How to shape organizational culture?

On the dynamic unity of organizational change and organizational culture shaping

I. Introduction

In the broad sense of organization theory, "organization" and "institution" are two categories with similar meanings. "Organization" is regarded as the "structure" of a social body, while "system" is the controlling "norms" and "standards" contained in these "structures", which includes the construction and activities of cognition, norms and control to provide and maintain the stability of the organization (e.g. Scott, 1995). Although there are differences in the definition of organization and system in the theoretical circle, they all agree with the following three basic assumptions: (1) Both organizations and systems contain a series of values, goals, rules, standards and interests-that is, the "organizational culture" on which members of organizations obtain their "identity" or "identity". (2) Organization members are "rational" or at least "bounded rational" to a certain extent, and they will internalize or institutionalize these values, goals, rules and interests as the norms and standards of action. (3) Organizations and individuals have enough adaptability to environmental changes, so that they will take corresponding actions to maintain or protect their unique cultural system. Based on these three assumptions, we can infer (1) that any kind of organizational change (OC) is essentially an organizational maintenance and a definition or defense of its culture. In addition, organizational culture model and organizational system model are very similar and can overlap, because culture and system are embedded with three aspects of homogeneity: cognition, norms and control. In other words, organizational system is the externalization of organizational culture, and organizational change is essentially organizational system change or organizational culture reconstruction. (2) If any kind of organizational change is a "rational choice" for organizations and individual members, then it can be realized and institutionalized. In other words, to achieve specific organizational changes in a specific environment, the key is to make "rational" or correct cultural design and institutional arrangements. So, is there an interactive relationship between organizational change and organizational culture shaping? Should organizational change follow certain principles and paths? What are the factors that influence and determine organizational change? The research on these issues in domestic theoretical circles is still relatively isolated and insufficient. In foreign countries, some scholars put forward the model that "change and effort are equal to time", and some scholars further discussed Edgar H. Schein's "cultural embedding mechanism", and some scholars discussed the principle of organizational change. These achievements are worth learning from. This paper aims to synthesize these research results, describe the interactive relationship and combination dimension between organizational change and organizational culture shaping, and on this basis, find out the variables that affect and determine the institutionalization process of organizational change, so as to establish a theoretical model of organizational change. Through synthesis, the author thinks that organizational change depends on "compatibility", "advantage", "effort" and "time" and is a function of these four variables. It should be noted that the "organization" discussed in this paper is an organization in a broad sense and a general sense.

Second, the three modes of organizational change

In the book Organizational Change: A New Perspective of Theory, Research and Practice (1983), Paul S. Goodman distinguished three organizational change modes proposed by the theoretical circle: planned change, adaptive change and accidental change.

Planned organizational change refers to "a series of activities and procedures aimed at changing individuals, groups, organizational structures and organizational processes". It is called "planned" because "aiming at an object with some transcendental theory and method to achieve a certain purpose"; It emphasizes "the choice of managers" (Goodman: 1982:4). In this way, planned organizational change is a pre-planned, internal and self-improving organizational maintenance. Researchers pay attention to the "rational system" of organizations and emphasize the concepts of "rationality" and "planning". An organization is regarded as a hierarchy or an orderly collective built according to different goals, and its reform is also regarded as a process of planning in advance. Obviously, this organizational form is "Weber-style" and what Scott called "rational organization". In addition, because of this definition, the term "organizational development" (OD) is often used instead of "organizational change". In the eyes of this school of theorists, organizational development is no longer a matter only for industrial and commercial organizations, but is widely carried out by public organizations such as schools, governments and health.

Regarding the adaptive organizational change, Goodman said: "Adaptive change involves modifying an organization or some of its departments to adapt to its environment", and it emphasizes "external induction" (1982:5). But he thinks that the difference between planned change and adaptive change is "arbitrary" because they are not "isolated": planned change can enhance the adaptability of an organization, and adaptability can lead to planned change. Goodman pointed out more specifically that planned change solves the foundation of change, while adaptive change deals with the conditions and/or sources of change; Researchers engaged in planned change pay attention to the internal change of organizations, while theorists with adaptive change pay attention to the number of organizations in the economy, the interaction between organizations and the environment, and the internal change of organizations affected by certain environment. It can be inferred that adaptive change is exogenous, post-event and induced organizational maintenance. Researchers care about "natural" or "open" organizations. Such organizations are often defined as "political alliance" in a narrow sense, that is, the relationship between power and power, as well as various contradictions imposed by internal and environmental factors, which urge organizations to unite. Therefore, from this perspective, organizational change is regarded as a process of adapting to the internal and external environment. At present, there are three mainstream views in the theoretical circle: quantitative (group) ecology theory, organization-environment theory and organizational internal adaptation theory. The models of "natural selection" and "resource dependence" put forward by Howard aldridge and Jeffrey Pfeifer have been mentioned by domestic academic circles.

In contrast, there are few discussions and documents on accidental organizational change in theoretical circles, perhaps because it can not be regarded as a major organizational change model. Goodman believes that accidental change, as its name implies, is neither planned nor adaptive, but happens accidentally in a special organization-loose coupling or anarchy. In this kind of organization, due to the fuzziness and uncertainty among various structural levels or interest groups, organizations often make organizational changes occasionally when necessary. Therefore, the change is implicit and random. Therefore, such organizations are usually considered as "irrational" aggregates.

Third, the equivalent model of efforts over time

Shane is the founder of the school of organizational culture. In addition to his great contribution in the field of organizational culture, he also proposed a "thaw-rebuild-refreeze" model to realize organizational change. "Thawing" originated when the organization was inefficient or failed to achieve the expected goal. At this time, information and data show negative feedback-they are clearly identifiable and can explain why the organization can't achieve its goals, so that all members of the whole organization have a sense of guilt or anxiety. In short, "thawing" is the stage when the leadership of the organization puts organizational change on the table. Subsequently, the leadership "reconstructs" the decision, or redefines its basic assumptions and ideas, and successfully strengthens them in the specific implementation process until there is no "worry" in the organizational system, and it returns to a stable state, that is, a "frozen" state. In other words, organizational change has to go through three stages: initiation, implementation and institutionalization. This is an abstract general model, and the model of "Change equals effort as time goes by, CET" proposed by Clay Carr in 1989 is more specific, which visualizes the process of organizational change proposed by Shain.

Source: Karl and Cray: "Persist in change", in Training, 26th edition,No. 139,No. 1 month 1989, No.3 1 page.

As shown in figure 1, Kyle compares the first stage to the "kick-off" stage. This is a stage of boasting and excitement: the organization is full of speeches and slogans, and its future is portrayed as rosy! However, Kyle also pointed out that if there is no clear expected goal plan, the leading group will not focus all its attention on "walking" after "talking", because "going back to talking" is one thing and "going back to walking" is another. Therefore, Kyle thinks that the second stage is the most thrilling and needs the "efforts" of the whole organization. At this time, people began to learn to follow the new principles and methods of doing things, and in the actual organizational change, various cognitive contradictions and conflicts of interest will appear one after another, so the efforts of the members of the organization, especially the "commitment" from the leadership, must be strengthened to the greatest extent at this time, otherwise the organizational change will retreat with the wind, and the change will not happen as time goes by. The third stage marks a new starting point for the organization-two thirds of the organizational change has been completed, and the change has been recognized and obeyed by the participants: the new operation mode has been adopted repeatedly; Members of this organization generally follow new ideas and rules. In the fourth stage, the efforts of members have brought results over time-the expected goals have been completely institutionalized by the organization, and the organization has completed a change cycle.

CET model is a good tool to understand and analyze organizational change. But what is more noteworthy is that the core meaning of this model is "change equals effort", in other words, there is no change without effort, and organizational change cannot be achieved without "input". Organizational change is often a systematic project, involving a wide range, which requires members of the organization to be highly consistent in their thoughts and actions and make "efforts" or "inputs". However, although CET model provides two independent variables to realize organizational change, namely "effort" and "time", in which "time" can be regarded as a natural established variable and needs no further discussion, Kyle did not discuss the object of the variable "effort" in depth, so he lacked maneuverability. Of course, as the main body of "effort", the object of "effort" is the rules, methods, strategies, technologies and other organizational systems formulated by organizational change. However, in order for these systems to play a role and make "efforts" have substantive content, there must be some kind of transmission mechanism in the middle. What mechanism is this? The author thinks that this mechanism can only be what Shane called "cultural embedding mechanism". As mentioned above, organizational system is only the externalization of organizational culture, and organizational change is the change of organizational system or the reconstruction of organizational culture. Therefore, organizational change and organizational culture shaping are essentially two sides of the same coin and cannot be isolated from each other. The "efforts" of organization members must be carried out with the cultural embedding mechanism as the carrier.

Fourthly, the embedding mechanism of organizational culture.

According to Shain's view, the culture of an organization mainly comes from some kind of "tone" or "climate" created by the founder of the organization, especially in the early days of the establishment of the organization. This "mode" or "atmosphere" is created by the founder's behavior and what he values, and it initially reflects the founder's basic values and beliefs. But with the maturity of the organization, this "model" or "atmosphere" is reflected in the cultural "hypothesis" of the organization. In other words, the process of organizational culture is not a natural process, but an artificial shaping process in which organizational leaders implant values through actions. Because of this, Shane put forward the problem of "cultural embedding mechanism" and divided it into "(primary embedding mechanism)" and "(secondary) combination.

Table 1 Organizational Culture Embedding Mechanism

(Primary) Embedding Mechanism (Secondary) Combining Strengthening Mechanism 1. What leaders often attach importance to, weigh and control 1. The design and structure of the organization. Ways for leaders to deal with emergencies and organizational crises II. Organizational systems and procedures. Observable criteria for leaders to allocate scarce resources III. Ceremonies and ceremonies. Intentional role shaping, education and training. Physical modeling, viewpoints and architecture in organizational space. Observable criteria for leaders to allocate rewards and status. Stories, legends and myths about people and things. Recruitment, selection, promotion and isolation of observable leaders. Formal expression of philosophy, values and standard beliefs about retirement and expulsion of organization members.

Source: Bounds, Grey et al.: Beyond Total Quality Management: Towards an Emerging Paradigm. New york McGraw Hill LNC Company. , 1994, page 52.

And reinforcement mechanism "(secondary pronunciation &; Compensation mechanism), according to Bonds et al. (Bounds, et al., 1994), the table 1 is listed (see previous page). From the table 1, it can be seen that the core problem to be solved by the six "(master) embedding mechanisms" is how to allocate and control organizational resources, so they are essentially resource allocation and control mechanisms. Formally, they are ways for organizations to distribute interests and solve contradictions, but in essence, they reflect the value and goal orientation of organizational subjects, so they are the real "core" of organizational culture and the source of cultural cohesion and change motivation. In contrast, things that are usually regarded as organizational culture, such as organizational structure, architectural art, rituals, legends, expressions and slogans about organizational philosophy and beliefs, are only superficial phenomena of organizational culture, so they are classified as "(secondary) combination strengthening mechanism" by Shane, indicating that they only play an auxiliary role in combination strengthening. In Shain's eyes, these embedding mechanisms may play an important cultural embedding function in the initial stage of the organization, but when the organization matures and stabilizes, they become secondary and second-rate. More instructive, Shane believes that only when they are consistent with the "(main) embedding mechanism" can they become the second cultural embedding mechanism and play a role, otherwise, if there is inconsistency between them, they will be ignored by the members of the organization and even become the source of internal contradictions. Moreover, according to Shane's logic, the change of organizational culture and organizational change are the same thing. He believes that organizational culture can and does change, but it depends on the development stage of the organization: when the organization is in the initial growth stage, leaders rely entirely on their own investment and the distribution of resources and status to shape group values and cultural assumptions, while after the organization reaches maturity, the role of leaders in "change" will be weakened, and fundamental changes will mainly rely on "effort" and "time". Based on this view, Shane proposed the "thaw-rebuild-freeze" model.

Obviously, Shane's "change" is both a cultural change and an organizational change, and the "effort" he refers to is the "effort" in the model that "change and effort are equal over time". But it is also obvious that "efforts" cannot be an empty propaganda slogan, but must be embodied in the specific cultural embedding mechanism, and the cultural embedding mechanism must be taken as its own carrier, especially when the leader's own role declines. Specifically, in order to make "effort" a carrier and promote the emergence of organizational change, at least two conditions must be met: first, "(secondary) combined strengthening mechanism" and "(primary) embedded mechanism" (or between "saying" and "doing") must be consistent; Second, the value orientation and resource allocation reflected by the cultural embedding mechanism must be consistent with the value orientation and interest motivation of the members of the organization (or between "collective" and "individual"). Only when these two conditions are met can members of an organization identify with organizational culture and organizational change, thus mobilizing the efforts of individuals and groups to realize organizational change.

Fifth, the combination dimension of organizational change and cultural embedding.

Through the discussion in the above two sections, we can see that there is an interactive and unified relationship between organizational change and organizational culture shaping. The cultural embedding mechanism is the main institutional arrangement to realize organizational change and the carrier of variable "efforts". At the same time, the author also emphasizes that in order to make "effort" a carrier and promote the emergence of organizational change, it is necessary to maintain the embedding mechanism of "main" and "secondary" cultures (or "speaking" and "doing"), and the value orientation and resource allocation mode of an organization are consistent with those of its members (or "collective" and "individual"). If this view holds, what principles or dimensions should be used to further measure and combine this "consistency"?

According to the model of "change and effort are equal to time", once the process of organizational change enters the third stage, organizational change begins to be institutionalized, which shows that organizational change has been basically successful. The same is true of the shaping of organizational culture, and the sign of success is whether the cultural embedding mechanism can be institutionalized. Isn't this the case with any innovation or change? "Institutionalization" is a state in which the system can be consciously maintained by the members of the organization for a long time. At present, it has become a common keyword in various documents, but few people further discuss how to realize "institutionalization", and many discussions seem empty. From 65438 to 0980, Saul Levin observed and studied the institutionalization process of 14 innovation project in an American university. In his analysis, he first adopted the concepts of "compatibility" and "profitability". According to his definition, "compatibility" refers to the consistency of personality characteristics, norms, values and goals between innovative projects and innovative organizations; "Beneficial"-that is, "profitable" refers to the extent to which innovative projects can meet the needs of the organization itself, internal groups and individuals. Through comparative study, Levin found that among the 14 innovation projects implemented by the university, 9 projects were "compatible" and "favorable" and were successfully institutionalized, while the other 5 projects were difficult to be accepted by the members of the organization because of the lack of sufficient "compatibility" and "favorable". Therefore, he came to the conclusion that "compatibility" and "superiority" of change projects are the necessary conditions to realize the institutionalization of change, and organizational change should follow the principles of "compatibility" and "superiority".

Obviously, the two dimensions of "compatibility" and "advantage" defined by Levine are the "consistency" emphasized by Shane's "cultural embedding mechanism". Levine made this "consistency" more concrete, so he organically combined organizational change with cultural embedding. Its significance lies in that when we want to realize organizational change through cultural embedding mechanism, we must adhere to the principles of "compatibility" and "superiority". Why? Because, from the inside, any modern organization is a combination of different groups and interests. Each interest group has its own preferences and purposes, and all want to get what they want from the collective organization through their relationship. Therefore, there are individual subcultures and sub-interests in collective organizations. In other words, only when the collective and the individual are compatible and beneficial in value and interest orientation, cultural embedding and organizational change are "rational choices", so as to mobilize organizational members to realize organizational change in a specific "time". In this way, it is not only a necessary condition to realize the institutionalization of organizational change, but also a sufficient and necessary condition to have "compatibility" and "advantage" in the change project and its cultural embedding mechanism. It can be seen that the two variables "compatibility" and "advantage" are the combined dimensions of organizational change and cultural embedding, which makes the model of "change and effort are equal with time" have a soul and makes the "cultural embedding mechanism" more instrumental.

Conclusion: Comprehensive model.

Organizational culture shaping and organizational change is a dynamic and unified process, and organizational change takes organizational culture embedding mechanism as its institutional arrangement or tool carrier. In this process, there are four variables that affect and determine whether organizational change can be institutionalized, namely compatibility, advantages, efforts and time. Organizational change is a function of these four variables, which can be expressed mathematically as OC=f(c, p, e, t). Among them, the "effort" degree E of organization members depends on the "compatibility" degree C and "advantage" degree P in the cultural embedding mechanism, and the "time" variable T is the time required for the organization to complete an organizational change cycle.

This model is a theoretical synthesis and construction of previous research results. It organically combines the process of organizational change with the shaping of organizational culture, and emphasizes the importance of organizational change with the cultural embedding mechanism as the carrier and the principles of "compatibility" and "advantage". Therefore, it not only transcends the emptiness of the model that "change and effort are equal with the passage of time", but also enriches and develops the instrumental connotation of Shane's "cultural embedding mechanism". Although it is difficult for us to make an accurate quantitative study on the three variables C, P, E, P and E in the model, as a theoretical generalization and simplification, its guiding significance is still very clear. That is to say, if an organization wants to implement strategies such as cultural innovation and organizational change, it must take the cultural embedding mechanism as the institutional mechanism, meet the principles of "compatibility" and "advantage" to the maximum extent, and integrate the value orientation and interest needs of the organization and its members, so as to mobilize the efforts of all members and realize organizational change within the scheduled time. Accordingly, if we don't follow this model and path, the popular measures such as "cultural innovation", "organizational change" and "organizational development" will become things that are "spoken on the lips", "written on paper" and "hung on the wall", or become a mere formality, "changing the soup without changing the medicine", or give up halfway, or "thankless", especially in the public.

References:

[1] Bounds, Grey et al. (Editor. ), beyond total quality management: towards a new paradigm. New york: McGraw Hill, Maine. , 1994.

[2] Clay Carr, "Insist on Change", in Training, Vol.26, No.39 1989 1 month, pp.39-44.

[3] Clegg, Stephen R. and Cynthia Hardy (editor. ), Learning Organization: Theory and Method. Sage Publishing Company, 1999.

[4] Goodman, Paul S, Organizational Change: A New Perspective of Theory, Research and Practice. Josie Bass Press, 1983.

[5] Levin Sol, Why does innovation fail? Albany: new york State University Press, 1980.

[6] Schein, Edgar H., Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Josie Bass Press, 1992.

[7] Scott, W.Richard, Organization: Rational, Natural and Open System. Prentiss Hall International Limited, 1998.

[8] Scott, W. Richard, institutions and organizations. Sage publishing company, Ine. , 1995.

[9] Li. Sken's Exploration of Organizational Culture [J]. Journal of Jinzhou Teachers College (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 1998, (3).

Liu Yanhua. Analysis of Organizational Culture Theory [J]. Journal of Northwest University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2000, (2).

Chen Chunhua, Liu Xiaoying. Analysis of Driving Mechanism and Resistance Habit of Organizational Change [J]. Soft Science, 2002, Volume 16 (5).

Huang Heping. On the overall strategic method of organizational change [J]. Foreign Social Sciences, 1996, (3).