Leadership In Nursing

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 71

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT IN CREATING A SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURAL CHANGE

Russell Davis Steven Cates

Purdue University Global

ABSTRACT

There is a tremendous history of published research where the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) has been used in various settings and findings identifying current and preferred cultural dimensions. Little research actually shows where the culture was changed in those researched environments. This study addresses the implementation of OCAI instrument on employees within an organization and the effects on the culture change as an outcome from the use of the OCAI. It also addresses the actions taken by a new leader of an organization. The OCAI was used by the new leader to gain a deeper understanding of the organizations’ current perceived culture and was pivotal in identifying the culture gap in moving toward a preferred culture over an 18 month period. This is a longitudinal study of this organizational development process. Findings indicate that the OCAI was effective at identifying what culture dimensions needed to change.

Keywords: Organizational Culture, Assessment Instrument, culture dimensions

INTRODUCTION

Research indicates that only 35% of senior leaders have a solid understanding of their organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). The CEO of Southwest Airlines (SA), Gary Kelly, stated in 2012 that the secret to an organization’s success is purely derived from leaders’ understanding of their organizational culture and its alignment to strategy. Not having a clear picture of their organizations’ culture increases the chance of organizational change failure, which could partially answer why most change efforts fail (Schein, 2010).

There is a tremendous history of published research where the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) was used in various settings and results in identified current and preferred cultural dimensions. Little to none of the research however actually shows that culture was changed in those researched environments. This research study addresses the implementation of OCAI instrument on employees within an organization and the effects on the culture change as an outcome from the use of the OCAI. It also addresses the actions taken by a new leader of an organization. The OCAI was effective at identifying what culture dimensions need to change, the data from the culture gap was used to change an organizations’ espouses beliefs, values, and basic underlying assumptions.

There is overwhelming evidence from scholarly researchers like Cameron and Quinn, (2006; 2011),Schein (2009; 2010), and Denison (2004) to suggest that leaders should be held accountable and responsible for understanding and leveraging their organization culture so that business outcomes are met.

This research study is how a new leader in an organization utilized the OCAI as a means for understanding and leveraging the present organization’s culture into achieving a measurable culture change.

72 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

LITERATUE REVIEW

Most organizational scholars and observers now recognize that organizational culture has a powerful effect on the performance and long-term effectiveness of organizations. Empirical research has produced an impressive array of findings demonstrating the importance of culture to enhancing organizational performance (Cameron & Ettington, 1988; Denison, 1990; Kotter & Heskett,1992, Trice & Beyer, 1993).

According to Denison (2004), the need to assess and possibly change organization culture can occur for various reasons. There may be a change in strategic direction, or a new leader takes over an organization or due an announcement of a realignment or restructuring. An acquisition or merger of organizations is another example.

According to Schein (2009;2010), before any meaningful organizational development can take place it is necessary to assess the cultural status quo and develop a solid understanding of the whole organization which provides a foundation for a more in-depth analysis that can inform a comprehensive change strategy. Cameron and Quinn (2011) and Schein (2010) agree that a cultural assessment is an ideal starting point for such analysis, especially when a new leader is involved.

The importance of understanding organization culture can’t be overemphasized (Kelly, 2012). Schein (2010) suggests that if a leader has been trying to make changes in how their organization operates or wants to understand how it operates; a first step is to understand how the current culture aids or hinders its operations.

Schein (2009) states that leaders are the drivers that typically trigger change. Understanding whether the organization will aid or hinder the change is vital to organizational success. Schein (2010) posits that “the role of leaders in managing culture differs at different stages of organizational evolution” (p.291). Denison (2004) in his research supports Schein (2010) position in that organizational culture evolves over time and leaders need to keep pace with it.

For any new leader taking over the responsibility of organization, understanding its culture will ultimately determine the success or failure of the organization and the leader. The importance of understanding an organization’s culture cannot be underestimated. From the beginning of a leader’s employment at SA, they are responsible and accountable for understanding their organizations’ culture. By understanding the basic assumptions and values that drive action, leaders avoid unnecessary roadblocks that hinder change. By implication, a leader that focuses on understanding their organization culture signals to their employees that culture matters. Even after growing into a large and complex company with many organizations, SA focuses on strengthening the culture and paying close attention to employee wellbeing while maintaining exemplary customer service (Kelly, 2012).

A survey report from a leading consultancy on culture suggests that 94% of executives and 88% of employees believe a distinctive workplace culture is important. The report suggests that executives have an overstated sense of the status of organizational culture compared to employees (Deloitte, 2012a). The survey highlights a discrepancy between what leadership believes their culture to be with the actual beliefs that are embedded in the organization’s day-to- day operations that facilitate a stable and well balanced organizational culture. Moreover, the inability to embed and grow an organizational culture that is conducive to an organization’s success is further supported by the survey data that suggests only 20% of executives and 15% of employee’s report they believe culture is a focus (Deloitte, 2012b).

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 73

Recent research discovered leaders are ignoring the relationship between culture and change (Creasy, Stull, & Peak, 2009; Knilans, 2009). Other studies indicate organizations that emphasize culture as a key business strategy during times of change have greater financial performance compared to organizations who choose to ignore developing a culture strategy (Braksick, 2007).

Studies have shown that when a leader signals to an organizational that a culture matters and that an assessment is going to be conducted there is a positive impact on employees (e.g. its signals that culture is a priority and employees feel like they are valued) (Denison, Haaland, & Goelzer, 2004). Hofstede (2001) concludes those organizations planning for change would be wise to study and measure organizational culture to identify potential cultural barriers that would otherwise not be known.

Further empirical research supports the claim that assessing organizational culture sends a signal to the organization that culture matters and when culture matters, people are more than willing to change (Schein, 2009). Some organizations neither understand their current culture nor understand what type of culture is best to help them achieve their goals (Fox, 2013). The Meaning of Organizational Culture

It was not until the beginning of the 1980s that organizational scholars began paying serious attention to the concept of culture (e.g., Ouchi, 1981; Pascale &Athos, 1981; Peters & Waterman, 1982; Deal & Kennedy, 1982). This is one of the few areas, in fact, where organizational scholars led practicing managers in identifying a crucial factor affecting organizational performance. In most instances, practice has led research, and scholars have focused mainly on documenting, explaining, and building models of organizational phenomena that were already being tried by management. Organizational culture, however, has been an area in which conceptual work and scholarship have provided guidance for managers as they have searched for ways to improve their organizations’ effectiveness.

The reason organizational culture was ignored as an important factor in accounting for organizational performance is that it encompasses the taken-for-granted values, underlying assumptions, expectations, collective memories, and definitions present in an organization. It represents “how things are around here.” It reflects the prevailing ideology that people carry inside their heads. It conveys a sense of identity to employees, provides unwritten and often unspoken guidelines for how to get along in the organization, and it enhances the stability of the social system that they experience.1 Unfortunately, people are unaware of their culture until it is challenged, until they experience a new culture, or until it is made overt and explicit through, for example, a framework or model.

Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture

The study of culture has been ignored by managers and scholars until recently. It is almost undetectable most of the time. There are many types of culture that affect individual and organizational behavior. Hofstede (1980), Bacharach an Aiken (1979), and Trompenaars (1993) have reported marked differences among continents and countries based on certain key dimensions.

For example, national differences exist among countries on the basis of universalism versus particularism, individualism versus collectivism, neutrality versus emotionality,

74 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

specificity versus diffuseness, focus on achievement versus ascription, focus on past versus present versus future, and an internal focus versus an external focus (Trompenaars, 1993). Each culture is generally reflected by unique language, symbols, rules, and ethnocentric feelings.

Still less broad is the culture of a single organization which this study addresses. An organization’s culture is reflected by what is valued, the dominant leadership styles, the language and symbols, the procedures and routines, and the definitions of success that make an organization unique. Inside an organization, subunits such as functional departments, product groups, hierarchical levels, or even teams may also reflect their own unique cultures. Difficulties in coordinating and integrating processes or organizational activities, for example, often exist. The Need for Culture Change

Change in organizations is pervasive because of the degree and rapidity of change in the external environment. The conditions in which organizations operate demand a response without which organizational demise is a frequent result. Of the largest one hundred companies at the beginning of the 1900s, only sixteen are still in existence. Of the firms on Fortune magazine’s first list of the five hundred biggest companies, only twenty-nine firms would still be included. During the past decade, 46 percent of the Fortune 500 dropped off the list (Divan, 2012) An Introduction to Changing Organizational Culture

It is common in many organizations to hear of conflicts between different departments or of disparaging comments about the HR department or put-downs of the IT department. One reason is that each department has developed its own set of customs, traits, and values, its own culture. A number of researchers have reported on the dysfunctions of subgroup culture clashes (Van Maanen & Barley, 1984, 1985).

It is easy to see how these cultural differences can fragment an organization and make high levels of effectiveness impossible to achieve. Emphasizing subunit cultural differences, in other words, can foster alienation and conflict. On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that each subunit in an organization also contains common elements typical of the entire organization. Similar to a hologram in which each unique element in the image contains the characteristics of the entire image in addition to its own identifying characteristics, subunit cultures also contain core elements of the entire organization’s culture in addition to their own unique elements (Alpert & Whetten, 1985).

In assessing an organization’s culture, therefore, one can focus on the entire organization as the unit of analysis, or one can assess different subunit cultures, identify the common dominant attributes of the subunit cultures, and aggregate them. This combination can provide an approximation of the overall organizational culture.

In this research study we are interested primarily in helping the leader identify ways in which their organization’s culture can be diagnosed and changed. The relevant level of cultural analysis, therefore, is the level at which change efforts are directed. This may be at the overall organization level, or it may be at the level of a subunit supervised by a manager. The target is the level at which culture change is required for organizational performance to improve.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 75

The Definition of the OCAI and its Development

Of all the culture assessment approaches reviewed by the leader, the OCAI stood out due to its reputation in the academic community and its solid theoretical foundation which is based on the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

The OCAI was developed by Cameron and Quinn (2011) and is the world’s most popular instrument that helps organizations’ identify current and preferred organizational culture (Fox, 2013).

Substantial research has resulted in developing the OCAI. Cameron and Quinn (2006) developed the theoretical model of the Competing Values Framework which consists of four Competing Values that correspond with four types of organizational culture. Each organization has its own combination of these four types of organizational cultures. The ability to identify which of the four or the combination of the four types is identified by the completion of a short survey. This culture identification assessment is a valid approach to looking at organizational culture and the desire for cultural change. The OCAI is currently used by over 10,000 companies worldwide (2017).

The test taker must split 100 points over a total of four descriptions that matches the four culture types, according to the present organization. This method determines the blend of the four culture types that dominate the current organizational or team culture. By answering the questionnaire a second time, this time dividing 100 points according to what the respondent would like to see in the organization, the preferred organizational culture and the desire for change can be calculated. Test takers assess six key characteristics of their corporate culture:

1. Dominant characteristics 2. Organizational leadership 3. Management of employees 4. Organization glue 5. Strategic emphases 6. Criteria of success

By averaging all individual OCAI scores, you can work out a combined organization profile. In smaller teams, it’s also possible to use all the distinct individual profiles and talk about them.

A culture profile illustrates the following:

The Dominant Culture

The strength of the dominant culture (the amount of points given) is the discrepancy between present and preferred culture. Cultural incongruence frequently leads to a desire to change, because different values and goals can take a lot of time and debate evaluating the culture profile with the average for the sector.

When this study was begun a comparison with average tendencies was conducted. This was done on an organization that had been in business for many years and was in the mature stage of its development.

76 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

For the purposes of this study, culture change means a shift at layers two and three of “the three layers of culture”; espoused beliefs, values and basic underlying assumptions that motivate and drive behavior (Schein, 2010). The OCAI was developed to assess those aspects of culture as they pertain to culture dimensions as defined by the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The Competing Values Framework

The OCAI is based on a theoretical model known as the Competing Values Framework. This framework is extremely useful in organizing and interpreting a wide variety of organizational phenomena. Having a framework is so important and how this framework was initially developed through research on organizational effectiveness, the four dominant culture types that emerge from the framework are explained. These four culture types serve as the foundation for the OCAI. In addition, because culture defines the core values, assumptions, interpretations, and approaches that characterize an organization. Other characteristics of organizations would also reflect the four culture types. In particular, we show how the Competing Values Framework is useful for identifying the major approaches to organizational design, stages of life cycle development, organizational quality, theories of effectiveness, leadership roles and roles of human resource managers, and management skills (OCAI, 2017).

METHODOLOGY

Sample and Data Collection

There were 87 members in the leaders’ organization including 3 middle managers, 12 upper managers and 71 employees. The data collected from employees indicated the cultural gap in the organization’s present versus desired culture. The data were used to change the organizations’ beliefs, values, and basic underlying assumptions as a change in the organizational culture.

The 2017 Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and Quinn (2011) is a validated research method to assess organizational culture. The reliability of the OCAI can only be assured for the instrument variables that it purports to measure. A 1991 study by Quinn and Spreitzer (year) tested the reliability of the OCAI by surveying 769 executives from 86 different public utility firms that evaluated their own organization’s culture (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

Permission was granted by the authors of the OCAI for its use in this research study. The OCAI is a psychometric instrument developed by Cameron and Robert of the University of Michigan (2011). Its purpose is to assist leaders with organizational change by helping identifying their current and preferred culture across six organizational culture dimensions. The survey provides a quantitative approach to describing culture related to a blend of four cultural archetypes (Clan, Adhocracy, Market, & Hierarchy). Across each of the archetypes are six dimensions; Dominant organizational characteristics, Organizational glue, Leadership style, Management of employees, Strategic Emphasis, and lastly Criteria of success.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 77

The results of the completed survey provides a means by which leaders can understand gaps between existing culture and desired culture known as cultural gaps (Fox, 2013; Cameron & Quinn, 2011). The OCAI instrument has been used in a variety of industry sectors, including health care, education, religious organizations, Federal and local governments, community colleges and universities, libraries, data warehouses, military organizations, recreational departments and many others (Cameron & Quinn, 2011 p.35). Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument Process

The effort to assess the organizational culture and engage the organization began with the new leader meeting with her direct reports (middle managers) to elicit input on the approach of cultural alignment with future business strategies. The response from the middle managers was positive. They indicated the idea of determining a cultural gap would enhance levels of engagement by involving the entire organization. They stated the approach would help identify possible barriers to the organizational changes needed to achieve the future strategic objectives and it would signal to the organization that culture matters. They all agreed that during the next employee meeting the leader would present the importance of focusing on culture. A questionnaire was sent out to all employees within the organization to elicit suggestions for topics for the next agenda which was as follows:

1.Operation and strategy review,

2. Introduction and proposal on the new strategic objectives,

3. A shared vision for the future

4. A vision on what beliefs and behaviors are needed in order to meet the new strategic objectives,

5. An emphasis on the importance of aligning culture to strategy.

6. The culture alignment approach with the culture assessment timeline.

Prior to the employee meeting the leader had the organizations’ manager of Organizational Development who had experience with the OCAI to create an online version of the OCAI with instructions. The online questionnaire used Surveymonkey.com as the online survey provider. The survey was to be anonymous with the exception of which organization the employee belonged to. The survey could only be taken once. Prior to the distribution of the survey, the survey was piloted tested and then approved for distribution.

The next day after the employee meeting the leader emailed all employees in the organization a copy of the data from the employee meeting along with a link to the online culture assessment. The survey was left open for two weeks. At that time the survey was closed and the data was collected. The Organizational Development Manager then checked the data for completeness. All 87 members in the organization completed the survey successfully. Therefore the response rate was 100%.

Once the organization data was collected and plotted, the Organization Development Manager prepared an assessment report for each middle manager where the data collected was presented as the findings for their organization. A meeting was held with the middle managers to

78 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

discuss the results. Each middle manager then met with their teams to go over the assessment results and reach consensus on both the current and future desired culture. The team discussions focused on the differences between the current and future states.

The future state assessment was based on the vision for culture set from the employee meeting. Each team decided on what to focus on related to shifting their culture. After receiving the final report the leader held a meeting with all management to discuss the findings the team meetings. This was done to discuss how each team planned and recommended on how they would align with the goals of the organization.

After the leadership team reached consensus on the overall current and future profiles, the next step was to decide which changes to make that align with the future goals of the organization. One organizational change goal for the next year was the transition from a perceived command-and-control work environment to more of a self-managed team environment. To make this transition some beliefs and behaviors would need to change. The leadership team decided the best method to accomplish this goal was to hold another employee meeting to discuss the results of the assessment. An agenda for this second employee meeting is as follows: 1. Current State culture profile, discussion and consensus

2. Future state culture profile & discussion and consensus

3. Organizational culture gap profile as it related to the future vision for culture and strategic objectives

4. Next steps to shifting culture (…beliefs and behaviors)

The findings in this research study will discuss the results of the first assessment, what action was taken to initiate a culture shift followed by the second assessment which is a measure to see if the culture did indeed change.

THE STUDY RESULTS

This Findings and Results section is broken down into two parts. The first part is the

analysis of the first culture assessment and part two is the analysis of the second cultural assessment 18 months from the original assessment. Part I: First Culture Assessment

The results of the current state and future analysis are presented. The future state analysis suggests the organization is in sync related to a future desired culture. What should be noted is there was congruency between the new leader and the organization related to a future desired culture. The results of the first assessment suggests a significant difference between the current and future desired culture states.

Dominant Organizational Characteristic: This sub-dimension focuses on employees’ perception about organization life; or what it’s like to work in the organization – its dominate characteristics. Current State: The Hierarchy and Clan cultures rated the highest with 37 and 29 points. The culture type Market and Adhocracy were less represented with 22 and 12 points (Table 1). This

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 79

indicates employees feel the environment is very controlling and a structured place (Hierarchical – command and control), where formal procedures generally govern what people do. However, employees feel the environment is a personal place too (Clan) where they can share a lot of themselves. Additionally, employees feel there is an element of competitiveness (Market) and a focus on achievements with some elements of innovation and risks taking (Adhocracy). Future State: The Clan and Adhocracy cultures were the highest rated with 33 and 29 points. Hierarchy and Market cultures were less represented with 18 and 20 points (Table 1). The organization communicated a desire to shift the culture to an extended family environment where they can share more of themselves, but also in an entrepreneurial environment setting, where people can be more innovative and take more risks in being self-managed. Additionally, the organization desires some structure where process and procedures are the norm. There seems to be less desire to work in an environment where it’s internally competitive and achievement oriented.

Table 1 Dominant Characteristics Scores

Figure 1: Dominant Characteristics Blue = Current, Red = Future

Organizational Leadership Style: This sub-dimension focuses on how employees perceive the leadership style in the organization.

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 29 33 ADHOCRACY 12 29 MARKET 22 20 HIERARCHY 37 18

80 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Current State: The Market and Hierarchy culture rated the highest with 35 and 28 points, followed by the rating in Clan and Adhocracy culture with 21 and 16 points respectfully (Table 2). This indicates leaders are mostly perceived as too demanding and competitive as well as efficiency minded with a focus on coordination and organization. Leaders are also considered to be mentors to others. Leaders are perceived to be slight entrepreneurial risk takers.

Future State: The Clan and Hierarchy cultures were rated the highest with 36 and 26 points. The other cultures Market and Adhocracy were less represented with 15 and 23 points as presented in Table 2. This means employees prefer a mentoring and facilitating leader who is more structured in their leadership approach and with some focus on innovation and risk taking but less focused on results driven aggressive style.

Table 2 Organizational Leadership Style

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 21 36 ADHOCRACY 16 23 MARKET 35 15 HIERARCHY 28 26

Figure 2: Organizational Leadership Blue = Current, Red = Future

Management of Employees: This sub-dimension focuses on how employees perceive the style of management in the organization. This rating measures the management of day-to-day work. Current State: The Hierarchy and Market culture rated the highest with 35 and 28 points. The Clan and Adhocracy cultures are represented with 25 and 12 points (Table 3) These characteristics include employee security, predictability, and stability with relationships, high demands and competitiveness. Close to Market is Clan, which includes employee cohesion, participation and teamwork. Less of a characteristic is risk taking and innovation.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 81

Future State: The Clan and Adhocracy cultures were the highest rated with 40 and 23 points. The Hierarchy and Market cultures were rated third and fourth with 21 and 16 points (Table 3). This indicates the Clan culture is highly preferred with Adhocracy and Hierarchy closely behind in second and third. Employees prefer management techniques that focus on teamwork, participation, the freedom to a risk rather than a focus on conformity and security of employment, which makes up the current situation.

Table 3 Management of Employees

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 25 40 ADHOCRACY 12 23 MARKET 28 16 HIERARCHY 35 21

Figure 3: Management of Employees Blue = Current, Red = Future

Organizational Glue: This sub-dimension measures the uniting characteristics that hold the organization together. Current State: The formal rules and policy of the Hierarchy culture rated the highest with 36 points (Table 4). The Market culture with an emphasis on aggressively accomplishing achievement and goals as the unifying characteristics was second with 27 points. The unifying characteristics of loyalty and mutual trust that make up the Clan culture rated third with 22 points. The Adhocracy culture type scored fourth. Future State: The Clan culture was once again the highest rating with 40 points (Table 4). The Adhocracy, Hierarchy and Market rated 21, 20 and 19 points. This rating means employees prefer a trustworthy, committed, and loyal organization glue and fewer rules and policies, with less commitment to innovation, development, and aggressive achievement holding the organization together.

82 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Table 4 Organizational Glue

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 22 40 ADHOCRACY 15 21 MARKET 27 19 HIERARCHY 36 20

Figure 4: Organizational Glue Blue = Current, Red = Future

Strategic Emphasis: This sub-dimension focuses on what the organization emphasizes. Current State: Table 5 shows the Hierarchy and Market cultures rated the highest with 38 and 23 points Clan and Adhocracy rated third and fourth with 20 and 19 points. This indicates employees perceive the emphasis to focus on stability, efficiency and control for consistent operations. Competitive action and attaining targets and goals of the Market culture support the Hierarchy culture focus. The Clan culture focus is third which emphasizes human development. Adhocracy is fourth which emphasizes new challenges and opportunities. Future State: Table 5 shows the Clan culture is highly preferred with 39 points. The Adhocracy and Hierarchy were rated 24 and 22 points. The Market culture was rated low at 15 points. This indicates the employees prefer openness, trust and human development to the current emphasis on stability, efficiency and control. Employees indicate they prefer a little more challenge and trying new things to the current emphasis on hitting far reaching targets and winning at all costs.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 83

Table 5 Strategic Emphasis

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 20 39 ADHOCRACY 19 24 MARKET 23 15 HIERARCHY 38 22

Figure 5: Strategic Emphasis Blue = Current, Red = Future

Criteria of Success: This sub-dimension examines employee’s perceptions about what criteria the organization uses to measure success. Current State: The Hierarchy culture rated the highest with 46 points. The Clan culture scored second at 26 points. Market and Adhocracy culture rated lower at 15 and 13 points as presented in Table 6. This rating indicates employees perceive success based on efficient, effective, and dependable delivery of services and based on personal and professional development of employees, teamwork, and employee commitment. The Market and Adhocracy cultures were rated low, however the success for these are based on being competitive in the market and on innovating new products. Future State: The Clan culture is the highest rated with 45 points. The Hierarchy culture was rated second with 25 points. The Market and Adhocracy cultures were less represented with 12 and 18 points 13 points as presented in Table 6. This rating indicates employees prefer the criteria of success to focus mostly on human development, teamwork, commitment to each other while including a focus on being efficient and dependable on what the organization produces.

84 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Table 6 Criteria of Success

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 26 45 ADHOCRACY 13 18 MARKET 15 12 HIERARCHY 46 25

Figure 6: Criteria of Success Blue = Current, Red = Future

Overall Organizational Profile: This profile represents the averaging of ratings as it captures all the sub-dimensions. Current State: The Hierarchy culture rates the highest with 37 points. The Market culture rates second with 25 points, followed by Clan with 24 points and Adhocracy with 15 points (Table 7). This indicates structure, procedures efficiency and predictability are the most prominent traits. The goals and targets of the result-oriented Market culture were second. Clan culture of a family like atmosphere with high commitment to the person and professional development of the employees rated third. The Adhocracy culture of creativity, dynamism and entrepreneurial spirit is fourth. Future State: Table 7 shows the overall the Clan culture was the most preferred culture type with 39 points. The Adhocracy and Hierarchy culture ratings followed at 23 and 22 points. The Market culture trait was fourth with 16 points. The current situation has the overall traits perceived as Hierarchy culture, which is characterized by stability and an internal focus. This culture is made up of a formal structured chain of command and control that emphasizes consistency, predictability and efficiency. The culture most preferred is Clan. The organization wants more flexibility and discretion in their jobs and less rigid control all while still maintaining an internal focus to develop and improve the organizational members.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 85

Table 7 Overall Organizational Culture Profile

Current 2014

Future 2014

CLAN 24 39 ADHOCRACY 15 23 MARKET 25 16 HIERARCHY 37 22

Figure 7: Overall Organizational Culture Profile Blue = Current, Red = Future

Part II: Culture Change Implementation

It was shortly after the second employee meeting that a culture change team was assembled. A senior manager was assigned to lead the effort. A timeline for re-assessing the organization would be eighteen months from the time of the first assessment.

For a month the change team met with employees to elicit input on what changing the culture meant as it relates to the data from the culture assessment. The input from the employees formed the change strategy- transitioning from a command-and-control lead environment to self- managed teams.

Table 8 shows the outcome from numerous interviews with various employees in the organization. The information contained in the table was presented to the new leader, middle managers, managers and selected employee groups who all agreed on what to emphasize and what to underemphasize in order to shift the culture.

The consensus from the employees was to shift more into the Clan and Adhocracy quadrants but not transition out of the Market and Hierarchy quadrants entirely. The goal was to transition to self-managed teams with more autonomy and risk taking was the desired outcome. The middle managers and managers agreed they needed to learn those competencies that would foster more autonomy and risk taking.

In using Table 8 as a guide, the managers decided to develop capabilities that would help them lead and manage a transition into the Clan and Adhocracy quadrants. This consisted of being able to facilitate effectively, build a cohesive team, lead high-performing teams, foster trust and openness, communicate openly so that strong relationships can developed, coach,

86 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

provide honest feedback, develop their personnel, be more collaborative, build a greater sense of community, and demonstrate empathy. In addition they needed to be more compassionate and advocate for their people, learn more about sponsoring others’ new ideas and fostering an environment of creativity and experimentation, help people visualize the future and develop a clear strategy to achieve the vision. They needed to learn more about facilitating a climate for new initiatives, encourage others to generate new ideas and create new processes, and learn through trial and error (without sacrificing client satisfaction and quality).

Table 8

What it Means to Shift the Culture Clan Culture Adhocracy Culture Market Culture Hierarchy Culture Shift: Increase focus Shift: Increase focus Shift: Decrease focus Shift: Decrease focus What it means: Increase employee empowerment Increase employee participation and involvement in decision making Establishing better horizontal communication More recognition for employees What it does not mean… A culture of niceness Lack of standards and rigor An absence of tough decisions Slacking off Tolerance mediocrity.

What it means… Encourage, celebrate and reward risk taking Foster creative alternatives and innovation in problem solving Make change the rule, not the exception Clarify a vision of the future What it does not mean… Disregarding customer requirements Selfishness and self- promotion Missing customer satisfaction target Taking unnecessary and uniformed risks Abandoning careful and uninformed risks Abandoning careful analysis and projections

What it means… Slightly less centrality of measures and financial indicators Stop driving for numbers at all cost Focus on key goals Constantly motive our people Adapt to human as well as market needs Remember that we still need to make our numbers What it does not mean…. Ignoring the competition Losing the spirit of winning and will to be number one Missing stretch goals and targets Neglecting the customer Missing number projections and budgets Stop looking at results

What it means: Eliminate useless rules and procedures Eliminate unneeded reports and paperwork Reduce company directives Eliminate micromanagement Remove unnecessary constraints Push decision making down What it does not mean… Loss of logical structure No rules and procedures Eliminating of accountability and measurement Elimination of shift schedules Slack time schedules and responsiveness Taking advantage of the situation

Each manager agreed to be accountable in taking the appropriate training. Employees

agreed to be accountable for developing capabilities in being more collaborative, participative in changing direction and being more problem solvers.

With agreement across the organization to be accountable for building capabilities the culture change team developed measures to track the progress. After four (4) months (since the initial assessment), 60% of capability training was completed by management. An outcome of

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 87

this completed training was face-to-face meetings with employees increased. The new leader observed a greater level of energy as well as increased communications. At six (6) months an engagement assessment was administered across the organization. Engagement scores were favorable (averaged 4.7 out of 5). At nine (9) months (post initial culture assessment), the management team completed 83% of its competency training and employees were at 92% of their committed training.

During the process of capability development the leader was very visible to the organization. The leader conducted skip level interviews that elicited feedback on how people were feeling and to see if there was anything the leader could assist with. This engagement by the leader proved to be beneficial as employees and managers alike could see visible support for the cultural transition.

At month sixteen (16) after the initial culture survey the leader administered the second culture assessment. This assessment would measure belief and behavior changes across the organization. The results of the second survey are presented in the following tables and figures. Part 3: Second Culture Assessment

The new current state 2015 results were compared to the year ago future state 2014 results. According to the data, the perceptions by the employees suggested there was a cultural alignment. To better understand the magnitude of the culture shift, the new current State 2015 was compared to current (desired) state 2014 ratings.

Dominant Organizational Characteristic: This sub-dimension focuses on employee’s perception about organization life; or what it’s like to work in the organization – its dominate characteristics.

New Current State 2015: The Clan and Adhocracy cultures rated the highest with 34 and 32 points. The culture type Market and Hierarchy were less represented with 18 and 16 points as presente in Table 9. The new rating shows that the organizations perception related to the dominant organizational characteristics shifted from a very controlling and structured place (Hierarchical), where formal procedures generally govern what people do to make it more of a personal place to work (Clan) where they can share a lot of themselves. Additionally, employees feel there is an element of innovation and risk taking (Adhocracy) in the work environment with less competitiveness (Market) and a focus on achievements. The organization indicated they desired a shift across the dominant organizational characteristics and that occurred.

Table 9 Dominant Characteristics

Current 2014

Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 29 33 34 33 5 ADHOCRACY 12 29 32 27 20 MARKET 22 20 18 20 -4 HIERARCHY 37 18 16 20 -21 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

88 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Organizational Leadership Style: This sub-dimension focuses on how employees perceive the leadership style in the organization. New Current State 2015: The Clan and Adhocracy cultures rated the highest with 36 and 27. The Market and Hierarchy cultures were less represented with 22 and 14 points (Table 10). This new rating suggests a shift from leadership style exemplifying a results orientation (Market), efficiency and coordination mind-set (Hierarchy) to more of a style that exemplifies mentoring, facilitation, nurturing (Clan) and entrepreneurship (Adhocracy). The organization indicated they desired a shift across leadership style and that occurred.

Table 10 Organizational Leadership Style

Current 2014

Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 21 36 36 34 15 ADHOCRACY 16 23 27 25 11 MARKET 35 15 22 24 -13 HIERARCHY 28 26 14 17 -14 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

Management of Employees: This sub-dimension focuses on how employees perceive the style of management in the organization. This defines management of day-to-day work. New Current State 2015: The Clan and Adhocracy culture rated the highest with 39 and 22 points. The Market and Hierarchy culture were less represented with 20 and 19 points (Table 11). This new rating suggests a shift from the management of employees being characterized by security of employment, conformity and predictability in production (Hierarchy) and hard- driving and high demands (Market) to a management style that is characterized by teamwork, consensus building and participation (Clan), individual risk-taking, and autonomy (Adhocracy). The organization indicated they desired a shift across management of employees and that occurred.

Table 11 Management of Employees

Current 2014

Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 & 2014

CLAN 25 40 39 35 14 ADHOCRACY 12 23 22 24 10 MARKET 28 16 20 19 -8 HIERARCHY 35 21 19 22 -16 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

Organizational Glue: This sub-dimension measures the uniting characteristics that hold the organization together. New Current State 2015: The Clan and Adhocracy culture rated the highest with 40 and 26 points, less represented was the Market and Hierarchy culture rating 17 and 18 points (Table 12).

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 89

This new rating suggests a greater shift toward people loyalty and commitment (Clan) to one another and a greater commitment to experimentation and innovation (Adhocracy). There was a shift away from the organizational bonding mechanism as being formality, rules and policies and high pressure for goal attainment. The organization indicated they desired a shift across organizational glue and that occurred.

Table 12 Organizational Glue

Current 2014

Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 22 40 40 37 18 ADHOCRACY 15 21 26 25 11 MARKET 27 19 17 21 -10 HIERARCHY 36 20 18 17 -18 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

Strategic Emphasis: This sub-dimension focuses on what the organization emphasizes. New Current State 2015: Table 13 shows the Clan and Adhocracy culture rated the highest with 38 and 28 points. The Market and Hierarchy culture related less with 15 and 19 points (Table 13). This new rating suggests a significant shift from where the organizational direction stressed stability and smooth operations (Hierarchy) and achieving long-term measurable goals (Market) to a focus on high trust, openness and human development (Clan) and the importance of consistent growth and staying on the cutting edge (Adhocracy). The organization indicated they desired a shift across strategic emphasis and that occurred.

Table 13

Strategic Emphasis Current

2014 Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 20 39 38 35 18 ADHOCRACY 19 24 28 25 9 MARKET 23 15 15 20 -8 HIERARCHY 38 22 19 20 -19 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

Criteria of Success: This sub-dimension examines employee’s perceptions about what criteria the organization uses to measure success. New Current State 2015: The Clan and Hierarchy culture rated the highest with 42 and 34 point. The Adhocracy and Market culture were less with 11 and 13 points (Table 14). The new rating suggests the vision for success shifted more into focusing on the needs of the client and employees and ensuring efficient and consistent low cost operations. The organization desired more of the same in this dimension.

90 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Overall Organizational Profile: This profile represents the arithmetic mean across the six sub- dimensions. New Current State 2015: The Clan and Adhocracy culture rates the highest with 38 and 24 points and the Market and Hierarch the lowest with 18 and 20 points as presented in Table 15. The new rating suggests an overall shift of the culture that focuses on internal maintenance with flexibility and concern for its employees and clients (Clan) and one that focuses on external positioning with a high degree of flexibility and individuality (Adhocracy). This is a significant shift from where the culture was at 14 months prior where the organization focused more on internal maintenance with a need for stability and control (Hierarchy) while emphasizing on goal attainment and fast decision making (Market). Overall the organization indicated they desired a shift to a more Clan and Adhocracy like culture and that occurred

Table 14 Criteria of Success

Current 2014

Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 26 45 42 43 16 ADHOCRACY 13 18 11 22 -2 MARKET 15 12 13 10 -2 HIERARCHY 46 25 34 25 -11 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

Table 15

Overall Organizational Profile Current

2014 Future 2014

Current 2015

Future 2015

Difference: Current 2015 &

2014 CLAN 24 39 38 36 14 ADHOCRACY 15 23 24 25 10 MARKET 25 16 18 19 -7 HIERARCHY 37 22 20 20 -17 1st Assessment 2nd Assessment

IMPLICATIONS FOR MANGEMENT

Leaders and managers who desire to bring about a culture change must first determine the

present state and then the desired state of the cultures in the organization. One cannot simply decide what the culture is and what they want it to be without first doing extensive data gathering with all employees involved. This data provides an honest picture of the existing norms, values, and customs that make up the existing culture. Feedback sessions with focus groups of employees at all levels within the organization can then be used to support the data gathered initially.

This provides for action plans and commitments of all stake holders of a desired culture where all employees can contribute, be engaged, and involved. It is suggested valid and reliable instruments such as the OCAI, when used properly, can bring about the desired results. This will

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 91

only occur when all employees from the leader to the lowest level employee is committed to making the process a reality.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The OCAI is based on the Competing Values Framework (CVF), which is recognized as one of the forty most important models in the history of business (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). It originally emerged from empirical research on what factors make organizations effective. The framework has since been applied to a variety of topics related to individual and organizational behavior. It has been the focus of empirical studies for more than 25 years, and it has been employed to help thousands of organizations and tens of thousands of managers improve their performance (Fox, 2013).

The new leader in this study understood that organizational culture is important because it is the single largest factor that inhibits organizational improvement and change. The leader knew that healthy cultures enhance success whereas unhealthy cultures inhibit success, but in order to take advantage of the power of organizational culture, it must be adequately measured. Through the assessment and the culture change project the leader learned a great deal about their organization’s social interaction, basic assumptions of organizational life, perceptions about leadership styles and management of day-to-day activity. The leader learned about how the social interaction patterns in the current state helped shape the present day culture and that in order to shift the culture to achieve strategic goals, beliefs and behaviors would need to shift moving more into Clan and Adhocracy quadrants.

The process used to accomplish the culture shift was derived from the steps outlined in “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture-Based on the Competing Values Framework”. What the leader liked the most about using the OCAI was its simplicity.

The current culture data provides keen insights into how people in the organization perceive organizational life, including basic assumptions, interaction patters and organizational direction. The basic assumption category consists of two dimensions, dominant culture characteristics and organizational glue, the interaction pattern category relates to leadership style and management of employees’ dimensions and the organization direction category consists of perceptions about strategic emphasis and criteria of success. Table 7 shows that the current state data presents how people perceive their culture which was rated a hierarchical and market driven. Having viewed the data the leader was able to determine strength and congruency of the culture.

Additionally, after the employee presentation where the leader presented the shared vision and proposed strategies, the culture assessment highlighted where the organization thought it needed to be by aligning to the vision and strategic objectives. The preferred state data suggested a shift from a Hierarchical and Marketing driven overall culture to a more Clan and Adhocracy type overall culture. The Clan and Adhocracy type beliefs and behaviors lends its self to a self-managed environment than command-and-control.

The organization had an overwhelming response to the new leader’s approach on including them in the assessment process and keeping the organization updated. According to interviews and targeted assessments, many members of the organizations felt they had a voice. Research suggests that when organizational culture needs to change its best to involve the organization from the start, people are more willing to ensure change is successful (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

92 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Empirical research claims that when employees feel that culture matters, they are more willing to ensure change is successful (Schein, 2011, Kotter & Hasket, 1992). Moreover, when the organization as a whole is engaged in a shared culture change approach, teambuilding and bonding occurs, trust is strengthened and relationships strengthen.

This action research project had a lasting impact on the organization. Not only was the new leader able to achieve her strategic objectives, she felt that the assimilation process into the organization occurred within weeks not months.

REFERENCES

Acar, A.Z., & Acar, P. (2012). The Effects of Organizational Culture and Innovativeness on

Business Performance in Healthcare Industry. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 58, 683-692

Albert, S., & Whetten, D.A. (1985), "Organizational identity", Research in Organizational

Behavior, 7, 263-295. Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1979), The Impact of Alienation, Meaninglessness, and

Meritocracy on Supervisor and Subordinate Satisfaction. Social Forces 57: 853-870. Braksick, L. W. (2007). Cultural fusion. T& D, 61(10), 8 – 9 Cameron, K. S., & Ettington, D. R. (1988). Conceptual foundations of organisational culture, in

J. C. SMART (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research, 4, 356- 396. New York: Agathon Press.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based

on the competing values framework (Rev. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Creasy, T., Stull, M., & Peck, S. (2009). Understanding employee-level dynamics within the

merger and acquisition process. Journal of General Management, 35(2), 21-42. Daft, R. (2006). Organization theory and design (9th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern. Deal, T.E., & Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate

Life, Reading, MA., Addison-Wesley. Deloitte. (2012a). Core Beliefs and Culture Survey: Chairman’s Survey Findings. Retrieved from

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/About/Leadership/1fe8be4ad25e7310VgnVCM 1000001956f00aRCRD.htm.

Deloitte. (2012b). The Social Divide–Employees, executives disagree on the role of social media

in building workplace culture: Deloitte survey [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Press- Releases/917ed0b3d26e7310VgnVCM2000001b56f00aRCRD.htm.

International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018 93

Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organization effectiveness. New York: Free Press. Denison, D., Haaland, S., & Goelzer, P. (2004). "Corporate culture and organizational

effectiveness: Is Asia different from the rest of the world?" Organizational Dynamics, 33(1), 98-109.

Development Dimension International DDI (2005). E3: A measure of employee engagement.

Bridgeville, PA. Divan, S. (2012). Changing ‘The Way We Do Things’ Presenting an Organizational Culture

Framework. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento. Fox, R. J. (2013). Analyzing organizational culture of Yolo County using two assessment

models. Dissertation California State University Sacramento. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,

Sage: Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and

operations across nations. SAGE. Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational culture: A

qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 286 – 316.

Kelly, G. (2012, October). The Southwest Culture: Our Secret Sauce. Spirit Magazine., 10. Kotter, J. & Hesket, J. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: Macmillan. Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How can American business meet the Japanese Challenge.

Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pascale, R. T., & Athos, A. G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management, Middlesex, England:

Penguin Books. Peters, T.J., & Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence, New York: Harper & Row. Schein, E. (2011). Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View. (3rd ed.) San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schein, E. (2009). The Corporate Culture Survival Guide. San Francisco: Josey-Bass. Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons. Silversweig, S., & Allen, R. (1976). Changing corporate culture. Sloan Management Review, 17,

3, 33-49.

94 International Journal of Business and Public Administration, Volume 15, Number 1, Fall 2018

Trice, H., & Beyer, J. (1993), The Culture of Work Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ. Trompenaars, F. (1993), Riding the Waves of Culture, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London. Van Maanen, J., & Barley. S.(1984), Occupational communities: Cultural control in

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior. 6: 287-365. Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. (1985). Cultural Organization: Fragments of a Theory, in P. Frost,

L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg & J. Martin (eds.), Organizational Culture (Sage, Beverly Hills, California), pp. 31-54.

www.ocai-online.com/about-the-Organizational-Culture-Assessment-Instrument-OCAI (2017). About the Authors: Russell Davis is .is a Principal Consultant with Kaiser Permanente in Organizational Design and Effectiveness. He holds a DBA from Columbia Southern University. His research interests are in the areas of virtual employment and employee engagement and loyalty, organizational design and organizational effectiveness. He has published a number of academic journal articles in these fields. Steven Cates is a Professor of Human Resources Management at Purdue University Global. Dr. Cates holds a DBA in Human Resources Management from NOVA Southeastern University. His research interests are in the areas of employment discrimination, preferred leadership styles for Millennials and Generation Z, virtual employees and levels of engagement, and the impact of medicinal drugs on organizations.

Copyright of International Journal of Business & Public Administration is the property of International Academy of Business & Public Administration Disciplines (IABPAD), LLC and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.