself on the CVF, and hence, on the dynamic integrative framework. For example, if an employee
believes in the importance of remaining committed to growth, stimulation and autonomy values, then
he/she will favour an innovator leader, who is perceived to be more capable in serving such values. This
Page 9 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
is due to the fact that an innovator leader would be characterised by the necessary degree of flexibility
to encourage new ideas and initiatives to be pursued. Along the same lines, this leader would be
expected to pay attention to the professional development of the employees of the organization, but also
the differentiation of the organization from its competitors in order to ensure competitive external
positioning in the market. If all employees go through this personalisation process and their
representative group agrees on a specific leadership style, then, which culture would be best for the
future could easily be decided upon (please refer to Figure 7.1 to verify this deductive reasoning).
Therefore, it is easy to see that the combination of pieces of information provided in Figure 7.1
and Table 7.1 allows us to determine which leadership style may be more suitable for the
personalisation of change process of the majority of employees within an organization, and hence, the
targeted culture type following culture change. Surely, the prior experiences of each employee or
his/her capacity to cope based on his/her mental and physical health would play a role in the finalisation
process of accepting or rejecting the new culture.
At the same time, the four variables assigned to the four points of the CVF’s axes summarise the
effectiveness criteria of a particular type of culture. In this regard, they are considered to be the
“mediators” in the process of culture change. For example, in Figure 7.1, the indicators/variables
“individuality/flexibility” and “external positioning” (differentiation) define the main characteristics of
the innovator leader, fully-aligned with the values represented by the “adhocracy culture”, as shown in
Table 7.1. Therefore, we may say that the two indicators/variables are the “mediators” towards the
shaping of the newly-established culture following change. Along these lines, the indicators
“individuality/flexibility” and “internal maintenance” (integration) define the facilitator leader within
the “clan culture”; the indicators/variables “internal maintenance” (integration) and “stability/control”
define the coordinator leader within the “hierarchy culture”; and the indicators “stability/control” and
“external positioning” (differentiation) define the hard-drive competitor leader within the “market
culture”.
If we wanted to sum-up the above reasoning, we could say that the psychological underpinnings
of the personalisation of change process involve the ‘battle’ associated with stress-inducing and stress-
relieving factors in a hidden way. Stated differently, although the value “trading-off” process does
involve stress in “letting go” of certain values in order to enhance organizational collective identity, it is
the personalisation process of culture, which causes most of the stress. This is pretty reasonable
because, at the end of the day, each employee must consider the particularities of his/her life and
professional circumstances and the extent to which the new culture may influence those.
The analysis provided above indicates that the modern leader, regardless of whether he/she is an
innovator, a highly-driven competitor, a coordinator or a facilitator, must engage in a process of
Page 10 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
involving more people in culture change because tensions and disagreements may not allow the new
culture to be effectively established. Indeed, research in this field showed that the most effective leaders
are, frequently, those who appear to be aware of the “competing values” associated with their strategic
choices, but they are, also, willing to approach the issue of culture with the knowledge that integration
of certain (opposing) values may, in fact, better serve organizational objectives – particularly in the
medium and longer term. Quinn (2005) found that the leaders who care to integrate concern for people
(person-focused) and concern for tasks (task-focused) were those who remained in their executive
position the longest and they demonstrated significant effectiveness in carrying-out their role.
In the Appendix to this reading, we try to understand how new organizational value may be
generated through the application of the form of integrative leadership style in culture change
management described in this section.
However, it seems necessary to redirect focus on some important aspects of personality research
now, such as the role of emotional intelligence and socialisation in organizational leadership potential.
The reason should be obvious: integrative leadership approaches imply a leader’s ability to synthesise.
Therefore, mental ability alone cannot be adequate and personality-related factors, such as emotional
intelligence or social interactional skills, appear to have a significant value in enhancing our
understanding of integrative leadership and must be explored. These are going to be discussed in the
next sections of this reading.
Page 11 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.4 Emotional intelligence, organizational leadership and culture
Emotional intelligence refers to the ability to assess emotions of inner self and others in order to
differentiate between them, and use the knowledge to direct one’s thinking and actions (Salovey & Mayer,
1990). One of the most prominent authors in the field, Daniel Goleman (1996), attempted a more
comprehensive definition of emotional intelligence in order to describe the different dimensions of the
concept. Goleman’s perspective was based on the simple observation that failure of a particular professional
to manage his/her feelings and, acknowledge and address his/her emotions and emotional needs, may
compromise, significantly, the balance between thoughts, feelings and actions. Goleman provided the
following definition:
“Being able to motivate oneself and persist in the face of frustrations; to control impulse and delay
gratification; to regulate one’s moods and keep distress from swamping the ability to think; to empathize and
to hope” (Goleman (1996).
This definition indicates, quite clearly, how complex of a function emotional intelligence is and how
difficult it is to attempt to enhance one’s emotional intelligence. Perhaps for this reason, alternative
theoretical models were utilized in order to understand the role of emotional intelligence in organizational
leadership behaviour. Three such models are mentioned below:
1. Emotional intelligence as perception (Mayer & Salovey, 1997)
According to this model, emotional intelligence is the ability to perceive and express emotion,
assimilate emotion in thought, understand and reason with emotion, and regulate emotion in the self and
others. In organizational settings, this model enables the leader to reflectively regulate his/her emotions
and stay open to his/her feelings in order to empathise with employees. In order to achieve this, he/she
must first name his/her own emotions, be able to express and communicate his/her emotions, apply
them in order to prioritize thinking and problem-solving and, finally, aim to understand the impact of
culture change in the emotional state of people (including himself/herself).
2. Emotional intelligence as competency (Bar-On, 1997)
In this model, emotional intelligence is perceived as an array of non-cognitive capabilities,
competencies and skills that influence the organizational leader’s ability to succeed in coping with
environmental demands and pressures. The major areas of skills associated with this model are the
following:
Page 12 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
a. Intrapersonal skills (emotional self-awareness, assertiveness, self-esteem, etc.), i.e. skills
associated with how the leader of an organization perceives himself/herself.
b. Interpersonal skills (social relationships, social responsibility, empathy, compassion, social
adjustment, etc.), i.e. skills associated with how the leader interacts with his social environment.
c. Adaptability skills (problem-solving, reality testing, emotional reasoning, etc.), i.e. skills
associated with the degree of flexibility characterising the leader’s ability to understand his
world around him/her.
d. Stress-management skills (stress tolerance, identification of personal or social stressors, impulse
control, etc.), i.e. skills associated with the ability of the leader to manage stress in order to
enhance performance.
e. General mood skills (happiness, optimism, positive outlook in life, etc.), i.e. skills associated
with the way the leader of an organization perceives his world and whether or not he/she
maintains a positive attitude towards life’s perplexities.
3. Emotional intelligence as character (Goleman, 1995)
Goleman’s first model of emotional intelligence considers emotional intelligence to be the main
determinant of character, i.e. in organizational terms, the ability of a leader to understand his/her
emotions, manage those and utilise them in order to motivate himself/herself. The following major
areas of skills are involved:
i. Knowing one’s emotions, i.e. recognizing a feeling as it happens, monitoring feelings from
moment to moment.
ii. Managing one’s emotions, i.e. handling feelings so that they are appropriate for a particular
situation, the ability to calm down, control anxiety, gloom or irritability, etc.
iii. Motivating oneself, i.e. redirecting emotions in order to achieve a particular goal, delaying
gratification and stifling impulsiveness and being able to return to the “flow” state, i.e. the
psychological state in which a leader is part of the world without feeling that his/her
emotions are preventing his/her from being his/her “normal” self.
iv. Recognizing emotions in others, i.e. awareness of the importance of empathy and
compassion, attunement to what other people need or what they want, etc.
v. Handling relationships, i.e. the capacity to manage emotions in others; effective and
constructive social interaction, etc.
Page 13 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
The three alternative models, as applied in organizational leadership, appear to be very different, but
a careful consideration of the different major areas of skills involved indicates that all three models
describe emotional intelligence as a critical part of social intelligence, which enables organizational
leaders of to recognise their emotions and the emotions of their employees. Indeed, research associated
with all three models suggested that emotionally-aware leaders can inspire trust, loyalty, and
commitment in a much easier way compared to leaders who are not characterised by emotional
awareness or they, consciously, underplay the importance of their emotions (Goleman, 1998).
In organizational psychology, emotional intelligence has been, positively, associated with
transformational leadership (Barling, et al. 2000). Transformational leadership refers to the leadership
behavior which aims to change individuals, processes and systems within the organization in such a
way, so that it enhances motivation, morale and performance. It was found that transformational
leadership is the style of leadership required in organizations when a culture change is initiated (Harms
& Crede, 2010). Compared to other leadership styles, such as autocratic or transactional, the
transformational style enables each employee to productively connect his/her sense of identity and self
to the mission and the collective identity defined by the new prevailing culture. Indeed, many studies
found strong evidence indicating that transformational leadership may strengthen employees’
inspirational motivation and intellectual stimulation (Block, 2003).
Furthermore, an emotionally-intelligent transformational leader is considered to be better
equipped to attend to the needs of his/her employees, empower them and act as a role model during
culture change. This may be achieved by attending to the employees’ needs and, at the same time,
challenging them to take greater ownership for their work, so that they are enabled to embrace change
and optimize their performance.
Finally, an emotionally-intelligent transformational leader is considered to be better prepared to
synthesize and integrate seemingly-opposite cultural values during culture change, and, thus, facilitate
the two critical processes associated with cultural change dynamics, i.e. the ‘trading-off’ process of
values and the personalization process of values, as mentioned in the reading of Week 5. This is,
perhaps, due to the fact that a transformational leader was found to promote a working environment
following organizational culture change, which is characterized by the accomplishment of high goals,
self-actualisation and personal growth (Bass, 1985). Stated differently, an emotionally-intelligence
transformational leader seems to be the leader type who is most compatible with the objectives and
Page 14 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
dynamic interactions of the recommended integrative framework, as described in the reading of Week
5.
In the next and final reading, we will further explore this type of leader using four different
examples, i.e. the emotionally-intelligent transformational leader who is autonomous, yet engaged; a
visionary, yet practical; confident, yet teachable; and confrontational, yet compassionate.
Page 15 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.5 Socialisation, organizational leadership and culture
In the beginning of this module, we explained that organizational culture is a dynamic social
phenomenon and, as such, it does arise from society. In other words, the ‘trading-off’ and
personalisation processes of values that the employees of the organization are going through,
eventually, drive and define the prevailing culture. Given that the nature of both of those processes
involves a significant degree of social interaction, we close this reading with a note about the role of
socialisation in organizational culture change.
Organizational socialization is the process by which people learn the content of an
organization's culture. The term organizational socialization includes the process of aligning individual
interests with organizational interests, which is dependent upon the existing harmony between an
employee and his/her job following culture change. In other words, the harmony associated with the
employee’s knowledge about the new culture and the skills required to effectively perform his/her role.
Furthermore, the term involves the individuation process, i.e. the process in which each employee aims
to overcome existing social realities and concentrate on accepting the new social and working
conditions dictated by the new culture. This inevitably involves the cognitive and symbolic adaptational
capacity of each employee. Stated differently, socialization is a prerequisite of the personalization
process of values associated with the new culture following change, as defined in the reading of Week
5.
Furthermore, organisational socialisation is considered to be particularly important to the ‘trading-
off’ process of values, as presented in the reading of Week 5. As explained already, this process
involves difficult (mostly implicit) debates, which are taking place between the employees of the
organization, with the view to reach a consensus about the nature of the prevailing preferred culture
following change. The socialization process is, essentially, the process in which the majority of the
employees within an organization become very aware of the content of the upcoming culture change, so
that they are able to see that it would be in their interest to influence the set of values that are going to
shape the new culture. Carnevale & Pegnetter (1985) found that employees perceive that certain socio-
psychological skills are necessary, in this regard, such as maintaining a positive attitude, self-esteem,
ability to effectively work with others, conflict resolution skills. Similarly, employees were found to
believe that effective personal relationships with individuals of the organization may provide them with
valuable insights about the strength of the feeling of ‘belonging’ to the newly-formulated culture by the
Page 16 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
majority of employees, as well as the degree of social inclusion and acceptance of values that could be
achieved. Therefore, organizational socialization seems to be of critical importance in facilitating the a
meaningful “trading-off” process of values in cultural change dynamics.
In the organizational culture context, the term organizational socialization has been combined with
the ability of individuals to understand their job role, communicate effectively, understand themselves
and others, accept organizational and work-related norms, but, also, effectively regulate their emotions.
The latter, essentially, reveals the direct association between emotional intelligence and socialization.
Indeed, there is consensus in the literature about the fact that an emotionally-intelligent leader is also
considered to be socially-competent exactly because of his/her ability to understand and manage his/her
emotions. The same association was confirmed for employees in the whole spectrum of professional
seniority. In this regard, we must seriously consider the observed indirect relationship between
socialization and transformational leadership, given the role of emotional intelligence described in the
previous section.
However, there is research evidence to suggest a direct relationship between organizational
socialization and transformational leadership in culture change, as well. Price (2003) found that a
transformational leader is capable of positively influencing the socialization process of both
himself/herself and the organization’s employees. Given the positive relationship between emotional
intelligence and transformational leadership, as articulated before, it is easy to conclude that
socialization, emotional intelligence and transformational leadership are all inter-related.
The different associations stated above, when taken together, reveal the strong dependency of
effective cultural dynamics during culture change and organizational socialization of both the leader
and the remaining employees of the organization.
Page 17 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.6 Concluding remarks
This reading explored the concept of leadership in organizational culture management. Firstly,
we discussed the role of stress in organizational leadership. We found that what determines the actual
role of stress is the battle between stress-inducing and stress-relieving factors. In cultural dynamics, the
personalization of change process was found to be more stress-inducing that the ‘trading-off’ process of
values suggesting that change of culture remains a deeply-personal experience for the employees of an
organization. Furthermore, stress was found to be associated with the choice of a leadership style. An
organizational leader, as a “transmitter of culture” adopts a leadership style fully aligned with the values
representing the prevailing organizational culture once the cultural change occurs.
Subsequently, we discussed the role of emotional intelligence in organizational culture change.
Given the strong influence of transformation leadership on effective dynamics during culture change
and the positive relationship between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership, it was
concluded that emotional intelligence indirectly influences the dynamics of culture change, i.e. through
transformational leadership. This indicated that transformational leadership is the preferred type of
leadership in terms of organizational culture change, according to many authors in the field. However,
emotional intelligence was also found to be directly associated with cultural dynamics during change
through the two critical processes of cultural dynamics, i.e. the “trading-off” process of values and the
personalisation of change process.
Finally, we discussed the role of organizational socialisation in culture change. Strong evidence
was reported suggesting that organizational socialisation facilitates the “trading-off” and personalisation
processes, and, hence, the trajectory of cultural change. Furthermore, we found a direct association
between emotional intelligence and organizational socialisation indicating that a transformational leader
may be better equipped to manage the cultural dynamics arising from culture change. Finally, a direct
association was also found between transformational leadership and socialisation, not only at the leader
level, but, also, at the employee level. In other words, it was found that a transformational leader is
capable of effectively managing resistance to the new culture by the employees of the organisation,
while, at the same time, equipping himself/herself with a new set of social skills required in the new
cultural environment following change.
The different analytical points presented in this reading suggest that an emotionally-intelligent
transformational leader is better prepared to deal with culture change within an organization. It was
shown that applying the dynamic integrative framework, recommended in the reading of Week 5, might
Page 18 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
help us understand in a meaningful way the practical aspects of organizational culture change.
Furthermore, it was found that the leader who expects to succeed in modern organizations must ensure
that, once the change of culture reaches the most advanced point, the new type of culture must be
flexible and tolerant enough in order to accommodate opposing values. Therefore, it was observed that
the most effective transformational leader is someone with the capacity to synthesise and integrate
opposing values representing different groups of employees and different working environments. For
this reason, the Appendix to this reading is entirely dedicated to the practicability of the dynamic
integrative framework. For a deeper understanding of the reader, four examples of value-integration in
the context of transformational leadership in organizations are provided, in this regard.
Page 19 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Reading Tips
- In this reading, we explored the concept of leadership in association with culture
change management. Although, we did refer to the different leadership styles, there
was no intention to further discuss this topic, apart from revealing the relationship
between emotional intelligence and transformational leadership and the relationship
between socialisation and transformational leadership. However, it is recommended
that you attempt to explore, in more details, the different leadership styles. The same
stands for the concept of emotional intelligence in organizational culture. These are
important concepts and you must consult alternative readings sources in order to fully
understand why we felt that transformational leadership is the most compatible
leadership style/behaviour with the integrative approach to culture change management
- represented by the recommended integrative dynamic framework.
- At this point, you must be in a position to describe, in a comprehensive way, the key
challenges associated with culture change management. Therefore, it is important to try
and think about the gradual development of this module before proceeding to the last
reading. This will allow you to consider the ‘big picture’ of organizational culture in
terms of its complexity and abstraction. Try to assess each piece of the ‘puzzle’ on its
own merit, but, also, as a part of the “big picture”. Think about the different contextual
approaches to organizational culture and the definition we proposed. Subsequently,
consider the integrative dynamic framework we recommended and its applicability in
terms of understanding leadership behaviour in organizations, especially during culture
change. With the “big picture” of the module in mind, consider carefully topics
covered in previous assignments before proceeding to complete the final assignment.
Page 20 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
7.7 References
Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass Stodgill’s Handbook of Leadership, 3rd edition, The New Press, NY.
Barling, J., Slater, F., & Kevin Kelloway, E. (2000). Transformational leadership and emotional
intelligence: an exploratory study. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 21(3), 157–161.
Bar-On, R. (1997). The emotional intelligence inventory (EQ-I): Technical manual. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Carnevale, P. J. D., & Pegnetter, R. (1985). The Selection of Mediation Tactics in Public Sector
Disputes: A Contingency Analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 65–81.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). An Introduction to changing organisational culture: Based on
the competing values framework. Diagnosing and Chaning Organisational Culture, 1–12.
Dearlove, D. (2003). Interview: Manfred Kets de Vries: The Dark Side of Leadership. Business
Strategy Review.
Derue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N., & Humphrey, S. E. (2011). Trait and behavioral theories of
leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64(1),
7–52.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Nature, 379(6560), 1–34.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York (Vol. 9).
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Futurist (Vol. 33). Library of Congress
Harms, P. D., & Crede, M. (2010). Emotional Intelligence and Transformational and Transactional
Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 17(1), 5–17.
House, R., & Aditya, R. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of
Management.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). The Leader on the Couch: a clinical approach to changing people and
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lucier, C., Wheeler, S., & Habbel, R. (2007). The Era of the Inclusive Leader. Strategy and Business,
47, 1-14.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In: Emotional development and
emotional intelligence: Implications for Educators (pp. 3–31).
Page 21 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management
Price, T. L. (2003). The ethics of authentic transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14(1),
67-81.
Quinn, R. E. (2005). Moments of greatness entering the fundamental state of leadership. Harvard
Business Review, 83(7), 74-83.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
9(3), 185–211.
Page 22 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management