ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values

BERNARD BURNES∗ & PHILIP JACKSON∗∗

∗Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, UK, ∗∗Jackson Solutions, Liverpool, UK

ABSTRACT One of the most remarkable aspects of organizational change efforts is their low success rate. There is substantial evidence that some 70% of all change initiatives fail. This article explores the argument that a potentially significant reason for this is a lack of alignment between the value system of the change intervention and of those members of an organization undergoing the change. In order to test this assertion, the article begins by reviewing the change literature with regard to the impact of values on success and failure. It then examines Graves’ Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory and uses this as the basis of a method for identifying and aligning value systems. The article then presents the results from case studies of two change initiatives in different organizations. These support both the method and the assertion that value system alignment may be an important factor in the success of organizational change initiatives. The article concludes with recommendations for further research.

KEY WORDS: Value systems, organizational change, Graves, ECLET

Introduction

This article explores the argument that a potentially significant reason for the failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the value system of the change intervention and of those members of an organization undergoing the change. In order to undertake this exploration, the article will review the lit- erature on the impact of values on change interventions; develop a method for measuring these values and designing change interventions which align with them; and test empirically in two small case studies both the argument and the method. The success of the two change interventions will be considered in two

Journal of Change Management

Vol. 11, No. 2, 133 – 162, June 2011

Correspondence Address: Bernard Burnes, Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Booth Street

West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK. Email: [email protected]

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/11/020133 – 30 # 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.524655

respects: first, by assessing the acceptance of the content of the change, i.e. the nature or type of change being implemented; second, by assessing the acceptance of the approach taken towards implementation.

Few doubt the importance of organizational change. In the early 1990s, Hammer and Champy (1993: 23) declared that ‘. . . change has become both per- vasive and persistent. It is normality’. In reviewing the change literature since Hammer and Champy made this claim, Burnes (2009a) found that if anything the speed, magnitude, unpredictability and, consequently, the importance of change have increased considerably. This view is supported by a recent global survey by McKinsey & Company (2008) which found that only by changing con- stantly could organizations hope to survive.

However, the McKinsey survey also found that some two-thirds of all change initiatives failed. Although this seems to be a staggeringly high rate of failure, there is much evidence to support it (Beer and Nohria, 2000a). Similar findings have emerged from surveys by other leading management consultancies such as Bain and Co (Senturia et al., 2008), by leading academics in the field like Rosa- beth Moss Kanter (Kanter et al., 1992) and John Kotter (1996), and from reviews of the change literature (Smith, 2002, 2003; Burnes, 2009a). Therefore, organiz- ations appear to be faced with a classic paradox: ‘We have to change but most of our change initiatives fail’.

The key question, of course, is – why do so many change initiatives fail? Stran- gely enough, this is a question which has attracted only limited attention (Bucha- nan et al., 2005). Some writers point to shortcomings in either the planning or execution of the change process (Burnes and Weekes, 1989; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Hoag et al., 2002). Others identify a lack of competence or commitment in those commissioning or managing the change process (Boddy and Buchanan, 1992; Kotter, 1996; Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997; Caldwell, 2003, 2006). However, the problem with such explanations is that implicitly or explicitly they assume that there is a ‘one best way’ to manage change and that failure arises from not adhering to it (Burnes, 1996).

Confusingly, there are quite a few ‘one best way’ approaches to change (Collins, 1998; By, 2005). For example, Kanter (Kanter et al., 1992) offered her 10 commandments for successful change, Pugh (1993) has his four principles of change and Kotter (1996) put forward his eight-step model. Two, however, have stood out from the rest. From the 1950s to the 1970s, organization development (OD) tended to be seen as the best way to manage change (French and Bell, 1999; Cummings and Worley, 2005). In the 1980s and 1990s, the emergent/processual approach came to dominate the field, at least among academics (Dawson, 1994; Orlikowski, 1996; Weick, 2000). Neverthe- less, in recent years there has been a growing recognition that one or even two approaches to change cannot cover the vast variety of change situations (Storey, 1992; Stickland, 1998; Pettigrew, 2000; Burnes, 2009a). As Dunphy and Stace (1993, p. 905) argued:

. . . managers and consultants need a model of change that is essentially a ‘situa-

tional’ or ‘contingency’ model, one that indicates how to vary change strategies

to achieve ‘optimum fit’ with the changing environment.

134 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

If we move from a ‘one best way’ approach to change to a contingency approach, this does not invalidate the various shortcomings that researchers have put forward nor the emphasis placed on the abilities and/or commitment of those who com- mission and execute change. However, it does indicate that a further factor needs to be taken into account – the congruence between the organization, the content or type of change it is undertaking and the approach to change it adopts (Burnes, 2009a).

In order to investigate the degree of congruence, we need to be able to categor- ize the nature of change initiatives and the situations for which they are seen as appropriate. Some writers draw attention to the need to match approaches to change to the volatility of the environment (Kanter et al., 1992; Peters, 1993; Kotter, 1996). Others draw attention to the need to match approaches to the type of changes being undertaken (Storey, 1992; Stace and Dunphy, 2001; Beer and Nohria, 2000b). These writers cite such factors as the size/importance of the initiative and whether it is aimed at structural or behavioral/cultural change. Unfortunately, they do not usually link these factors to a range of approaches to change; rather they tend to have their own one or two preferred approaches.

There have been attempts to create more comprehensive categorizations of approaches to change and link them to the situations in which they are most appropriate. Van de Ven and Poole (1995) argue that approaches to change can be categorized by the theories which underpin them. They identify four such the- ories: life-cycle, teleological, dialectical and evolutionary. French and Bell (1999) and Cummings and Worley (2005) listed the wide array of change tools and tech- niques embraced by OD and the content of interventions for which they are most appropriate. Burnes (2009a) produced a categorization of approaches based on the forms of change for which they are most appropriate and the leadership approach necessary to apply them successfully. Noticeably, these broader categorizations also attempt to relate the values which underpin approaches to change to organ- ization values. For example, Van de Ven and Poole (1995) see dialectical-based approaches as suitable for organizations with an ethos that values power and con- flict. For Cummings and Worley (2005), OD interventions are underpinned by a set of humanistic and democratic values which make them suitable for organiz- ations with similar values. Burnes (2009a) concurs with this point but also goes on to argue that Tayloristic – mechanistic approaches may be more suitable for organizations with a top-down, command-and-control ethos. The work of these writers would seem to support the view that the failure of a change initiative is not caused by poor planning or execution or a lack of competence or commitment per se; rather the underlying cause is a clash of values between the organization and the approach to and type of change it has adopted. In many respects, this explanation is in line with organizational justice and the psychological contract perspectives, which see active and passive resistance to change occurring when either the type of change or approach taken towards change interventions challenge existing organizational and individual values (Schein, 1988, 1989; Wooten and White, 1999; Novelli et al., 1995; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001; Rousseau, 2001; Arnold et al., 2005; Cohen and Keren, 2008).

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 135

The next section of this article will examine the relationship between values and organizational change. In so doing, it explores the need to align value systems with change interventions. This is followed by a review of Graves’ Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory (ECLET) which, we argue, provides the basis of a method for determining and aligning value systems. The Method section then describes how we have adapted and applied ECLET for use as an organizational change method. Following this, the article presents our research, which sought to test the concept of value system alignment on two organizations undertaking change interventions. The results show support for the argument that successful change may be influenced significantly by the degree of alignment between the values of the organization undertaking the change and the underlying values of the content and approach to change. The article concludes by arguing, first, that there is support for considering the degree of value alignment as a potentially significant factor in the success or failure of change interventions; and second, that Graves’ ECLET approach provides a suitable basis of a method for evaluating and aligning the value systems of organizations with the value systems which underlie the approaches and content of change interventions.

Value Systems and Organizational Change

Much has been written over the years regarding the need to align organizational and individual values, usually from the culture perspective (Schein, 1985; Brown, 1998). The main argument is that effective organizations are ones where goals and values are congruent and shared by the leadership and staff of the organization (Ouchi, 1981; Denison and Spreitzer, 1991; Brown, 1998; Detert et al., 2000; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2004). For example, in looking at the promotion of ethical behavior, du Plessis (2008) points to the need for leaders to ensure that the values of the organization and its members are aligned with the ethical values and behaviors they are seeking to promote. Simi- larly, Sosik et al. (2009) assert that the importance of values is that they influence behavior, especially in terms of whether organizational goals are judged as appro- priate and the degree of effort to exert in pursuing the goals. Indeed, there has been a long history of writers drawing attention to the positive relationship between value alignment, employee commitment and goal achievement (Herzberg et al., 1956; Werkmeister, 1967; Dubin et al., 1975; Guy, 1984; Elizur, 1996; Cohen and Keren, 2008).

In terms of organizational change, perhaps the first person to draw attention to the relationship between value alignment and successful change was Kurt Lewin in the 1940s (Benne, 1976). Since then, a wide range of studies have cited organization, group and individual values as important factors in the success of change interventions (Schwartz and Davis, 1981; Allaire and Firsirotu, 1984; Mrotek, 2001; Chonko et al., 2002; Bouckenooghe and Devos, 2007; Diefenbach, 2007; Walinga, 2008). Neves and Caetano (2009) maintain that employees who see that a proposed change intervention is congruent with their own values are more likely to show commitment and enthusiasm. They go on to state that ‘Employees’ commitment to change can therefore be looked at as a function of the change’s fit to employees’ values . . .’ (Neves and Caetano, 2009, p. 626).

136 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

To summarize, there is support for the view that successful change is associated with the value alignment of three factors: those involved in the change interven- tion, the objective of the intervention and the approach to change (i.e. the values underpinning the content of the change and the process by which it is managed).

If the concept of value alignment is valid, then it is not sufficient for organiz- ations to ensure that the objective of the change intervention is congruent with the organization’s values, they would also need to ensure that the approach to change adopted is congruent. This means that they must be able to identify the values which underpin different approaches to change. A number of writers have explicitly linked particular values with particular approaches to change (Kanter et al., 1992; Kirkman and Shapiro, 1997; Beer and Nohria, 2000b; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003). Bouckenooghe and Devos (2007) argue that where organizations exhibit values such as trust and openness, then an approach to change in which the process and management of the intervention are participa- tive is likely to be most successful. Wooten and White (1999) argued that the values which underpin OD make such approaches particularly suitable for organ- izations with postmodern values. Similarly, Burnes (2009b, 2009c) maintains that organizations seeking to promote ethical – participative behavior are only likely to be successful if they adopt an approach to change whose values align with such behavior.

Looking at situations where value system alignment is not present, Detert et al. (2000) examined the high failure rate of total quality management (TQM) initiat- ives. They commented that, where the gap between the organization’s values and values of the objective of the change are large, ‘we believe that a change initiative such as TQM will be very difficult to implement’ (Detert et al., 2000, p. 858). Likewise, in seeking to explain why some 70% of business process re-engineering (BPR) interventions fail, Hammer and Champy (1993) point to the clash between the values underpinning BPR and the values of the organizations seeking to implement it.

Returning now to our original question: why do so many change interventions fail? The above review of the literature shows that, although a wide range of factors can undermine successful change, a potentially significant factor is the degree of alignment between the values of the organization, the values of the objective or content of the change being undertaken and the values underpinning the approach to change. The extent to which value alignment is a factor would depend on the relative influence of other factors such as implementation effective- ness, change leadership and so on. This question is not addressed here but will form part of future research into the influence of value alignment.

In order to test the assertion that value alignment impacts on the success of change interventions, we need a method for assessing value alignment. The method needs to incorporate a typology of values, an instrument for assessing the values of organization members and means of assessing or specifying approaches to change. As Scott (2002) has shown, there have been many attempts to create typologies of organizational values. However, there is a great deal of dis- agreement as to what constitutes an organizational value. For example, Hofstede et al. (1990) identified just three values, whereas O’Reilly et al. (1991) identified 54. Also, although some of these authors provide instruments for measuring the

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 137

posited values, many do not. Even where instruments exist, there are doubts about their reliability and generalizability; Hofstede’s (1980) work, for example, was drawn from a study of just one international organization – IBM.

Nevertheless, there are two typologies which are based on large samples and appear to have stood the test of time. The first was developed by Rokeach (1973). He identified 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values which can be measured by the Rokeach Values Survey. Rokeach’s survey instrument has been widely used and supported by academics and practitioners (Johnson, 1995). The second is Graves’ ECLET which is based on eight core value systems that can be measured using the Values Test, a commercially available psychometric questionnaire. Like Rokeach’s typology, Graves’ ECLET has also been widely used (Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk, 2004a). There are simi- larities between the typologies. For example, both are ipsative, which is a limit- ation in terms of statistical analysis, and neither was developed with organizational change in mind (though this is the case with most typologies of values). However, Graves’ theory has anecdotally been reported (Beck and Lin- scott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996) as an effective framework for facilitating organizational change and, from our perspective, an interesting difference is that Graves’ typology is a developmental hierarchy which shows the relationship between eight core value systems and the motivation to move from one to another. Rokeach, by contrast, offers a flat typology in which there is no suggested inter- relationship or sequence of development between values. We are attempting to develop a method that can assist organizations to manage change which, for some, could involve identifying individuals and groups whose values need to be developed. Therefore, a typology based on a developmental hierarchy is of par- ticular interest as, if validated, it may lead to the ability to predict the next stage of value development appropriate to a particular organization. Mainly for this reason, we chose to base our method on Graves’ ECLET model rather than Rokeach’s work.

Graves’ Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory

The ECLET approach to organizational value systems was developed from exten- sive qualitative research carried out by Clare W. Graves in the 1950s and 1960s (Graves, 1966, 1970, 1971, 1974; Cowan and Todorovic, 2005). Subsequent research has shown that the value systems approach is applicable to a wide range of psychosocial systems development (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; van Marrewijk 2004a, 2004b; Cook, 2008). In this study, the ECLET theory is applied to the design and evaluation of change interventions for organizational development.

Graves (1966) set out to investigate the causes of human behavior. He had no preconceived hypothesis but instead used what we would now call grounded theory to conduct his research (Glaser and Straus, 1967). Between 1952 and 1959, he enrolled over 1000 participants in his research. Independent assessors were used to evaluate how the participants formulated their opinions, how they responded to peer pressure and to authority and what, if anything, led them to

138 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

change their opinion, and what they changed it to. From this, Graves (1966, p. 120) concluded that

. . . the psychology of the mature human organism is an unfolding or emergent

process marked by the progressive subordination of older behavioural systems to

newer, higher order behavioural systems.

Based on this research Graves was able to develop the hierarchical classification of human value systems which lies at the heart of his ECLET. In applying ECLET to organizations, Graves (1966) argued that employees responded best when their value system was congruent with the value system of those who managed them.

ECLET states that the change and development of culture in organizations follows an emergent hierarchy of levels. Each new level results in a change in organizational culture due to a new set of values emerging. Graves’ theory holds that psychosocial values exist in groups and organizations based on a common underlying purpose. If the current value system proves to be ineffective at coping with changes in the organization’s external environment, a new level or value system emerges which can cope with them. This leads to the development of a new organizational culture and concomitant changes in behavior.

Therefore, the driving force to move to a more complex value system is the need to solve new problems that the existing system cannot resolve. Each level in the hierarchy transcends and includes all levels beneath it and thereby encompasses greater complexity which in turn allows for greater degrees of freedom in thinking and behavior.

According to Graves’ research (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005), mankind has developed eight core value systems so far (see Table 1). Graves labeled these with a nomenclature consisting of two letters: AN, BO, CP, etc. The first letter identifies the external life conditions or existential forces acting on the system. The second represents the internal psychological response of the system.

Graves argued that the majority of organizations in western society are predo- minantly centred on DQ and ER values, with a significant number of organizations moving towards FS (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005). This is in line with Handy’s (1986, 1997) work which sees these DQ- and ER-type cultures as dominant and FS-type as emerging. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, these three forms, which are further defined below, will be the focus of attention.

DQ: Deny Self Now for Reward Later

This value system is based on the pursuit of the collective good rather than indi- vidual reward. Responsibility within the individual is replaced by reliance on and trust in the organization to provide and protect now and in future in return for com- pliance with the rules. This value system emerged in organizations at the begin- ning of the twentieth century as a solution to the labor-control problems created by the earlier individualistic and exploitative CP value system, in which the lea- dership style could best be described as ‘management thuggery’. Perhaps the best example of the DQ approach is Frederick Taylor’s (1911) Scientific Management,

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 139

which he advocated as a rational and fair alternative to what had gone before (Rose, 1988).

The values that accompany this thinking are about control and order in achiev- ing the collective good. Roles are defined in a clear hierarchy and power resides at the top. Decisions are taken on a hierarchical basis, and those lower down carry out orders; in this respect it is similar to traditional military models of command and control.

Table 1. Summary of Graves’ value systems hierarchy (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005)

Level Value system

AN Individual: Express self for personal survival, do what you can to look after self, take whatever’s offered. Effective where there is no competition, but growing people numbers build fear through vulnerability. Security is sought through safety in numbers and leads to emergence of . . .

BO Collective: Deny self for family and close relations, safety in numbers, traditional ways and ancestral traditions and rituals. Priority is to maintain the security and sustainability of the local community so that the future is the same as the past. Anger at lack of change in the face of inadequacy leads to emergence of . . .

CP Individual: Express self for power and immediate gratification. Coercion, superiority and strength enables satiation of selfish needs and to hell with the rest. Leads to personal expression and adrenalin-fuelled releases of energy, both positive and negative. Leads to feudal systems, exploitation and abuse of others, strives for personal (illegitimate) power and control. Guilt over consequences leads to a desire to conform to agreed behaviours and emergence of . . .

DQ Collective: Deny self for order and stability, subordinate oneself to the rules of society based on absolutist principles of the one right way, laws and regulations, obey the appointed (legitimate) power and authority and accept penal consequences for transgression and the authority will provide and protect and reward hard work in the long-term. Frustration at lack of personal recognition and satisfaction in the short-term lead to emergence of . . .

ER Individual: Express aelf for reward now and the material riches and good life, but not at the obvious expense of others. Get away with what you can for personal gain now, find the best way rather than the right way, contingent thinking, flexible approaches, manipulate and engineer outcomes to suit personal needs and wants. Success brings isolation and resentment from the ‘have-nots’ and feelings of loneliness and exclusion lead to emergence of . . .

FS Collective: Deny self for equality, sharing and humanity, wealth distribution, charity and working for humanitarian causes to aid social development and community. All are equal in the eyes of society, no one person is in control, consensus decision-making, inclusion and harmony eventually leads to lower efficiencies. Lack of effective progress leads to emergence of . . .

GT Individual: Express self, but not at the expense of others. Open-minded systemic thinking that allows for the integration of all previous value systems in natural flows, an acceptance of complex/chaotic systems and paradox, stratified democracy, self-gain but also with preservation of life systems in general, and a recognition that knowledge has the greatest value and only the right knowledge can provide systemic solutions to the problems of existence. Frustration at the lack of social action in the light of new knowledge and understanding leads to emergence of . . .

HU Collective: Deny self for the benefit of whole world socio-economic systems and community, deny self for ecological existence and planetary sustainability and the continual search for knowledge and meaning in the universe so that new understanding can be applied to enabling a sustainable planetary future.

140 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

The management style is formal and autocratic, and DQ employees are compli- ant and conformist but, because they value uniformity and stability, they can also be highly resistant to change. Change is driven from the top through amendments to rules, procedures and policies. However, the need to consult employee repre- sentatives and trade unions who act to maintain fairness and inclusion means that change is a slow and unsure process. The scientific – rational approach to change advocates a hierarchical top-down management style and rigid adherence to rules, policies and procedures as the one-right-way of working (see Burnes, 2009a) and is, therefore, likely to be the most appropriate for DQ organizations. This denial of the right of the individual to freedom of choice is especially analo- gous to the DQ principle ‘deny self now for reward later’ if the intended outcome of top-down directives are seen as beneficial to the whole organization and con- tribute to stability and long-term job security. Nevertheless, because this rigidity leads to lack of flexibility and innovativeness, DQ organizations find it difficult to respond to rapidly changing circumstances and more nimble competitors. Conse- quently, in order to remain competitive, a point comes when they need to move to the next level of value system in order to replace compliance with competitiveness and passivity with initiative.

ER: Express Self for Reward Now in a Calculating Fashion at the Expense of Others

This value system is based on the psychological rationalization of competitive- ness. Competition is seen as win – lose, though it is often presented as win – ‘win less’. ER is about beating the competition, whether that is other organizations or co-workers, and it is individualistic rather than collective. Success can bring performance-related rewards for everyone in the organization, but individuals seek to get more than their fair share. Therefore, ER employees will seek to manipulate the reward system to favor themselves. ER employees will resist com- pliance, paying only scant lip service to the rules, and will seek autonomy and freedom in their role.

Many modern change interventions have been developed especially for ER-type organizations seeking competitive advantage. These include business process re-engineering, operational value analysis, activity-based costing, outsourcing, customer relations management, etc. These approaches are designed to separate the effective parts of the organization from the ineffective, and invariably lead to winners and losers. Such approaches, which disregard the principle of collective involvement, would meet strong resistance from DQ organizations, but be effec- tive in ER organizations provided that any changes are seen as supporting ER values on both a personal and organizational level.

ER organizations are driven by competitiveness but, if taken to extremes this can lead individuals to pursue their own self-interest above all else. The result is that a few individuals can gain most of the rewards with the rest falling by the wayside. This leads to three main pressures for change:

(1) The fewer and fewer ‘haves’ sense an increasing resentment from the growing numbers of ‘have nots’.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 141

(2) The ‘profit at any cost’ mentality has damaging consequences for the organ- ization, its customers, suppliers and ultimately for the natural environment.

(3) The ‘haves’ find less acceptance and fewer opportunities for enjoying their accumulated personal wealth.

These pressures lead to the need for organizations to move up to the next level of value system.

FS: Deny Self for Acceptance by Others Now

This value system is based on a rebalancing of the ‘have’ – ‘have not’ divide through the redistribution of wealth and the growing acceptance of equality, inclusion and humanitarianism. It represents a return of the importance of recog- nizing the collective through, for example, team performance rather than perform- ance of the individual. Individuals act in a way to make themselves acceptable, they avoid excessive personal achievement and conflict and strive for balance, harmony and inclusion. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is one of the defin- ing values of the FS organization. Exploitative business practices are replaced with Fair Trade schemes that help suppliers to be productive and efficient and lead to agreements over margin, and contracts that give them longer-term security. This enables suppliers to invest in operational improvements and increase sustain- ability. FS consumers agree to pay a little more if it means everybody is treated fairly, and gradually this becomes the new norm accompanied by a growing desire to avoid paying less if it means somebody somewhere is being exploited. FS organizations are anti-greed and anti-hierarchy. Leaders see themselves as equal members of the team and that the role of leading is just another of the jobs that needs to be done. They are leaders with humility and equality.

Any changes to the organization have to be seen as supporting social and col- lective equality. ER-type change initiatives described above can be effective but the language used to describe them must be appropriate to FS values. For example, the following are two ways to describe the same change:

Our objective is to reorganize our business to improve the effectiveness of our

service delivery by making better use of the resources.

Our objective is to increase profitability and shareholder return by downsizing.

The first is a statement driven by the intent to make better use of existing resources to improve business effectiveness. Effectiveness could be measures by multiple bottom lines, for example: environmental impact, social responsibility, customer and employee satisfaction, as well as – and not subverted by – business growth and profitability. The second statement is driven by the sole intent to increase prof- itability without regard for the impact on other bottom lines or resources as evi- denced by the willing and open intention to downsize. In an FS organization, the first description is likely to be accepted, whereas the second would be resisted. By contrast, an ER organization would be more likely to respond positively to the second statement.

142 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

The downside of FS organizations is that consensus decision-making and con- flict avoidance can undermine competitiveness. The absence of constructive con- flict and challenge stifles creativity. The mounting frustration at excessive harmony and the often resulting lack of productivity and progress leads to the emergence of yet another value system, GT. However, for the purposes of this study, we focus on the DQ, ER and FS value systems.

A word of caution: Graves maintained that no organization or person is ever subject to just a single value system, but is likely to be influenced simultaneously by at least three: the previous dominant system, the current dominant system and the next emerging system. He saw ECLET as a ‘transcend and include’ hierarchy of values in which a person or organization appears to be operating from a single value system but, in response to external pressures, may ‘regress to a behaviour system lower in the hierarchy’ (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005, pp. 29 – 30). Conse- quently, when determining an appropriate approach to change, it is necessary to know the value system profile of those involved and the degree to which it is uniform and stable. This allows approaches to change to be tailored to the value system of the organization (Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003).

As can be seen, there is strong evidence that ECLET is a tried, tested and appro- priate means for identifying and assessing values (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996; van Marrewijk and Werre, 2003; van Marrewijk 2004a, 2004b; Cook, 2008). We now show how it can be used as the basis of the method for designing change interventions in order to ensure value alignment.

Method

From our review of the change literature, we developed the idea that one important reason for the failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the value system of the objective and the approach to the change intervention and the values system of those members of the organization undergoing the change. The purpose of this article is to explore this idea further by utilizing a method based on Graves’ ECLET. The method will assess value alignment as a tool to help design effective change interventions. In order to do this, and to evaluate the method itself, it was applied to two small change interventions delivered to two groups in separate organizations:

Group A is a project team based in the north west of England, made up of 11

members, working within a national charitable organization;

Group B is the management team, consisting of 13 members, of a privately owned

marketing organization also located within the north west of England.

In order to conduct these case studies, it was necessary to gather three essential pieces of information:

(1) The value system of each group. This was determined using the Values Test, a commercially available psychometric questionnaire (Spiral Dynamics Group; www.onlinepeoplescan.net).

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 143

(2) The value system of the intervention used with each group, including the delivery style of the intervention and the objective or content of the change. This was determined by a qualitative examination of the description of the intervention approach and its agreed objectives.

(3) The effectiveness of the intervention. This was determined from quantitative and qualitative feedback data collected shortly after the intervention.

The Value System of Each Group

The Values Test was used to determine the value system of each group. The Values Test consists of 20 items: each item comprises a question followed by seven possible responses. Each response is representative of one of the seven value systems being assessed, and participants are asked to distribute 15 points across the seven responses according to which they think are most appropriate to themselves. The Values Test is therefore an ipsative assessment instrument in that participants are forced to make a choice between value systems in response to each item. All 15 points can be allocated to one response, or the points can be distributed more widely. Participants are therefore expressing a preference as to which value system is most important to them in the response to each item.

Of the 20 items, items 1 – 10 are worded as positive statements, and items 11 – 20 are similar items except for being expressed negatively. Therefore, the report includes acceptance scores from items 1 to 10, i.e. scores for each response which indicate which value systems the participant agrees with, and rejection scores from items 11 to 20, i.e. scores for each response which indicate the value systems that the participant actively indicates are not important to them. The group reports show the average score for each response from all participants in the group. The reports and a description of their meaning for each group are dis- cussed in the Findings section.

Values Test Reliability and Validity Data

Validity and reliability data of this test are supplied by the test provider and can be seen to be reasonable in terms of acceptable standards for psychometrics (Jackson, 2009). Also, two independent studies exist that support the statistical validity of the Values Test (Hurlbut, 1979; Holwerda and Karsten, 2006). In addition, the Values Test has been used extensively and successfully in organizational and non- organizational settings, which serves to support the construct validity of the test (Beck and Linscott, 1991; Beck and Cowan, 1996; Van Marrewijk, 2003, 2004a, 2004b).

The Hurlbut (1979) study used a values test that did not include items associated with the HU values system; as HU values are not relevant to the present study, the Hurlbut results are considered relevant. Hurlbut used a sample size of 4,029 par- ticipants and determined split half reliability of 0.91 (N ¼ 105) and 0.88 (N ¼ 2,220). Content validity was determined by asking directors of the National Values Centre (Texas, USA), to examine and make recommendations for the instrument which was used on a sample of 30 participants to predict values test

144 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

scores. Concurrent validity of 0.88 was found by correlating predicted scores with actual scores from the test instrument.

Holwerda and Karsten’s study (2006) at the University of Amsterdam deter- mined reliability and validity data for the Values Test using a sample size of 40. Using the same sample two months apart they determined a test – retest reliability of 0.66 for acceptance scores and 0.62 for rejection scores which are considered acceptable for psychometrics.

Consequently, there appears to be sufficient reassurance that the test is both reliable and valid for the type of study we are undertaking (Jackson, 2009).

The Value System of the Intervention Used with Each Group

This can be established either after an intervention, to find the degree of align- ment with the organization’s values, or before, to ensure that the intervention is designed to align with the organization’s values. As this was a real-time study, we chose the latter course of action. We began by constructing a template of key themes for each value system (Table 2). This was derived from Graves’ pub- lished work (Graves 1966, 1970, 1971; Cowan and Todorovic, 2005) using an approach based on a template method as described by Crabtree and Miller (1999) and as specifically developed by King (1998). Having already determined the value system of Group A and Group B, we proceeded to use Table 2 to design interventions which aligned with these. Tables 3a and 3b describe the two interventions. For example, reference to Table 3a (Group A) shows that the intervention content was aligned with FS values with respect to its equalitar- ian and anti-competitive stance. It also aligned with FS values in terms of the emphasis placed on the acceptance of multiple perspectives and individual differences and diversity. In addition, the approach to delivery also emphasized equality: there was no lecturing (which would imply hierarchy through superior knowledge) but rather the facilitation of equal sharing of knowledge using a coaching style of delivery to reach consensus conclusions in which the facilitator was considered an equal participant in the delivery process. Time was given to allow each member to contribute and all opinions were accepted without judgment as to right or wrong. Feedback comments highlighted that time spent learning about each other’s differences was almost more important than anything else.

By contrast, reference to Table 3b (Group B) shows that this intervention was aligned with ER values with respect to its focus on achieving business perform- ance improvement and competitive advantage of individuals for career develop- ment. Although some of the content was similar to that of Group A, the delivery style differed markedly. Efficient use of time was paramount: almost half of the delivery involved some form of lecturing to get knowledge across as fast as possible, although it is interesting – as will be seen later – that lecturing received negative feedback with this group, who preferred self-procurement of knowledge individually through experiences had during the intervention. The group was less accepting of time spent listening to all perspectives, preferring individuals to form their own interpretation of each subject and moving quickly onto the next.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 145

The Effectiveness of the Intervention

The effectiveness of each intervention was assessed on the basis of each group’s response to questions about the usefulness and suitability of the content of the intervention and the way it was delivered and the extent to which participants

Table 2. Key themes of Graves’ DQ, ER and FS value systems

Graves DQ system 1. Deny self now for reward later 2. Positivism and absolutism 3. Find the one right way 4. Stability 5. Obeisance to higher power 6. Authoritarian dogmatic employee control 7. Rule-following 8. Compliance with others 9. Acceptance of hierarchy/do not question 10. Accept judgment from superiors 11. Accept guilt and punishment 12. Autocratic decision-making 13. Modal operators of necessity 14. Moral righteousness

Graves ER system 1. Express self for reward now 2. Multiplistic opportunities 3. Find the best way, survival of the fittest 4. Change to achieve more is OK 5. Play to authority figures 6 6. Materialistic control/employee utilisation 7. Rule-challenging 8. Manipulation of others – maximum output at minimum cost 9. Avoid being controlled – manage up the hierarchy 10. Contingency management 11. Deny guilt and punishment 12. Autonomous decision-making 13. Modal operators of possibility 14. Secular scientism

Graves FS system 1. Deny self now for acceptance by others now 2. Relativistic sociocentrism 3. Find the acceptable way by consensus 4. Change to create equality 5. Shared power/rotating leadership 6. Cooperative control/employee involvement and motivation 7. Rules are for guidance 8. Meet needs of others 9. Equalitarian authority - flatten the hierarchy 10. Cooperative management 11. Avoid punishment and guilt – understand all perspectives 12. Consensual decision-making 13. Searching for acceptability 14. Humanitarianism

146 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

were willing to change as a result of the intervention. The long-term effectiveness as measured by the success of actual organizational change resulting from the intervention was not measured in this study, but may be revisited in future research. The use of a questioning approach with participants to assess the effec- tiveness of the intervention is validated by examples of certain aspects of change content and change approach in this study being rejected. By measuring the effec- tiveness of the intervention in this way, we have more specifically measured the strength of the intent to change rather then the extent of actual change.

Table 3a. A description of the interventions delivered to Group A according to (1) objectives, (2) delivery and (3) content

Group A Intervention This was a training intervention primarily designed to support people working in a charitable concern

who deal with people in difficult circumstances. The intervention was also designed to help the group work together more effectively as a team by developing self-awareness and mutual understanding.

(1) Program objectives To develop: Improvements in effectiveness measured by perception of team communications,

openness in discussions and greater degrees of trust and sharing, and improved effectiveness in dealing with ‘client’ cases by having a greater understanding of individual differences and stages of value system development.

More specifically. . .

† self-awareness through an appreciation of individual differences; † awareness of others through an appreciation of multiple perspectives; † knowledge of a range of psychological models (including Value Systems) affecting human

behavior; † ability to apply the above to helping others (external clients) in specific difficult circumstances

through case studies; † ability to apply the above to further internal development of the group working together as a team.

(2) Delivery style The delivery consisted of eight one-day workshops. Each was informal and held at the group’s

premises in a common-room environment seated on small sofas in a circular arrangement with the workshop deliverers sitting as equal members of the group. There was little presentation material, mostly hand-drawn on a flipchart supported by a few handouts. The underlying motive of the sessions was to help the group to apply the intervention content externally to their clients, often prejudiced individuals and groups in society, and themselves. Contribution of existing expertise from group members was actively encouraged as each group member played an equal role in the learning process. No judgment was made of any different perspectives held by any of the group members and all points of view were respected and considered valid.

(3) Intervention content The program content consisted of a series of workshops exploring Myers Briggs personality

dimensions; aspects and models of personal motivation including Maslow, McClelland and motivation models from Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP); and latterly Graves’ Value Systems and their application to participant self-assessment and personal growth and client case studies. The material was presented as being an optional perspective on the subject and not ‘the definitive answer’, essentially consistent with a subjectivist relativistic philosophy. Ideas, principles and models were put forward as discussion points and explored through interactive conversation amongst equals such that each member of the group determined their own perception of the meaning of the materials.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 147

For Group A, a focus group discussion, facilitated by one of the authors, was conducted which allowed specific aspects of the intervention to be explored through questions such as: what was it about this particular intervention you enjoyed or didn’t enjoy? Care was taken not to guide or prompt responses by the use of key words or phrases. The focus group dialog was recorded and assessed for positive and negative aspects of the intervention (Table 4). An individual rating questionnaire was also completed by each participant to assess various aspects of the intervention (Table 5).

For Group B, the organization preferred to undertake their own qualitative review of the intervention. The review was facilitated by the organization’s

Table 3b. A description of the interventions delivered to Group B according to (1) objectives, (2) delivery and (3) content

Group B Intervention This was a training intervention primarily designed to improve the business performance of a private

sector marketing company by developing the management and leadership understanding and performance of members of the company’s leadership team.

(1) Program objectives To develop: Improved business performance through better understanding and effectiveness of

communication processes, self-management, self-motivation and personal awareness and leadership styles for running the business, and dealing effectively with employees and getting the most from them.

More specifically. . .

† building rapport and developing relationships with customers and employees; † understanding perception and reality and seeing multiple perspectives; † dealing with awkward conversations; † directive vs coaching styles of leadership; † individual differences, self-motivation; † personal prioritization and time management; † styles of leadership; † empowering and motivating others; † influencing, delegating and coaching

(2) Delivery style The delivery consisted of three one-day sessions in which the atmosphere was open and relaxed and

conducive to self-disclosure. Delivery style was generally semi-formal set by smart-casual office wear and delivered off the company’s premises in a comfortable hotel training room arranged with a horseshoe table and seating plan. Training material was presented largely using PowerPoint supported by flipcharts for capturing discussion points. Materials were delivered using a range of styles including experiential activities, taught theory, group discussions and reviews. The underlying motive of the training sessions was to improve individual and group performance and, therefore, overall business performance.

(3) Intervention content The content was delivered under a range of philosophical styles from the objectivist ‘one right

answer’ to modernist contingent theories focussed on finding the ‘best way’ and postmodern relativistic material allowing each person to define their own way. The content itself can be seen from the bullet point objectives above and included principles of leadership taken from contingency theory, transformational leadership, situational leadership and principles of coaching, empowering and employee engagement as means of gaining improved employee and, therefore, business performance.

148 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

training coordinator, who collected feedback statements and identified key themes among the group. Although we were not present at the review, our understanding is that the questions put were similar to those we used with Group A, i.e. what was considered positive and negative about the intervention. A feedback report was prepared and made available for the purposes of this study (Tables 6a and 6b).

Findings – Group A

The Value System of Group A

All 11 participants of Group A completed the Values Test instrument (Figure 1). Reference to Figure 1 shows a strong acceptance of the FS value system and a rejection of the egocentric CP system. There is a potential for conflict in the DQ value system because it can be seen to show both acceptance and rejection scores. Similarly, there is a degree of divided intensity in the ER system, the

Table 4. Group A: focus group feedback

Comments are reported in the first person and reasons for importance paraphrased from the text. ‘Content was delivered in a non-judgmental way, there was no feedback to imply that any

perspective was right or wrong.’ Important because it allowed participants to feel they would be accepted as themselves, it was

liberating and freeing from an otherwise commonly held perception of how you are supposed to be at work.

‘The MBTI in particular was delivered in a way that was personalized to me even though the feedback was done in a group session.’

Important because it allowed me the space to explore myself as an individual and be accepted by others for the preferences I hold.

‘The idea of buying into common (organizational and team) values is something that exists in parallel with the acceptance that each individual is uniquely different.’

Important because understanding we’re all different and knowing and accepting those differences is more helpful than pretending we’re all the same – our common values are those of the organization, individually we’re different.

‘In the sessions we were all treated as equal and not according to our roles in the organization.’ Important because as people we are all equal and we all have equal but different needs for our own

development. It is pointless to treat people differently because of their grade in the hierarchy. ‘Metaphorically the team members can be represented as a group of equal-sized little houses

arranged circularly in a village, each one different on the outside, painted a different color, unique on the inside, linked to each other by a network of criss-crossing paths and open gates and bounded by the identity of the village and open to the outside world.’

Important because we are all equal and work together playing different roles working towards achieving the same aim.

‘The delivery allowed (gave permission for) us all to be different and equal.’ Important because if we had been forced into an idealized model, the training would not have been

accepted. ‘We never had the sense that an agenda was being forced and you picked up whenever someone

wasn’t getting something.’ Important because it meant you (the trainers) followed our needs, not yours. ‘You (the trainers) were not more important than I am – too often the trainer believes they are and

that they know best – and that you (the trainers) were not in competition with each other.’ Important because equality extends to everyone, trainers included. We each play different roles but

none are more important than others.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 149

Table 5. Group A: rating questionnaire results.

Item Mean SD Mean SD

Module 1. MBTI 1. I enjoyed learning about this subject 9.83 0.41 2. This personality model made sense to me 9.33 0.82 3. I think there is a benefit to learning about

personality types 9.83 0.41 4. I would recommend learning about this

subject to others 8.83 0.98 5. I felt that this personality model applied to

me 9.50 0.84 6. I believe this personality model would apply

to other people in the world I live in 9.33 1.03 7. I would like to do more of this type of

training 9.00 1.10 8. I can see how understanding this model has

helped me in my interactions with others 9.33 1.03 9. I can recall specific examples of interactions

with others where I have applied this model effectively 9.33 1.03

10. Overall I would rate the usefulness of this training as __/100 94.17 3.76

Mean a

9.37 0.85 SD

a 0.33 0.27

Module 2. Motivation – Maslow; Power/Achievement/Affiliation; Towards/Away From and Sameness/Difference 1. I enjoyed learning about this subject 9.50 0.84 2. This motivational theory made sense to me 9.00 1.26 3. I think there is a benefit to learning about

types of motivation 9.33 1.21 4. I would recommend learning about this

subject to others 9.17 1.33 5. I felt that this motivational theory applied to me 91.17 1.17

6. I believe this motivational theory would apply to other people in the world I live in 9.00 1.26

Data re-analysed with participant No removed:

7. I would like to do more of this type of training 9.33 1.03 8.50 1.05

8. I can see how understanding this subject has helped me in my interactions with others 9.33 1.21 9.00 0.89

9. I can recall specific examples of interactions with others where I have applied this subject effectively 9.00 1.26 8.67 1.03

10. Overall I would rate the usefulness of this training as __/100 91.67 8.18 8.83 0.75

Mean a

9.20 1.18 SD

a 0.18 0.15

Module 3. Value Systems Presentation and personal feedback 1. I enjoyed learning about this subject 8.57 1.27 8.67 0.82 2. This subject made sense to me 8.29 1.11 9.00 1.10

(Continued )

150 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

system that is related to personal gain, competition, success and goal achievement. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, it can be seen that Group A was primarily driven by FS values, was divided about DQ and ER, and strongly rejected CP. In terms of intervention alignment, by reference to Figure 1, Group A would be

Table 5. Continued

Item Mean SD Mean SD

3. I think there is a benefit to learning about value systems 8.57 1.40 8.83 1.17

4. I would recommend learning about this subject to others 8.29 1.38 8.83 1.17

5. I felt that value systems applied to me 8.29 1.60 6. I believe value systems would apply to other

people in the world I live in 8.14 1.57 7. I would like to do more of this type of training 8.00 2.83 8. I can see how understanding this model has

helped me in my interactions with others 8.00 2.83 9. I can recall specific examples of interactions

with others where I have applied this model effectively 7.43 2.70

10. Overall I would rate the usefulness of this training as __/100 83.57 19.94 90.83 5.85

Mean a

8.17 1.81 8.74 1.04 SD

a 0.35 0.66 0.22 0.19

Module 4. Case studies to apply value systems to real life 1. I enjoyed learning about this subject 8.50 1.76 9.00 1.41 2. The application of value systems to real life

made sense to me 8.76 1.75 9.20 1.30 3. I think there is a benefit to learning about

applying value systems 8.83 1.83 9.40 1.34 4. I would recommend learning about this

subject to others 8.67 1.75 9.20 1.30 5. I felt that the process of applying value

systems to real life applied to me 8.67 2.16 9.40 1.34 6. I believe that applying value systems to real

life would apply to other people in the world live in 7.83 2.48 8.40 2.30

7. I would like to do more of this type of training 8.17 2.40 9.00 1.41

8. I can see how understanding applying value systems to real life has helped me in my interactions with others 8.50 2.51 9.40 1.34

9. I can recall specific examples of interactions with others where I have applied this model effectively 7.67 3.20 8.80 1.79

10. Overall I would rate the usefulness of this training as __/100 84.50 22.88 93.40 7.77

Mean a

8.39 2.21 9.09 1.51 SD

a 0.41 0.49 0.33 0.33

Note: Results were rated on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 indicates ‘very strongly agree’. a Mean and SD of each

module’s results include items 1 to 9 only.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 151

predicted to align most strongly to an intervention based on FS values, be open to GT and HU concepts and possibly give a mixed response to material and delivery approach associated with ER and DQ values.

The Value System of the Intervention

Table 2 was used to design an intervention which would align with Group A’s value system as determined by the Values Test instrument. Therefore, the inter- vention objectives, delivery style and content were designed to be consistent with the FS value system.

The Effectiveness of the Intervention

For Group A, the effectiveness of the intervention was measured using both a focus group and a rating questionnaire. The focus group was recorded and the

Table 6a. Group B: change intervention report – section A

Section A: Module-specific feedback

Module 1. Communication workshop Positive comments: Role plays and open forum discussions Suggested improvements: Include relevant experience and examples relating to [our organization] This workshop could have been done in half a day Prefer more focus on activities, less on theory More role plays to gain benefit from experience and maintain energy levels

Module 2. Self-management workshop Positive comments: Workshop and practical elements worked well. Interesting contents. Suggested improvements: Overall very good, interest can be lost when the training turns to lecture mode More role-play/interactions to keep up the energy The contents of this day could have been delivered in half a day

Module 3. Leadership – Part 1 Positive comments:

Contents and activities were enjoyable and relevant to job roles Suggested improvements: Some examples were dragged out and not really that relevant to the course content and [this

organization] More contents and structure to the course More contents could have been covered in the allocated time Could have been faster-paced Need to maintain the energy and use new materials as much as possible

General More contents to be covered during the day More practical/role-play activities Quicker paced Maintain higher energy levels

152 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

text qualitatively interpreted for key themes by the researcher to identify positive and negative aspects of the intervention. The key themes which emerged from the transcript are recorded in Table 4 where it can be seen that the FS content and approach used to deliver to this group were congruent with the values of the group members.

Because the focus group was facilitated by one of the authors, in order to counter any researcher bias, which could naturally be expected in such a qualitat- ive analysis, the participants who took part in the focus group also completed a quantitative rating questionnaire for the intervention (Table 5).

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of the responses from seven par- ticipants who completed the questionnaire. The mean and standard deviation for each module are also shown. The results indicate that the intervention was generally viewed very positively with an average overall rating .90%. It can be seen that modules 1 and 2 were more favorably viewed than modules 3 and 4.

From an inspection of the raw scores (not shown), it appeared that the low scores for modules 3 and 4 may be due to participant 4 who had rated their satis- faction with these modules as extremely low. For the purpose of determining the

Table 6b. Group B: change intervention report – section B

Section B: General comments based on feedback on three modules:

1. The concept of personal development fits comfortably with each member of the team, i.e. each person is comfortable with the idea that it is possible to learn to understand themselves and to learn what they can do to improve.

2. They prefer the trainer not to lecture them with facts and information. 3. They prefer the trainer to support their learning by giving them opportunities for learning

through experiences and allowing self-discovery through open discussions. 4. The best learning points are the ones that each person works out for themselves during activities

and open discussion as being the most relevant. 5. Learning most preferably comes from self-discovery through experience, followed by learning

from each other through discussion and is least preferred through being lectured. 6. They each accept that they are individually responsible for their own learning and development

and it’s not up to the trainer to hand it to them – i.e. they would not like the trainer simply to ‘give out answers’ or tell them the ‘right way’ to do things.

7. Examples of different situations in different organizations are thought of as being not necessarily relevant to [this organization] – all situations are different therefore examples should be relevant to [this organization].

8. It is important that the training is work-related and enables them to deliver a more effective personal and/or work performance.

9. Learning points that are not directly relevant to improving personal performance or work performance are not really of interest.

10. It is important to get the most out of the time invested in training. 11. It is important that efficient use is made of the training time available and that pace and energy

are maintained throughout. 12. Novel and original or new material is preferred to maintain the energy and interest. 13. Training should ideally move at a quick pace and involve a high level of personal active

participation – learning happens more by personal experience than by watching or observing others.

14. Punishment or penalties for poor learning performance or subsequent poor work performance would be counterproductive and not welcomed.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 153

influence of participant 4 on the ratings of modules 3 and 4 the data was reana- lyzed with participant 4’s data removed – the result is also shown in Table 5 as labeled. This resulted in the mean score increasing from 8.17 to 8.74 for module 3 and 8.39 to 9.09 for module 4. Standard deviations reduced substantially also changing from 1.81 to 1.04 in module 3 and 2.21 to 1.51 in module 4. On this basis, it can be seen that the substantially different results for these two modules produced by participant 4 resulted in a noticeable shift in the mean and standard deviation of the group result. Closer investigation of the individual results for par- ticipant 4 revealed a mean rating for module 3 of 4.78 out of 10 and module 4 of 4.89 out of 10, both of which are between 2 and 3 standard deviations from the original mean of means and substantially more than 3 standard deviations beyond the mean of means obtained by recalculating with participant 4’s data removed.

Having established that participant 4 appeared to differ in their assessment of modules 3 and 4 compared with the rest of the group, we became curious as to whether participant 4’s values profile might reveal an explanation. In comparing participant 4’s individual value system profile (Figure 2) with the average for

Figure 1. Group A Values Test raw scores.

154 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Group A (Figure 1), it can be seen that the acceptance response to the DQ value system is substantially stronger for participant 4. Therefore, there appears to be a strong suggestion of a relationship between participant 4’s low rating score for modules 3 and 4 and the uncharacteristically high acceptance and low rejection of the DQ value system. The content of modules 3 and 4 was based on Grave’s ECLET and its application to personal change in organizations. According to Graves research (Cowan and Todorovic, 2005) it is typical of participants with a strong preference for DQ values to reject material involving value systems theory and application. It is suggested that this is due to conflict between the DQ preference for structure and order and the relativistic pluralism of value systems theory.

In summary, what we can see is that there was substantial alignment between the values of the intervention and the values of the Group. We can also see that there was substantial agreement that the intervention was a success and that the distinct possibility exists that much of this can be attributed to the alignment of values. It can also be seen that where there were concerns, these arose because the Group values were not homogeneous (i.e. participant 4).

Figure 2. Participant 4 (Group A) Values Test raw scores.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 155

Findings – Group B

The Value System of Group B

The Values Test instrument was completed by 10 of the 13 members of Group B. From Figure 3, it can be seen that Group B have a very a different value system to Group A. There is a substantial acceptance of the ER system and a rejec- tion of CP, which might be as expected from a profit-focused private-sector limited company. This combines with a low acceptance and rejection of GT values and substantial rejection of the HU value system (Table 1). This suggests that this group is primarily focused on itself, as opposed to being directed at more holistic and systemic collective and social concerns.

The Values Test used in this study has questionable discriminant validity between BO and FS (and HU) value systems and this is likely to be due to item construction (Jackson, 2009). FS values refer to all of humankind without limit or exception, whereas BO values refer to the local community, tribe, extended family or immediate team or department. Therefore, when items relating to FS values are presented in the confined context of a small organization, they can

Figure 3. Group B Values Test raw scores.

156 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

appear similar to items describing BO values. Furthermore, BO values are unex- pected in an organization of this type which is centered on ER values. Conse- quently, it can reasonably be argued that the item scores for BO are attributable to the FS value system. This discriminant validity question is likely to have appeared with Group B because their focus of attention, owing to the nature of the organization, was primarily inward on the performance of their own business, thus leading participants to interpret the FS items as referring inwardly to their own organization. This is consistent with the above comments referring to Group B’s rejection of GT and HU values. The discriminant validity question did not appear as an issue with Group A. It can be argued that this is due to the primarily external social focus of this charitable organization which leads partici- pants to interpret FS survey items in the wider social context they are intended.

Therefore, reference to Figure 3 shows that Group B aligns with ER values and slightly less so to FS (if we include the BO scores), but will reject material and delivery associated with DQ, GT and HU. It would also be expected to reject material associated with CP and BO.

The Value System of the Intervention

As with Group A, Table 2 was used to design an intervention which would align with Group B’s value system as determined by the Values Test instrument. There- fore, the intervention objectives, delivery style and content were designed to be consistent with the ER and FS value systems, weighted in favor of ER followed by FS. Additionally, for practical purposes, some of the material was communi- cated with a DQ delivery style (i.e. lecturing).

The Effectiveness of the Intervention

For Group B, the organization’s training coordinator facilitated a group discussion to review the intervention and produce a feedback report (Tables 6a and 6b). This is in two sections: Table 6a, workshop-specific feedback; and Table 6b, general comments on style of delivery applying across all thre workshops.

The feedback indicated that Group B did not like being lectured to, listening to theory or receiving penalties for poor learning. Instead, they preferred those aspects of the change intervention which were fast-paced, made efficient use of time, included practical activity for self-procured knowledge, kept energy high and used new novel materials, etc. This contrasts with Group A which preferred a slower paced delivery and longer sessions in order to ensure the maximum understanding for each participant.

In terms of value systems, according to Tables 6a and 6b, there was a clear acceptance of those parts of the intervention that aligned with the ER value system and the FS value system (although slightly less so) and that the delivery style associated with DQ (being lectured) was rejected. For example, the com- ments in Table 6a relating to speed of delivery are consistent with ER values relat- ing to performance and efficiency and align also with Table 6b comments which related to fast-paced facilitation and effective use of time.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 157

Similarly, there are also comments in both Tables 6a and 6b regarding a dislike of lecturing which are supportive of a rejection of DQ values. There are comments in Table 6b supportive of FS values being important, e.g. the emphasis on self- development and self-awareness. However, the preference for speed and effective use of time clashes with the FS value of putting people before performance and adds support to the view that Group B’s dominant value system is ER.

In summary, as with Group A, what we can see is that there was substantial alignment between the values of the intervention and the values of the group. We can also see that there was substantial agreement that the intervention was a success and the distinct possibility that much of this can be attributed to the alignment of values. In addition, it can be seen that where there were concerns, these arose where the intervention values were not fully aligned with the group values, i.e. the dislike of being lectured to.

Conclusion

This article has explored the argument that a potentially significant reason for the failure of change interventions is a lack of alignment between the value system of the change intervention and of those members of an organization undergoing the change. It began by reviewing the literature on organizational change. This showed that many factors had been cited as reasons for the high failure rate of change initiatives; these included poor planning and a lack of competence by those who managed change. However, it was argued that underpinning these factors was the issue of the appropriateness of the content and the approach to change used by organizations, and whether there was value alignment between the two. This was followed by a discussion of Graves’ ECLET from which we concluded that it provided a suitable basis for identifying and aligning value systems. The Method section described how ECLET was adapted and applied to two change interventions in order to test its appropriateness as a method for determining value alignment and as a means of testing the argument for value alignment being a potentially significant factor affecting the degree of success achieved in change initiatives.

The findings from the two interventions showed support for the proposition that value alignment may play a significant role in whether change interventions are accepted by members of an organization and in the intention of those members to respond and implement the change. In the case of Group A, it was established that its value system was predominantly FS, and the intervention was designed to align with this. The feedback from the group indicated that the intervention was highly suited to their needs and had effectively enabled them to develop (i.e. change) as a group. One participant who was predominantly DQ was found to reject the material strongly associated with FS values. Group B’s value system was predominantly ER followed by FS. Once again, the intervention was designed to align with this. Feedback from the group indicated a positive assessment for aspects of the intervention that aligned with ER values, a less positive assessment for those aspects that aligned with FS values and a negative assessment for aspects of the intervention that aligned with DQ values.

158 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Therefore, the findings show some support for the argument that value align- ment can play a significant role in the acceptance of change interventions by organization members. In addition to providing support for this argument, our research has also found that the ECLET-based method is a potentially useful tool for determining an organization’s value system and ensuring that the values which underpin all elements of the approach to change – the objectives, content and delivery style – are aligned with it. For the design and management of organizational change projects, we believe these findings are potentially signifi- cant. However, we must sound a number of cautionary notes:

(1) Although our research shows some support for the importance of value system alignment, there are other factors which also affect the success of change pro- jects, as the literature review showed.

(2) The findings are based on only two small-scale change interventions. (3) ECLET has been around for a long time but was not constructed as a tool for

the design/alignment of change interventions.

It follows that more work is necessary in order to assess the arguments for both value alignment and the ECLET-based method. In particular, further research is required:

(1) To test the value alignment argument and the ECLET-based method on a larger sample of organizations and a wider range of change interventions.

(2) To develop and test further the method, especially to document it and make it more user-friendly.

(3) To identify and evaluate other value system – value alignment methods. (4) To determine the impact of value alignment on the successful implementation

of change projects. (5) To determine the extent to which value systems alignment influences change

project success compared with other factors such as implementation effective- ness and change leadership.

Nevertheless, from the work we have conducted to date, there appears to be strong grounds for pursuing the value alignment argument.

References

Allaire, Y. and Firsirotu, M.E. (1984) Theories of organizational culture, Organization Studies, 5(3),

pp. 193–226.

Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I.T., Cooper, C.L. and Burnes, B. (2005) Work Psychology, 5th

edn (Harlow, UK: FT/Prentice Hall).

Beck, D.E. and Cowan, C.C. (1996) Spiral Dynamics – Mastering Values, Leadership and Change (Oxford:

Blackwell).

Beck, D.E. and Linscott, G. (1991) The Crucible: Forging South Africa’s Future (Denton, TX: New Paradigm

Press).

Benne, K.D. (1976) The processes of re-education: an assessment of Kurt Lewin’s views, Group & Organization

Studies, 1(1), pp. 26–42.

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 159

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (eds) (2000a) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press).

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000b) Resolving the tensions between theories E and O of change, in: M. Beer and N.

Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Boddy, D. and Buchanan, D. (1992) Take the Lead: Interpersonal Skills for Change Agents (London: Prentice

Hall).

Bouckenooghe, D. and Devos, G. (2007) Psychological Change Climate as a Crucial Catalyst of Readiness for

Change: A Dominance Analysis, Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2007/27 (Gent, Belgium: Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School).

Brown, A. (1998) Organisational Culture, 2nd edn (London: FT/Pitman). Buchanan, D., Fitzgerald, L., Ketley, D., Gollop, R., Jones, J.L., Saint Lamont, S., Neath, A. and Whitby, E.

(2005) No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change, International

Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), pp. 189–205.

Burnes, B. (1996) No such thing as . . . a ‘one best way’ to manage organizational change, Management Decision,

34(10), pp. 11–18.

Burnes, B. (2009a) Managing Change, 5th edn (London: FT/Prentice Hall). Burnes, B. (2009b) Organisational change in the public sector: the case for planned change, in: R.T. By and C.

Macleod (eds) Managing Organisational Change in Public Services: International Issues, Challenges and

Cases (London: Routledge).

Burnes, B. (2009c) Reflections: ethics and organisational change – time for a return to Lewinian calues, Journal

of Change Management, 9(4), pp. 359–381.

Burnes, B. and Weekes, B. (1989) AMT: A Strategy for Success? (London: NEDO).

By, R.T. (2005) Organisational change management: a critical review, Journal of Change Management, 5(4),

pp. 369–380.

Caldwell, R. (2003) Models of change agency: a fourfold classification, British Journal of Management, 14(2),

pp. 131–142.

Caldwell, R. (2006) Agency and Change (London: Routledge).

Chonko, L.B., Jones, E., Roberts, J.A. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2002) The role of environmental turbulence, readiness

for change, and salesperson learning in the success of sales force change, Journal of Personal Selling &

Sales Management, 22(4), pp. 227–245.

Cohen, A. and Keren, D. (2008) Individual values and social exchange variables: examining their relationship to

and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational citizenship behavior, Group & Organization

Management, 33(4), pp. 425–452.

Collins, D. (1998) Organizational Change (London: Routledge).

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. L. H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001) Justice at the millennium: a

meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,

pp. 425–445.

Cook, J. (2008) The role of the individual in organisational cultures: a Gravesian integrated approach, PhD thesis,

Sheffield Hallam University.

Cowan, C.C. and Todorovic, N. (eds) (2005) The Never Ending Quest: Clare W Graves Explores Human Nature

(Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET).

Crabtree, B.F. and Miller, W.L. (1999) Using codes and code manuals: a template organizing style of interpret-

ation, in: B.F. Crabtree and W.L. Miller (eds) Doing Qualitative Research, 2nd edn (Newbury Park, CA:

SAGE).

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z.S., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D.E. (2001) Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,

social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2),

pp. 164–209.

Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2005) Organization Development and Change, 8th edn (Mason, OH: South-

Western College).

Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach (London: Chapman).

Denison, D.R. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1991) Organizational culture and organizational development: a competing

values approach, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, pp. 1–21.

Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999) Challenging resistance to change, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

35(1), pp. 25–41.

Detert, J.R., Schroeder, R.G. and Mauriel, J.J. (2000) A framework for linking culture and improvement initiat-

ives in organizations, Academy of Management Review, 25(4), pp. 850–863.

160 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Diefenbach, T. (2007) The managerialistic ideology of organizational change management, Journal of Organiz-

ational Change Management, 20(1), pp. 126–144.

du Plessis, C.J. A. (2008) Ethical failure under the agency logic: grounding governance reform in a logic of value,

Group & Organization Management, 33(6), pp. 781–804.

Dubin, R., Champoux, J. and Porter, L. (1975) Central life interest and organizational commitment of blue collar

and clerical workers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 411–421.

Dunphy, D.D. and Stace, D.A. (1993) The strategic management of corporate change, Human Relations, 46(8),

pp. 905–918.

Elizur, D. (1996) Work values and commitment, International Journal of Manpower, 17(3), pp. 25–30.

French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999) Organization Development, 6th edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Glaser, B. and Straus, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research

(Chicago, IL: Aldine).

Graves, C.W. (1966) Deterioration of work standards, Harvard Business Review, 44(5), pp. 117–126.

Graves, C.W. (1970) Levels of existence: an open systems theory of values, Journal of Humanistic Psychology,

10(2), pp. 131–155.

Graves, C.W. (1971/2002) W.R. Lee (ed.), Levels of Human Existence: A Transcript (Santa Barbara, CA: ECLET).

Graves, C.W. (1974) Human nature prepares for a momentous leap, The Futurist, April, pp. 72 – 87.

Guy, M.E. (1984) Passages through the organization: old dogs and new tricks, Group & Organization Studies,

9(4), pp. 467–479.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Re-engineering the Corporation (London: Brealey).

Handy, C. (1986) Understanding Organizations, 3rd edn (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin).

Handy, C. (1997) The Hungry Spirit (London: Hutchinson).

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1956) The Motivation to Work, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley).

Hoag, B.G., Ritschard, H.V. and Cooper, C.L. (2002) Obstacles to effective organization change: the underlying

reasons, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 23(1), pp. 6–15.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Valves (London: Sage).

Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2004) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B, Ohayv, D. and Sanders, G. (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative

study across twenty cases, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, pp. 286 – 316.

Holwerda, E. and Karsten, E. (2006) Empirical evidence for PeopleScan’s spiral dynamics tests, Masters disser-

tation, University of Amsterdam.

Huczynski, A. and Buchanan, D. (2001) Organizational Behaviour, 4th edn (Harlow, UK: FT/Prentice Hall). Hurlbut, M.A. (1979) , Clare W Graves’ levels of psychological existence: a test design, PhD thesis, North Texas

State University.

Jackson, P. (2009) , A Gravesian values systems perspective on the design of consultative interventions in organ-

izations, unpublished MSc dissertation, University of Manchester.

Johnson, C.S. (1995) The Rokeach Value Survey: underlying structure and multidimensional scaling, Journal of

Psychology, 129(5), pp. 583–597.

Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational Change (New York: Free Press).

King, N. (1998) Template analysis, in: C. Cassell and G. Symon (eds) Qualitative Methods and Analysis in

Organisational Research (London: SAGE).

Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1997) The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: toward a

model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness, The Academy of Management Review, 22(3),

pp. 730–757.

Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

McKinsey & Company (2008) Creating organizational transformations, The McKinsey Quarterly, July, 1 – 7.

Available at http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com.

Mrotek, D.D. (2001) The drama of dysfunction: value conflict in US managed care, Human Relations, 54(2),

pp. 147–172.

Neves, P. and Caetano, A. (2009) Commitment to change: contributions to trust in the supervisor and work out-

comes, Group & Organization Management, 34(6), pp. 623–644.

Novelli, L., Kirkman, B.L. and Shapiro, D.L. (1995) Effective implementation of organizational change: an

organizational justice perspective, in: C.L. Cooper and D.M. Rousseau (eds) Trends in Organizational Be-

havior, vol. 2 (Chichester, UK: Wiley).

Success and Failure in Organizational Change 161

O’Reilly, C. Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D. (1991) People and Organizational culture: A profile comparison

approach to assessing person – organization fit, Academy of Management Studies, 34, pp. 487 – 516.

Orlikowski, W.J. (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated change perspective,

Information Systems Research, 7(1), pp. 63–92.

Ouchi, W. (1981) Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge (Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley).

Peters, T. (1993) Liberation Management (London: Pan).

Pettigrew, A.M. (2000) Linking change processes and outcomes: a commentary on Ghosal, Bartlett and Weick,

in: M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press).

Pugh, D.S. (1993) Understanding and managing organizational change, in: C. Mabey and B. Mayon-White (eds)

Managing Change, 2nd edn (London: The Open University/ Chapman).

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values (New York: Free Press).

Rose M. (1988) Industrial Behaviour. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.

Rousseau, D.M. (2001) Schema, promise and mutuality: the building blocks of the psychological contract,

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychological, 74(4), pp. 511–541.

Schein, E. (1988) Organizational Psychology, 3rd edn (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Schein, E. (1989) Organizational culture: what it is and how to change it, in: P. Evans, T. Doz and A. Laurent

(eds) Human Resource Management in International Firms (London: Macmillan).

Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Schwartz, H. and Davis, S. (1981) Matching corporate culture and business strategy, Organizational Dynamics,

10, pp. 30–48.

Scott, E.D. (2002) Organizational moral values, Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 33–55.

Senturia, T., Flees, L. and Maceda, M. (2008) Leading Change Management Requires Sticking to the PLOT

(London: Bain).

Smith, M.E. (2002) Success rates for different types of organizational change, Performance Improvement, 41(1),

pp. 26–33.

Smith, M.E. (2003) Changing an organization’s culture: correlates of success and failure, Leadership & Organ-

ization Development Journal, 24(5), pp. 249–261.

Sosik, J.J., Jung, D. and Dinger, S.L. (2009) Values in authentic action examining the roots and rewards of altruis-

tic leadership, Group & Organization Management, 34(4), pp. 395–431.

Stace, D. and Dunphy, D. (2001) Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Re-Creating the Successful Enterprise,

2nd edn (Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill).

Stickland, F. (1998) The Dynamics of Change: Insights into Organisational Transition from the Natural World

(London: Routledge).

Storey, J. (1992) Developments in the Management of Human Resources (Oxford: Blackwell).

Taylor, F.W. (1911/1998) The Principles of Scientific Management (New York: Dover). Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations, Academy of

Management Review, 20(3), pp. 510–540.

van Marrewijk, M. (2004a) A values based approach to organization types: towards a coherent set of stakeholder-

oriented management tools, Journal of Business Ethics, 55, pp. 147–158.

van Marrewijk, M. (2004b) The social dimension of organizations: recent experiences with great place to work

assessment practices, Journal of Business Ethics, 55, pp. 135–146.

van Marrewijk, M. and Werre, M. (2003) Multiple levels of corporate sustainability, Journal of Business Ethics,

44, pp. 107–119.

Walinga, J. (2008) Toward a theory of change readiness: the roles of appraisal, focus, and perceived control,

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(3), pp. 315–347.

Weick, K.E. (2000) Emergent change as a universal in organizations, in: M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking

the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Werkmeister, W. (1967) Man and His Values (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press).

Wooten, K.C. and White, L.P. (1999) Linking OD’s philosophy with justice theory: postmodern implications,

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1), pp. 7–20.

162 B. Burnes & P. Jackson

Copyright of Journal of Change Management is the property of Routledge 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.