A critical approach towards an integrative dynamic framework for understanding and managing organizational culture change

Page 1 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

Week 4: Cultural Change in Organizations

Learning Objectives:

1.1 The need for organizational culture change

Every author in organizational culture agrees that change is not optional, its velocity will

increase exponentially in the next 10 years and its influence is both ubiquitous and

unpredictable (Hannah, et al., 2003). Indeed, technological and information advancements

created an environment intolerant of status-quo for every modern organization. If an

organization decides to ignore the necessity of change, market forces will simply render it

unviable. Therefore, the challenge for modern organizations is how to succeed in connecting

change with organizational effectiveness.

Quinn (2000) suggested that if we want to ensure that change is managed in such a way so

to increase effectiveness, one needs to firstly identify the nature of organizational change.

Stated differently, we must first seek to understand the characteristics of the intended change

and, subsequently, try to device and implement different strategies of managing it. Quinn

mentioned three versions of organizational change, which have been repeatedly validated by

many authors, as follows:

(i) Change as a grand technocratic project

(ii) Change as an organic social movement, and

(iii) Change as the re-framing of everyday life

The three approaches are not contradictory. In fact, it is often the case that more than one

of those approaches may be in operation in real-time organizational change.

• Understand that need for organizational culture change

• Understand the concept of cultural dynamics

• Understand the processes involved in the most representative model of

organizational cultural dynamics

Page 2 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

In the first case, organizational change is considered to be a large-scale cultural

transformation from a particular situation to a new, more profitable and prosperous one. The

senior management team is considered to be responsible for initiating the change, as well as

identifying the new cultural form needed. The practical aspects primarily involve the planning

and resource re-allocation, but also a series of highly-demanding decisions that must be taken.

Those decisions should cover the following:

- Evaluation and analysis of the status quo culture situation

- Identification of strategic future goals

- Evaluation and analysis of the expected form of the new culture situation

- Analysis of the observed discrepancies between ‘what is desired’ and ‘what exists’

- Development of a plan for achieving the cultural transformation

- Implementation of the plan for cultural transformation

- Evaluation of the magnitude of change needed (containing cultural change or

continuing the efforts for further change)

The most common means for achieving cultural change could involve traditional

expansion-related tools, such as new recruitment strategies, new performance appraisal

systems, promotion of people who share key values of the new culture, etc. Furthermore, other

management-related tools may also be used, such as a new leadership style which

communicates the new cultural values to the majority of employees, new forms of

interpersonal socialization or new training programmes of continuing professional

development.

Although the above means for achieving change may seem to be very reasonable, it is

important to consider the operational definition of organizational culture, as defined in the

reading of Week 2. I reproduce it below for convenience:

“Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one

group or category of people from others based on shared values, beliefs and assumptions

about how to behave, interact, perform, lead and make decisions.”

This definition may not involve the word change, but it does refer to the ‘collective

programming of the mind’ in the sense of collective consciousness about a specific set of

values, norms or beliefs. This, by its very nature, cannot be a fixed entity. Given that cultural

values are defined in relation to societal ideologies and acceptable patterns of behaviour, it is

Page 3 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

reasonable to assume that those values will be changing in order to ensure that, at any given

period of time, they will be representing the majority of the employees of the organization.

For this reason, the use of new organizational symbols becomes an important means of

accomplishing organizational change. For example, certain actions, such as the use of meetings

in a ritual way or the managers’ references to specific topics, may be used to indicate what is

important in this cultural change. Similarly, the use of very specific language, such as

intentional slogans, stories or expressions, or the use of material objects, such as logos, dress

code or corporate architecture, etc., may also be used to familiarise individuals with the new

cultural values or to highlight the areas of expected change.

In the second approach, organizational culture change is considered to be an organic,

necessary social movement arising from within the organization and it is not imposed from the

senior managers. Groups within the organization revise their thinking, valuing and giving

meaning to ‘phenomena’, spontaneously, and they decide to follow the flow of new emerging

ideas, which eventually lead to the adaptation or change of certain values and beliefs. These

groups could be employees, who are able to understand the new ideas originating in society at

large, or certain groups of people whose external influence of the organization is significant.

For example, a group of the organization’s customers, a group of the organization’s major

competitors, etc. The most important point in this approach is the differentiation between a

moderate adaptation and a major change of the existing culture. The former is usually the

result of external pressures to adjust to new working conditions, such as new technological

equipment, new working relations, new management strategies, etc. The latter is the result of

institutional pressure to change long-held beliefs, ideas and values.

The third approach is the re-framing of everyday life. This approach adopts the view that

organizational culture may change through the re-framing of certain meanings or values by an

influential actor, either a senior manager or an influential employee. This re-framing concerns

the way in which certain values are perceived or the different meanings assigned to them. The

actor engaged in everyday re-framing influences people he/she interacts with, and these

people, in turn, influence other people they interact with. This may lead to a chain-effect of

cultural re-framing, which is, ultimately, translated into organizational cultural change. To this

end, organizational culture change becomes an ongoing informal activity involving

pedagogical leadership in which an actor exercises a subtle influence though the re-negotiation

of meaning (Alvesson, 2003).

Page 4 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

It is important to note that the three approaches have only been briefly presented in order

to place emphasis on the complexity associated with organizational culture change. Indeed, all

three approaches imply that, in order to effectively manage organizational change, a

sophisticated framework is necessary to guide relevant strategies and operations. For this

reason, the concept of cultural dynamics will be presented in the next section. Further

discussion on the theoretical and practical aspects of the management of organizational culture

will be discussed in the reading of Week 5. The discussion will aim to utilise key aspects of

cultural dynamics.

Page 5 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

1.2 Cultural dynamics

The idea of cultural dynamics arose from the realization that the emergence of

organizational culture may not be fully understood based on the assumption that the dominant

values of an influential group of employees is transformed into a type of culture. The concept

of cultural dynamics refers not only to the final outcome of the emerging culture, but also the

processes involved in terms of the way in which a system of values is transformed into a stable

type of culture and its potential change. In other words, cultural dynamics reveal the dynamic

nature of culture by investigating not only the starting point and the final outcome, but the

intermediate processes, as well.

Hatch & Schultz (2002) provided a very helpful model of cultural dynamics in

organizational culture, which attempted to explain the evolutionary and dynamic nature of

culture. The model is considered to be the most representative framework for understanding

the notion of cultural dynamics in the literature.

Page 6 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

This model is presented in Figure 4.1 below.

Manifestations Realization

CULTURE

Interpretation Symbolization

Figure 4.1 The Cultural Dynamics Model

The first thing we can observe in Figure 4.1 is the four processes associated with the

emergence of culture. According to the model of cultural dynamics, organizational culture

cannot be described as a static gradual process. The emergence of culture occurs while four

different processes are in operation, as follows: manifestation, realization, symbolization and

interpretation. These processes involve interactions between cultural assumptions, values,

artifacts and symbols, which continuously operate in specific ways leading to the emergence of

a stable culture, but also the creation of its inherent change when the time and conditions are

appropriate. In this context, cultural change is simply the repetition of the four processes with a

different content and different interactions between assumptions, values, artifacts and symbols.

Therefore, if we are able to understand the functionality involved in the emergence of culture

using the cultural dynamics model, we will also be able to understand the dynamics underlying

organizational culture change.

values

Artifacts Assumptions

Symbols

Page 7 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

It is important to mention that none of the four prementioned processes may be perceived

as a ‘stand-alone’ instrumental mechanism. Each process requires the other three processes in

order to be meaningful. Stated differently, all four processes are inter-related and their inter-

dependence is responsible for the understanding of the dynamic nature of culture. Below, the

four different processes are described, in turn.

The manifestation process refers to the way in which cultural assumptions reveal

themselves in the emotions, perceptions and cognitions of organizational members. In other

words, manifestation is the process in which intangible assumptions are translated into

recognizable values by the individuals of the organization. This process may occur in two

different ways, as follows: (i) through the potential influence of assumptions on values; and (ii)

through the effects of value recognition on cultural assumptions. The two ways are discussed

in further detail below.

(i) Influence of cultural assumptions on values (proactive manifestation)

Cultural assumptions about certain values create expectations to individuals about the

importance of those values in their working and personal life. These expectations, in turn, are

capable of influencing people’s perceptions, thoughts and feelings about things they like or

dislike about the organization, which they associate with those values. In this way, cultural

assumptions may easily influence the way in which people within the organization perceive

certain values. For example, if the cultural assumption is that employees within an organization

are lazy, the expectations would be that this is a factor of hindering successful performance.

The perception of laziness, as well as the negative thoughts and feelings about its possible

effects, could easily be translated into a cultural value of controlling laziness. Furthermore, the

realization that laziness may compromise the magnitude of possible effort exerted by

employees would indicate that the value set effort-autonomy must be replaced by the value set

effort-control. Therefore, an initial assumption of laziness may easily transform the significant

value of autonomy into the value of control.

(ii) Influence of values on cultural assumptions (retroactive manifestation)

When individuals within the organization are conscious of the dominant value system of

the organization, they are able to recognize and personalize those values, i.e. they are able to

identify elements of those values that manifest themselves in their everyday working and

Page 8 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

personal life. In this case, there is an ongoing alignment between values and their

corresponding cultural assumptions. Similarly, there is an ongoing re-affirmation of the

cultural assumptions from which the values emerged.

However, there are occasions in which new values are imported either by the senior

management team or by external influences, such as a group of competitors. In that case, the

new values would lead the re-alignment of the cultural assumptions in order to reflect not only

the old, but also, the new values. The crucial point is that this re-alignment will only occur if

the new imported values are perceived to be ‘compatible’ with the existing culture, otherwise

the manifestation process will dismiss them. If, for example, the new values are perceived to

belong in another type of culture, the manifestation process would simply ignore them. This

retroactive manifestation process is considered to be more important than the proactive one

simply because it either solidifies existing culture or facilitates cultural change through the

clarification and reaffirmation of the cultural assumptions (Kunda, 1992).

The realization process refers to the transformation of expectations into social or

material reality and the maintenance or change of existing values through the production of

artifacts, such as rituals, organizational stories, humour and symbolic physical objects. There

are two ways in which this realization process takes place, as follow: (i) through the

transformation of values into artifacts; and (ii) through the re-affirmation of values by artifacts.

We will examine both of those processes in further details below.

(i) Transformation of values into artifacts (proactive realization)

The realization process gives substance to the expectations created through the

manifestation process. In other words, the realization process facilitates an activity whose

outcomes allow expectations and the associated values to be materialized, i.e. be represented in

some form of artifacts. Such activities could include the production of objects, such as

organizational reports, newsletter, buildings, etc. or the engagement in organizational events,

such as meetings, award banquets, etc. In the example of laziness mentioned before, artifacts,

such as time clocks, daily productivity reports, performance meetings and visually-accessible

offices are compatible with the value of controlling laziness. Stated differently, the expectation

that laziness must not interfere with the performance process and the associated value of

controlling lazy behavior are materialized via the introduction of those artifacts (tangible

outcomes).

Page 9 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

(ii) Re-affirmation of values by artifacts (retroactive realization)

In this case, artifacts that are materialized through a clear system of values are used to

re-affirm those values and their expectations. It is important to mention that we are referring to

the values representing the existing culture and not the values of a different culture. However,

if there are values imported from a different culture, the realization process would take into

account the artifacts produced by that culture in order to challenge the existing values and

associated expectations. If those new values are absorbed by the existing culture, then artifacts

will facilitate the re-alignment of values, which, in turn, will re-align the necessary

assumptions. However, if the new values are dismissed by the existing culture, there won’t be

a need for a realization process to take place because the new values will be dismissed at the

manifestation level.

For example, if an organization introduces radical innovation plans and unusual strategic

goals, there may be resistance by the employees of the organization to accept them. However,

if a group of employees started examining the new plans and goals in a thorough way and

found many positive aspects associated with the working environment and working schedule

of each employee, then the initial resistance might not last. In this case, the generated artifacts

could be the minutes of strategy meetings, organizational reports of expected medium and

long-term performance, pilot research studies for the upcoming changes, etc. The retroactive

realization process occurs if these artifacts are powerful enough to be accepted by the

employees of the organization; in which case, the artifacts would be capable of re-aligning the

established values in such a way so to fully absorb the new values into the existing

organizational culture. Similarly, older artifacts would be in an ongoing interaction with

existing values in order to ensure that there is a constant alignment between produced artifacts

and existing values.

The symbolization process involves the interaction between artifacts and symbols.

Organizational symbols involve the corporate logo, slogans, stories, actions and non-actions,

corporate architecture, visual images or metaphors (Gioia, 1986). A symbol is considered to

be anything that represents a conscious or unconscious association with some wider, normally

abstract concept or meaning (Dandridge, et al., 1980). According to Cohen (1985), symbols do

not simply represent something, they also allow those who employ them to supply part of the

meaning of the symbol. The symbolization process occurs in two different ways, as follows: (i)

The role of artifacts in finalizing the meaning of symbols; and (ii) The role of symbols in

Page 10 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

enhancing awareness of the literal meaning of artifacts. Further details about each one of those

alternative avenues are provided below.

(i) The role of artifacts in finalizing the meaning of symbols (prospective

symbolization)

The artifacts, once materialized through the realization process, retain an objective form

and a literal meaning. The process of symbolization aims to provide the context beyond the

literal domain, i.e. the symbolic meaning of the artifacts, which is usually developed from

experiences. For example, if the senior management team of an organization decides to offer a

bouquet of roses on Mother’s day to every mother who works for the organization, the gesture

has two meanings. Firstly, the bouquet has the literal meaning of a bundle of flowers.

Secondly, it also has a symbolic meaning, which could be an expression of appreciation.

However, subjective and figurative associations allow the recipient to supply part of the

meaning of the bundle of roses. Stated differently, such associations may influence the

perceptions of every mother-employee in terms of how much value they assign to the same

bouquet of roses. In other words, every mother-employee could assign a different symbolic

meaning based on past experiences with such symbolic gifts, how significant her friends

consider such gestures, how consistent such a gesture may be with the substance of

appreciation based on the everyday performance, career goals, the professional review process,

etc.

(ii) The role of symbols in enhancing awareness of the literal meaning of

artifacts (retrospective symbolization)

The generated symbols are not simply the result of a well-accepted additional meaning

of a particular artifact, i.e. the surplus meaning which goes beyond the literal meaning. The

same is true for the subjective value assigned by every person within the organization for the

same artifact. This symbolic value of the artifacts will depend on the individual’s recognition

of the artifacts’ symbolic form, and not simply their objective form. Therefore, symbols are

capable of enhancing people’s awareness of the literal meaning of artifacts because the

symbolic value reinforces the literal value of an artifact. For example, let’s consider the artifact

to be a desk of each employee within the organization. The senior managers were given large

and impressive desks while junior employees were given small and rather ordinary desks. If

the well-accepted view were that professional advancement and recognition is associated with

a better and larger desk, then the symbolic value assigned to every desk would be different.

Page 11 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

The important point is that, once the proactive symbolization takes place, each employee

perceives the literal value of the desk to be different compared to the value assigned before the

symbolization process. Stated simply, each employee ceases to see each desk as an object

because he/she now considers its symbolic value. In other words, the literal meaning and value

of every desk is significantly enhanced due to the symbolic meaning attached to it.

When the symbolic meaning is attached to the artifact, it is considered to be culturally-

significant because it is capable of shaping the adaptation process of the cultural assumptions

associated with certain existing values, or indeed the embrace of new values. This is happening

through the process of interpretation, which we examine next.

The interpretation process involves the subjective interpretation of symbols, once

established. We mentioned before that each individual within the organization perceives the

value of every symbol differently. There is a well-accepted symbolic value in the sense that all

people of the organisation attach a similar value to that symbol. In the example of a desk, all

employees would consider the impressive, large desk of the CEO of the organization to be of a

much higher symbolic value compared to the value assigned to medium-ranked managers or

entry-level consultants. Indeed, this part of the symbolic value is still subjective, but it is

agreed upon as an unspoken rule, rather than a conscious agreement, between all individuals of

the organization.

In addition to that, there is a subjective symbolic value assigned by each individual of

the organization separately. This particular part of the symbolic value, by definition, differs

according to how each individual perceives the symbol for his/her own situation and working

circumstances within the organization. In other words, the symbol permits a subjective

interpretation and provides scope for interpretive manoeuvre by those who use it. This process

is, essentially, a second-order experience of symbolization – with prospective symbolization

being the first-order experience. It is also called the hermeneutic perspective (Wilson, 1987).

The hermeneutic perspective suggests that the interpretation process involves the

dynamic movement, back and forth, between cultural assumptions and generated symbols.

There are two ways to consider this interaction, as follows: (i) Symbols are capable of

enhancing the meaning of cultural assumptions; and (ii) Cultural assumptions are capable of

altering the meaning of symbols.

Page 12 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

(i) Symbols are capable of enhancing the meaning of cultural assumptions

(prospective interpretation)

In the prospective interpretation, symbols are considered as capable means of reflecting,

enhancing or revising the meaning of cultural assumptions. This is due to the fact that symbols

are reconstructed to reflect the surpluss meaning of artifacts they now carry and allow for a

subjective interpretation to take place by each individual within the organization. In other

words, prospective interpretation capitalises on the new experience of added symbolic meaning

to certain artifacts and aims to challenge pre-established assumptions by either confirming or

revising them. In the latter case, the symbolic meaning provides a new way of understanding

cultural assumptions, and for that reason, the initially-established assumptions are revised

accordingly. Stated differently, the interpretation process makes it possible for culture to

absorb newly-symbolized content into its core or seek for different assumptions, which may

drive the formation of new values, and, gradually, the development of a new type of culture.

(ii) Cultural assumptions are capable of altering the meaning of symbols

(retrospective interpretation)

The cultural assumptions imply “already known” knowledge, which plays an

instrumental role in shaping the ultimate type of the prevailing culture within an organization.

To this end, the new value attached to symbols through the symbolization process is

considered to be “new” knowledge in terms of the newly-established understanding of

artifacts, and hence, values. The retrospective interpretation reconstructs the meaning of

symbols. It occurs when “already known” knowledge comes to re-examine the meaning of

symbols in order to check whether they conform or not with the pre-established broader

cultural frame of the organization. The process may lead to alter the understanding of symbolic

meaning leading to the re-examination of artifacts and values, or simply confirm that the

“new” knowledge provided is largely compatible with the organization’s existing cultural

assumptions, which are treated as a reference point.

At this point, it is important to remind ourselves of the retroactive manifestation process,

which involves the potential influence of established values on shaping and refining cultural

assumptions. The process involved the reconfirmation of existing culture or the reinforcement

of cultural change through the clarification and reaffirmation of cultural assumptions. At the

same time, the prospective interpretation process involves the possible reconfirmation of the

existing culture or indeed, the possible addition of new cultural knowledge and, hence,

Page 13 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

initiation of cultural change, through the subjective interpretation of symbols. Therefore, it is

easy to observe the possible intersection of the retroactive manifestation process with the

prospective interpretation process. In case the two processes collide, the ultimate type of

culture will reflect the influence exerted by the process with the highest impact. However, if

the two processes move to the same direction, the influence on the ultimate type of culture will

be stronger.

Overall, the prevailing culture of the organization must reflect the dynamic influence of

all four processes mentioned above. These processes operate in a bi-directional way,

essentially forming eight different ‘movements’ in constant motion. Therefore, it is not easy to

predict how exactly the ultimate type of organizational culture will be formed. Nonetheless, the

cultural dynamics model allowed us to observe the different dynamic mechanical ‘movements’

and understand the explanations provided, which have now come full circle.

Page 14 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

1.3 Α note on the dynamic nature of culture formation

Although the cultural dynamics model offered a new perspective of organizational

culture, it is important to revisit the meaning of the term dynamic.

In order to understand the dynamic nature of culture formation, we reproduce Figure 4.1

in a slightly different manner. In Figure 4.2, the four processes, which involve the forward and

backward models of operation (overall, eight processes) are represented via two different

wheels. Wheel (a) represents the clockwise (forward) movement of the operation and Wheel

(b) represents the anti-clockwise (backward) movement of the operation.

Wheel (a): The clockwise operation of Wheel (b): The anti-clockwise operation of

the Cultural Dynamics Model the Cultural Dynamics Model

Figure 4.2 The mechanics of the Cultural Dynamics Model

We mentioned before that, although the four processes occur separately, they are all

interconnected. In other words, culture emerges as the result of the overall outcome of all those

processes. The dynamism of the model is further understood if we picture the clockwise

operated wheel (forward movement) forming one wheel within which the anti-clockwise

operated wheel (backward movement) turns. Therefore, the dynamic nature of culture

formation is assessed only through the simultaneous counter-action of the two wheels.

Cultural

Dynamics

(forward

operation)

Cultural

Dynamics

(backward

operation)

Page 15 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

This clarification about the dynamic nature of culture formation is useful not only

because it helps us comprehend the complexity associated with culture formation, but also

because it provides an instrumental vehicle on which we can explore organizational cultural

change and the associated management approaches to the emergence of new types of

organizational culture. These topics will be presented in the next week’s reading.

Page 16 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

1.4 Concluding remarks

In previous readings, we explored the significant role of culture on organizational life. We

discussed the relationship between culture and management and between culture and

performance, which allowed us to start drawing the picture of organizational culture

management. However, it was not the maintenance of the existing culture that was revealed to

be demanding and challenging, but rather the management of cultural change, regardless of

whether the necessity of change was initiated by the organization itself or by external forces.

In this reading, we aimed to understand the introductory aspects of the different approaches

to the management of cultural change. Change was presented as a technocratic project, as an

organic social movement or simply, as the re-framing of everyday life. The three approaches

have a complementary character and, when taken together, they allow us to better understand

the operational definition of organizational culture provided in Week’s 2 reading.

Τhe realization that cultural change is characterised by a significant degree of complexity

led us to the introduction of the very important concept of cultural dynamics. This concept

emphasized the importance of the different processes taking place during cultural maintenance

or cultural change. In other words, it was important to escape the traditional static approach

towards organizational culture and adopt the cultural dynamics model, as a representative

framework for understanding the dynamic nature of culture. The dynamism of this model was

based upon the realization that different processes, such as manifestation, realization,

symbolization and interpretation, are in constant motion allowing simultaneous bi-directional

interactions between cultural assumptions, values, artifacts and symbols. This framework

allowed us to understand that organizational culture emerges as the final outcome of a number

of complex processes, which are directly influenced by the system of values of the most

influential group within the organization. Stated differently, we are now in a position to

observe that, although the most representative system of values may influence the prevailing

type of organizational culture, other processes interact with this system before the ultimate

type of culture emerges. This mechanism is repeated during the ongoing maintenance of

culture or indeed during the formulation of management strategies for dealing with the change

of organizational culture. The philosophy of cultural dynamics is that if we are able to

understand the mechanics leading to the initial emergence of organizational culture, we will be

Page 17 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

able to observe and understand the mechanics of the re-emergence of culture, i.e. the

emergence of a new type of prevailing culture associated with organizational change.

The topics covered in this reading allow us to start exploring cultural change through the

lens of the psychological model presented in Week’s 2 reading (Figure 2.2). If you recall, the

model was based on the competing values framework, whose dynamic character we will now

be able to explore and comprehend.

With the knowledge acquired from the cultural dynamics model (Figure 4.1), we will

consider both the theoretical and empirical aspects of cultural change and the potential

management strategies associated with it. These issues will be explored in the next reading.

Page 18 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

Reading Tip

- In this reading, we presented the cultural dynamics model. In order to be able to

understand the mechanics of the model, i.e. the different ‘movements in motion’, we

needed to imagine the model as two different wheels moving towards a different

direction. This model indicated how complex organizational culture is in terms of both

as a concept and as an organizational variable. For these reasons, it is now important

that you start engaging with empirical studies in organizational culture. Theoretical

studies provide the basic knowledge about the emergence of change of organizational

culture, but only empirical studies will allow you to see how these outcomes occur in

practice. Please do not confine yourselves within the narrow scope of the recommended

textbook of this module. It is important to explore additional resources, namely

scientific journals focusing on empirical research.

Page 19 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management

1.5 References

Alvesson, M. (2003). Understanding organizational culture, 2nd ed. London, United

Kingdom: Sage.

Gioia, D. A. (1986). Symbols, scripts, and sensemaking. In H. P. Sims (Ed.), The thinking

organization: 49-74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. P. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. London: Tavistock Publications

& Ellis Horwood Ltd.

Dandridge, T. C., Mitroff, I., & Joyce, W. F. (1980). Organizational Symbolism: A Topic To

Expand Organizational Analysis. Academy of Management Review, 5(1), 77–82.

Hannan, M. T., Pólos, L., & Carroll, G. R. (2003). Cascading Organizational Change.

Organization Science, 14(5), 463–482.

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The Dynamics of Organizational Identity. Human

Relations, 55(8), 989–1018.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture: Control and commitment in a high-tech corporation.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Quinn, Robert E. (2000). Change the World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilson, T. P. (1987). Sociology and the mathematical method. In A. Giddens & J. Turner

(Eds.), Social theory today: 383-404. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

Page 20 PSY704: Organizational Culture Management