Organizational Culture and Climate in Transformations for ...€¦ · organizational change. The concept of organizational cul-ture shows similar prominence in the ex-panding literature

THE DYNAMICS OF CULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGETransformations for Quality and Innovation

14

Organizational Culture andClimate in Transformationsfor Quality and Innovation

� John L. Michela and W. Warner Burke

Twenty years ago, few managers out-side of Japan knew very much abouthow to produce goods and services at

the levels of quality that customers demandtoday, and some managers seemed not tocare. Ten years ago, nearly everyone soughtquality in some way, but the specific practicesof quality (such as statistical process control[SPC] and broadcasting the voice of the cus-tomer [VOC] throughout the organization)were not sufficiently pervasive. Today thesepractices are fairly well understood and fairlywidely implemented in their settings of great-est applicability (e.g., SPC in manufactur-ing). There is even talk that total quality man-agement (TQM) is becoming absorbed intomainstream management practice and is, inthis sense, fading in prominence (Schroeder,1998). The future is said to belong to compa-nies that satisfy customers not only through

traditional quality but also through innova-tion, which promises products having new orenhanced value to customers (e.g., Woodruff,1997).

However, as managers and scholars knowwell, understanding and even implementingworthwhile practices do not necessarily re-sult in their intended benefits. Newspapersand other mass-media outlets have describedvarious large-scale studies of TQM practice,usually with the conclusion that X (huge)percentage of firms have implemented atleast some TQM practices, and Y (tiny) per-centage of firms have expressed satisfactionwith the results of these efforts. An explana-tion given frequently in the TQM literaturefor this state of affairs draws on the constructof organizational culture. Woods (1997) putsit succinctly: “Increasingly, organizations arediscovering that quality management is more

� 225

jmichela

Text Box

Michela, J. L., & Burke, W. W. Organizational culture and climate in transformations for quality and innovation. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 225-244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000.

about cultural change than it is about anyspecific practices” (p. 49).

Indeed, awareness of organizational cul-ture’s importance, as reflected in the TQMliterature, is impressive. For example, in adiscussion of continuous improvement (orCI, which is one of the aspects of TQM mostconnected with organizational culture andclimate), Jha, Michela, and Noori (1996) in-clude organizational culture management ina short list of success factors for CI—a listthat also includes leadership, planning, andtraining. This emphasis on culture has beensupported by a tabulation of key words usedin a commercial database of reference cita-tions to articles on CI detailed by Michela,Jha, Noori, Weitzman, and Eickmeier(1997). In this tabulation, corporate culture(the specific term used in this database) wasfound to be more prevalent in articles on CIthan key words such as leadership, training,customer satisfaction, and organizationalchange. The concept of organizational cul-ture shows similar prominence in the ex-panding literature on innovation. For exam-ple, 25% of the pages in a recent book oninnovation by Tushman and O’Reilly (1997)fall within chapters concerning culture andculture management.

Nevertheless, it is one thing to say that or-ganizational culture is often invoked as anexplanation for success and failures in qual-ity or innovation, and it is something else tosay that this explanation is sound. Our reser-vations about this explanation, at least astypically presented, are one impetus to ourwriting this chapter. Explanations that in-voke a related concept, organizational cli-mate, also have their shortcomings, as wewill describe.

Despite these shortcomings, the conceptsof organizational culture and climate have agreat deal to offer to leaders and researchers.Leaders who understand the nature and man-agement of culture and climate are well posi-tioned to accomplish the major organiza-tional changes often required for quality andinnovation, because the culture and climateliteratures point to many levers for change.

Researchers aware of the links of culture andclimate to quality are, we believe, more likelyto look in productive directions for explana-tions of quality or innovation program suc-cesses and failures.

In this chapter we will examine variousconnections between quality and innovationon the one hand and culture and climate onthe other. In the most basic terms, the essenceof this connection is that appropriate cultureand climate promote successful organiza-tional change for quality, and inappropriateculture and climate stifle it. Consequently, wewill also give some attention to organiza-tional change models and methods as they re-late to concepts and models of culture, cli-mate, quality, and innovation.

HOW DOES A QUALITYORIENTATION AFFECT

EMPLOYEES’ WORK?

One starting point for analyzing culture andquality is to look at the work that people dounder traditional versus quality-orientedmanagement. Traditionally, an employee hasa job description that specifies tasks. Whenthese tasks are accomplished along withthose of employees with different job descrip-tions, the work of the organization gets done.For example, a purchasing clerk makes pur-chases and a receiving clerk makes records ofraw materials received for use in manufactur-ing operations.

A quality orientation starts with analysisof the larger processes within which work ac-tivities of this kind are embedded. Is there abetter way to organize jobs and departmentsso that the underlying process (obtaining rawmaterials) may be accomplished more effi-ciently and reliably? Efficiency is importantfor keeping final cost to the customer to aminimum. Minimizing this cost is importantbecause the ultimate aim of quality manage-ment is to maximize value provided to cus-tomers, and value, in turn, can be understoodas a ratio of benefit to cost. Reliability is im-

226 � THE DYNAMICS OF CULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

portant partly because it bears on cost, butalso because it bears on the value ratio’s nu-merator—benefit to customers. For example,it may be important to a customer to receivemanufactured goods on a specific deliverydate. An unreliable process for obtaining rawmaterials thus will reduce the manufacturer’scapacity to perform in the manner desired bythe customer.

The concept of reliability in quality is per-haps more familiar in terms of the character-istics of objects made from raw materials(e.g., Is every piston of the same length, diam-eter, and weight?) and of the raw material it-self (Is the metal flawed in some way?). Thereason your North American car is in theshop more often than your neighbor’s Toyotais that Toyota has mastered the areas of qual-ity management practice that correspond tothe two aspects of this example—respec-tively, statistical process control and suppliermanagement.

This chapter is not the place to delve intodetails of these or other topics in the field ofquality management, such as analyses of thedimensions of value (durability, deliverytime, and so on) as perceived by customers(e.g., Garvin, 1988). Instead, the point of thepreceding is to begin to suggest the manychanges to traditional work organizationthat a quality orientation requires, so that wecan go on to consider effects of culture andclimate on these changes.

When process improvement becomes ev-eryone’s job on a continuing basis, employ-ees’ scope of work is enlarged to include ana-lyzing processes (e.g., flowcharting),measuring the performance of processes(e.g., percentage of pistons manufacturedoutside of tolerances), and using teamworkskills (e.g., coordinating team members’ ef-forts, resolving conflicts). In effect, everyonehas a role in process innovation. Teamworkactually has several meanings for quality.One meaning involves use of temporaryteams for process analysis and improvementin settings such as manufacturing. Anothermeaning involves fostering cooperation ofvarious departments or divisions when they

all make contributions to an overarchingprocess such as “order fulfillment.” Still an-other involves ongoing production teamswhose members may be multiskilled andwhose work may involve a larger portion oftotal production as had been the case tradi-tionally. Yet another involves groupings ofservice providers into units that may be en-couraged to know their customers and be em-powered to serve them well, in settings suchas financial services, computer software, andtelecommunications.

Of course, it makes no sense for frontlineemployees to do process analysis unless realprocess changes may result, or to reorganizeworkers into production or service teams un-less real increases in responsibility and au-thority coincide. Thus these changes in workactivities and team organization imply poten-tially sweeping changes in roles of managers,technical experts such as manufacturing orinformation systems engineers, andnonmanagement workers (Olian & Rynes,1991). It is this depth and breadth of changethat leads to the view of change for quality asculture change.

WHAT IS A CULTURE FOQUALITY AND INNOVATION?

Values

Viewed through the lens of an organiza-tional culture perspective, the concept of val-ues takes on a strikingly prominent place indiscussions of quality management. For ex-ample, a keynote speaker at a recent confer-ence on quality began her remarks by listingthe values that characterize quality-orientedfirms (Flynn, 1998). Very similar lists, such asthat in Table 14.1, are used frequently inmanagement training and consulting onquality (e.g., Beecroft, 1995). In a recent re-view of 21 published works on quality man-agement that mention culture explicitly, DeLima (1999) presents a comparable list ofcultural values held to be important for qual-

Transformations for Quality and Innovation � 227

ity. As a final example, Camisón (1998) de-scribes values as providing “the base of”TQM (p. 488).

Values, of course, are central to many defi-nitions of organizational culture (e.g.,Cameron & Quinn, 1999; Schein, 1985).Values are understood to influence a wide va-riety of specific behaviors, so if employeeshave the right values for quality, the behav-iors should follow. One frequently used ex-ample is that of the Nordstrom departmentstore employee whose value on satisfying thecustomer motivates a long drive to delivergoods needed right away by a customer. Tothe extent that this high level of service to thecustomer is consistent with company strat-egy, the value has promoted the behaviorneeded from the employee.

When writers describe culture as critical tosuccess in achieving quality, they evidentlyhave in mind this kind of motivational force.Assuming behavioral congruity with strat-egy, it is clearly a good thing if a retailer’s em-ployees are motivated to satisfy customers,which is to say, if they value customer satis-faction. Similarly, following Table 14.1, gen-erally a manufacturer’s employees should bemotivated to improve production processeson a continuing basis (otherwise, competi-tors will get ahead through their process im-provements).

An emphasis on values for managing em-ployee behavior for quality has a specialunity or coherence. This coherence followsfrom the premise that superior individual

performance and organizational perfor-mance are possible only when the wholeemployee is engaged at work. The contrastagain is with traditional management, which,in the extreme case of Taylorism, literallyheld that the employee could leave his or her“brains at home” because tasks and incentivestructures had been, in theory, specified soprecisely and optimally. Under values-basedmanagement, employees are given directionnot in literal terms but in terms of objectives,goals, or desired end states. Employees thenapply discretion in seeking these ends. ThatNordstrom employee turns out to be a prettygood example of this notion. Presumably, noone said, “Drive a long way to deliver goodsto customers”; instead, it was, “Do what isnecessary to satisfy the customer” (seeTushman & O’Reilly, 1997).

Values-based management makes sensewhen Tayloristic task specification is eitherimpossible or incongruent with the rest of thecontext, and this is certainly the case for or-ganizations seeking the highest quality ingoods or services. In the case of manufactur-ing, part of the task of frontline employees isto generate improvements in production pro-cesses on a continuous basis. This is an inher-ently creative and collaborative process. Itcannot be fully specified, and if it could, themind-numbing nature of highly specifiedwork would drive out the creativity. Manage-ment by values applies at least as well to man-agement-level employees as to those not onthat level. For example, strong values on ful-filling work and respect for employees havemany implications for how managers shouldtreat subordinates and peers. In fact, all ofthe values listed in Table 14.1 can be imag-ined to inform managers’ decisions and ac-tions. Attempts to influence these actions in-stead by more specific directives would beimpractical (e.g., overwhelming in number)and motivationally incongruent (e.g., de-meaning by minimizing managerial discre-tion).

Management by values also can have pay-offs with other professionals, such as soft-ware developers. For example, in a study of


TABLE 14.1 Values of Total QualityManagement-OrientedOrganizations

Customer-Driven QualityContinuous ImprovementFulfilling Work and Respect for EmployeesCommunication, Cooperation, and TeamworkManagement by FactPrevention of Quality ProblemsLong-Range Strategic FocusPublic Responsibility

approximately 100 developers organizedinto 12 interdependent groups, values thathad been instilled for satisfying customers,taking responsibility for self-management,and getting the job done (“can-do attitude”)appeared to provide the opportunity anddrive to overcome structural roadblocks tosuccess in serving clients (Webster et al.,1998).

A “values” emphasis on culture has thisimmediate implication: For successful orga-nizational transformation to quality, em-ployees must acquire and follow values likethose listed in Table 14.1. This requirementmay lie behind the widespread belief thatleaders must communicate, reward adher-ence to, and, perhaps, exemplify these valuesfor quality (Daft, 1992; Waldman et al.,1998). Trice and Beyer (1993, p. 412) givethe example of a new leader of a manufactur-ing plant who announced his (values-based)managerial philosophy and then “roamed”the organization like an evangelist convert-ing people. To the extent that values are tiedto identity (corporate or individual), perti-nent actions for culture management also in-clude management of artifacts that signalwho we are (e.g., architecture and other as-pects of style in the organization that say weare traditional, nontraditional, dynamic,warm, and so on) and repetition of storiesthat bear on values such as equality (as in thestory of the IBM CEO who, like any otheremployee, was turned away at a security postwhen he lacked a required badge).

Norms

The simplest definition of organizationalculture—“the way we do things aroundhere”—connects most closely with the con-cept of norms within the definition of organi-zational culture. In common and formal useof the term, norm has two aspects: what peo-ple typically do and shared understandingsabout what people are supposed to do. Peo-ple tend to think that typical behavior is theright thing to do (a conversion from “is” to

“ought”) because that has been their experi-ence in many domains of life (D’Andrade,1984; see also various sources in Shweder &LeVine, 1984). A good example from the do-main of culture-based diets is the norm toavoid eating the shells of nuts. Most of us inWestern societies probably think that is theright thing to do. But why? Are the shells poi-sonous? Indigestible? Unpalatable? Many ofus may not know. The norm can be so strongthat we never ask, and it may not even occurto us to try eating nutshells. Further, we mayassume that we ought not eat nutshells. Thesame can occur with normative behaviors inorganizations. In other instances, norms ex-ert their effects through individuals’ expecta-tions that others will apply sanctions for vio-lations of norms. By the fact that a behavior isnormative, one can expect that others willalso perceive it as normative and right, andinsist upon it.

Like other concepts and correspondingprocesses of culture, norms and values are in-tertwined. Norms often imply identifiablevalues (e.g., cooperation as a value behind in-formation sharing), so either or both may ex-plain corresponding behavior. Nevertheless,these two concepts may imply somewhat dif-ferent sequences of transformations for qual-ity. With values, the desired behavior is ex-pected to follow if the predisposing valuesare instilled. With norms, getting the desiredbehaviors, by whatever means, creates condi-tions in which people infer they are the rightones or, at least, the socially approved ones(including when people are explicitly social-ized to conform to the norms).

The immediate implication is that appro-priate norms are required for quality. How-ever, this raises a problem to which we al-luded in the opening of this chapter, that ofcircular definitions of the role of a culture forquality in attaining a quality orientation suchas total quality management. That is, it is ob-viously circular to say that if we just had theright norms we would be a TQM organiza-tion—if TQM is defined as a set of sharedpractices equivalent to norms (“the way wedo things”). Each reader of the quality litera-


ture must judge whether circularity is perva-sive and whether the construct of culture hasa useful purpose (see Newman &Chaharbaghi, 1998). One reason for concernis that the meaning of culture is often left un-specified in writings on quality management,and it does seem quite possible that, at leastin part, a definition along the lines of “theway we do things around here” is often im-plied. However, it seems likely as well thatsome writers have in mind a basis for thesenorms in values, and others intend to empha-size how norms instigate processes of socialcontrol, as organization members imploreothers to conform to norms. Still other writ-ers avoid the logical problems here by statingexplicitly that instilling particular culturalvalues is important in the early stages of aquality transformation (Camisón, 1998;Scholtes & Hacquebord, 1988).

A further problem concerns how to instillnorms for quality—such as sharing informa-tion across departments or making a habit ofasking external and internal customers(other departments) for feedback on perfor-mance. This is, in essence, a problem ofchanging employee behavior on a broadscale. It seems likely that if behavior can bechanged on a broad scale, and if that behav-ior turns out to be experienced by employeesas beneficial in various ways (e.g., promotescompany survival in a competitive industry;provides intrinsic satisfactions relating togrowth, achievement, aesthetics, and thelike; is appreciated and recognized in the or-ganization), then values will follow and itwill be meaningful to speak of having a cul-ture for quality.

Steps and Tools for BehavioralChange Toward Cultural Change

Burke (1994) describes his experience atBritish Airways, where a process of culturechange for enhanced responsiveness to cus-tomers (including internal customers such asother departments) began by identifying be-haviors that would be manifestations of the

new culture. Then managers were trainedthrough feedback and role or skill practice inthese behaviors (e.g., communicating in anopen manner, involving subordinates in deci-sions that affect them directly). Next, thesebehaviors were incorporated into perfor-mance appraisals. Finally, incentive pay forperforming the behaviors was tied to theseappraisals.

This example captures three areas of ac-tion commonly discussed in the quality man-agement literature: training, measurement,and rewards. Training is one of the mostwidely cited “success factors” for quality(see, e.g., Jha et al., 1996). When quality in-volves new concepts, such as statistical pro-cess control, training is obviously neces-sary—a point to which we will return later.The main, further point from this example isthat training in interpersonal behavior canalso be necessary (see also Rubin &Inguagiato, 1991).

An emphasis on measurement is likewiseubiquitous in quality management (Kober &Knowles, 1996; Olian & Rynes, 1991). Mea-sures may be taken component by compo-nent in manufacturing or transaction bytransaction in service, but measures are alsotaken for quality performance by groups,plants, branches, and whole organizations(e.g., defect rate or dissatisfied customerrate).

There is much more controversy about theproper use of rewards to induce change inspecific behaviors and, ultimately, culture forquality. Hackman and Wageman (1995) re-view writings of major figures, such asDeming and Juran, and arrive at a summaryof advice on whether quality programsshould include pay-for-performanceschemes: “Do not do it.” Although this viewis based on a wealth of experience in trying tomove organizations toward quality prac-tices, it contradicts the notion of contingencyin organizational behavior (i.e., the notionthat blanket advice, pro or con, is unlikely tobe useful “always and everywhere”), it is in-consistent with models of culture change thatinclude rewards among the prominent levers


for change (e.g., Kerr & Slocum, 1987; Sathe,1985b), and it is inconsistent with researchshowing that it is possible to promote both in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation simulta-neously (see Hackman & Wageman, 1995).

Michela, Clark, Jha, and Noori (1998)studied this matter by asking managers in 10firms to describe their approaches to quality,their organizational cultures, and any pro-grams or systems of rewards or recognition forquality-related behaviors and outcomes. Theirfindings are depicted in Figure 14.1, whichsummarizes the interview comments quantita-tively, as characterizations of each firm interms of two dimensions: extent of progresstoward a quality culture and use of tangible re-wards (money, merchandise, and so on) as in-centives for doing the work of quality. Thesedimensions were generated by a statistical pro-cedure called multidimensional scaling. Datafor this procedure concerned ratings of the 10firms on attribute dimensions that emergedduring the content coding of the interviewnotes.

By looking at specific comments from firmsat various points along the horizontal contin-uum to total quality, Michela et al. inferred

that use of tangible rewards can help a firmto “get moving” toward quality if it is other-wise complacent or mired. One source ofevidence consisted of comments by themanager of the firm labeled CHM1 (nearthe middle-top of the figure), who said,“We’re about halfway along the contin-uum” from what her firm termed a “re-ward” culture to the “appreciative” culturethe organization had set as its goal. Thisconcept of the “reward” culture involveduse of rewards to induce individuals andgroups within functional areas to achievehigh performance and make process im-provements. In the “appreciative” culture,teamwork, performance, and improvementwould be more intrinsically valued, and theprimary reward would be recognition andappreciation by stakeholders—generally in-ternal customers. Managers in firms at thefar right of the figure described this “appre-ciative” kind of teamwork and recognitionas characteristic of their firms. For example,the manager at a turbine manufacturer(TURB in the figure) said: “The continuousimprovement culture has become ingrainedin the way we do business. [We feel no] push


Figure 14.1. Interrelations of 10 Firms Seeking Quality, Based on Interview Data From HumanResources

to go back to some sort of incentive plan.What we’re trying to do is create a team envi-ronment.”

These observations do not mean thatDeming and others were wrong in warningagainst use of extrinsic incentives for quality.Research on intrinsic motivation (for a briefintroduction, see Michela, 1996) is convinc-ing on the point that people tend to attributetheir behavior to extrinsic rewards whenthese rewards are large or otherwise salient.Having made this attribution, people are lesslikely to acquire values that support the be-havior, as they might if the intrinsic satisfac-tions or other benefits of the behavior wererelatively more salient. Thus it appears thatextrinsic rewards should be relatively smalland should be used only when necessary (per-haps in a climate of low trust between laborand management). Real intrinsic rewardshould be available in quality-related behav-ior (e.g., opportunities to make sizable con-tributions to organization effectiveness andother attributes listed in Burke, 1982) andemphasis should be given to the recognitionaspect of any reward given (consistent withthe favorable effect on intrinsic motivationtied to the “informational” function of re-wards, described in Deci & Ryan’s [1980]cognitive evaluation theory).

Problems involving employees’ feelings offairness are another key reason to avoid useof extrinsic rewards for inducing behavioralchange for quality. In particular, any propor-tion of cost savings returned to the innovatormay not be seen as large enough, and the sin-gling out of an individual or a group for a siz-able payment may seem unfair to others whocontributed—and thus may undermine a cli-mate for cooperation.

These problems may be less acute for oc-cupational groups such as the managers atBritish Airways (see also Hackman &Wageman, 1995). Managers generally havemore autonomy than frontline employees, soaccountability, measurement, and reward ofthe kinds described in that example may beexperienced as more fair and motivating. In

any case, there seems to be a growing trend inlabor-intensive industries (such as financialservices) toward linking a portion of manage-rial pay to measures of behaviors thought topromote quality and service cultures. Con-cerns are often voiced about measurementper se, but otherwise the fairness and motiva-tional benefits of this linkage seem to gain atleast some acceptance.

Schemas

In contrast to the emphasis that the con-cept of “values” gives to affective aspects ofculture and the concept of “norms” gives tosocial and behavioral aspects, the concept of“schemas” emphasizes cognitive aspects,such as beliefs about the right way to goabout doing things. As a general definition, aschema is a mental framework or structurefor identifying or understanding things, ac-tors, events, and situations. The simplestschemas provide the basis for seeing objectssuch as tables or faces, either in everyday vi-sual perception or in representations (e.g.,abstract art). For example, a table is definedby a parallelogram with three or four linesbelow it. More complex schemas allow us torecognize incipient interpersonal conflict orto formulate plans for heading off conflict.

Schemas are important in motivation gen-erally and in understanding culture specifi-cally, partly because they “bind” elementssuch as values and needs to action (seePratkanis & Greenwald, 1989). This notionis reflected in writings of cultural anthropol-ogists who have argued that a culture’s holdover behavior derives not only from valuesand norms but also from the convincing ra-tionales that often accompany values andnorms (Shweder & LeVine, 1984). For exam-ple, a parent may tell a 5-year-old about thegerm theory of disease as a rationale for handwashing.

Kilmann (1998) points to schemas as animportant construct in corporate transfor-mation generally, and Spencer (1994) indi-


cates that an aspect of cultural transforma-tion to quality is the acquisition of conceptsthat are schematic in scope. Quality-relatedschemas may be local or global in scope. Rel-atively local schemas include those that rep-resent knowledge about specific quality prac-tices, such as “root cause” analysis. Moreglobal schemas represent the meanings of en-compassing terms such as kaizen. Schemasalso vary in whether they are attribute ori-ented (e.g., one’s schema for TQM might in-corporate the attributes one thinks are char-acteristic of companies that follow thismanagement philosophy) or event oriented(e.g., one could have a schema for the se-quence of events necessary for large-scale or-ganizational change, beginning, say, withformulating a vision).

Two devices used to discuss and analyzeorganizations may help to make the conceptof schemas more concrete. One such device isa generic organization model, which mayprovide either a categorization of importantvariables (e.g., people, tasks, structure) or amore dynamic characterization of the organi-zation (e.g., as an open system that relates toits environment in a manner analogous to anorganism). Such a model functions schemati-cally by helping to frame and reduce chaoticreality into more manageable and intercon-nected bits and pieces. Another device is astory, which may help explain the direction,meaning of, and rationale for organizationchange. Howard Gardner’s (1995) work re-garding the importance of the leader’s storyabout a given change effort is particularly rel-evant here.

In the opening of this chapter we referredto reports of high failure rates in transforma-tions for quality. Reger, Gustafson, DeMarie,and Mullane (1994) offer the bold suggestionthat these failures are not to be explained byoperational failures, as suggested in the re-ports, but by failures of management to cre-ate conditions for employees to acquire theencompassing understanding of quality andits rationale that our analysis of schemas en-tails. Reger et al. call this “reframing” but

cite the same theoretical sources (e.g., Fiske& Taylor, 1991) on which we have drawn indefining and distinguishing schemas. Thisreframing model further holds that changemust be calibrated to organization members’likely acceptance of change. The zone of ac-ceptance lies between a region where changeis perceived as unnecessary and one wherechange is perceived as unattainable. Onemight address the necessity of change (em-phasized also by Kotter, 1996, among others)in part by giving information about the firm’scompetitive position; one might address theattainability of change by showing whatother organizations have done (as throughemployees’ visits to other firms inbenchmarking).

The general implication of schematic as-pects of culture is that people must acquiremany new concepts, which must fit togetherinto a comprehensible whole. The existenceof “quality colleges” (maintained by vendorsof training for quality) attests to wide recog-nition of the learning requirements of quality.One can hardly “overcommunicate” aboutmajor organizational changes such as adop-tion of quality management practices (seeExterbille, 1996). Top managers, immediatesupervisors, newsletters, and any other com-munication sources and media should pro-vide rationales and concepts repeatedly.

However, training can and should beabout more than skills, knowledge, andstated rationales. The training setting, awayfrom day-to-day tasks, provides opportuni-ties for employees to question rationales (andreceive answers), check reality, express fearsor frustrations, and obtain support frompeers. On this matter, Bolman and Deal(1991, p. 376) comment that resistance tochange can stem from fears of being unable toperform under new work arrangements.Training can address these fears directly byproviding necessary skills and indirectly byproviding opportunities for employees to re-ceive peer support.

Through communications from manage-ment and among peers in a period of organi-


zational change, employees may undergochange in two of the most fundamentalschemas, those concerning individual and or-ganizational identities. Indeed, lack ofchange in these schemas can be a major bar-rier to change when employees react to pro-posed change with the thought: That’s justnot who we are. We don’t “give away thestore” to our customers. We do the work butwe don’t design it. We aren’t the revolution-aries in our industry.

Reger et al. (1994) discuss several ap-proaches to and examples of the use of iden-tity to gain leverage for behavioral and cul-tural change for quality. Often the basic ideais to make an aspect of existing identity sa-lient (such as “We have a can-do attitude”)and then provide contrary data in order tomotivate action to close this identity gap. Di-rect customer interaction and benchmarkingare two sources of such data.

Evaluating the Contributionof the Concept of Culture toQuality Management

Inducing people to work in new ways forquality and innovation may involve over-coming past habits, values, beliefs, and iden-tity. We have tried to show in the precedingdiscussion that concepts from the organiza-tional culture literature provide many ave-nues for approaching necessary changes. Ourmain reservation is that this literature is quiteinterpretative in approach. That is, the actualevidence generally consists of writers’ inter-pretations of what they have observed in or-ganizations, in the absence of validated orother calibrated measures, and lacking re-search designs that allow strong inference.Kilmann (1998) notes this problem for agreat deal of literature on organizationalchange; it is not unique to transformationsfor quality and innovation. If continuedwork on these topics encompasses a widerange of theoretical and disciplinary orienta-tions (anthropology, social psychology, andso on) and design features (intensive single

case, content-analyzed multiple case), thisshould help to compensate for the uncertain-ties inherent any particular study.

WHAT IS A CLIMATE FORQUALITY AND INNOVATION?

Distinguishing ClimateFrom Culture

Traditionally defined, organizational cli-mate involves people’s perceptions and expe-riences of the workplace in terms of warmth,trust, dynamism, ambiguity, and other af-fect-laden dimensions (James, 1982). A par-allel, one-sentence definition of culture mightemphasize how cultures influence the mean-ings of events at work (Burke, 1994), as whena competitive threat is assessed or a new wayof working is attempted. (The concept ofmeaning integrates values and schemas fromthe preceding section and the concept ofnorms bears on one of the most basic mean-ings, how one should act.) Thus, although cli-mate and culture are related (e.g., becausewarmth, trust, and so forth are meanings),they are also distinguishable. Culture influ-ences people’s orientations to one another, towork, and to the environment. Climate un-folds as people experience warmth, ambigu-ity, and so forth through actions and interac-tions (see also Denison, 1996; Schneider,1975; Schneider, Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).

In contrast to the scores of articles easilyuncovered on the topic of culture in qualitymanagement, our search on climate andquality yielded relatively few articles. Ofcourse, this result could be an artifact of lan-guage; to some degree, writers use the termculture to include what we have defined asclimate. However, use of the term climate isnot randomly distributed in the quality liter-ature with respect to the problems addressed,such as overcoming resistance to change orpromoting cooperation and communication.The problem for which favorable climate is


most often offered as the solution is innova-tion. For example, Fishman and Kavanaugh(1989) suggest that the “missing link” inquality is for supervisors to promote a groupclimate where people feel secure in offeringimprovement suggestions. They suggest fur-ther that climate is shaped substantially bybehaviors of the supervisor, such as listeningfully and giving recognition or otherwise be-ing positive about employees’ attempts atcontributions.

Aside from the relatively focused climatedimensions featured in discussions of innova-tion, the broad dimensions of trust and its op-posite, fear, recur in the quality and innova-tion literatures (e.g., Alexander, 1985;Kipnis, 1996; Sitkin & Stickel, 1996; Suarez,1994). Deming (1986) includes among hisprinciples that managers should “drive outfear” from the workplace because it is debili-tating to the kinds of work required for qual-ity (e.g., by making it dangerous to share in-formation). Trust is an important topic notonly in quality management but in organiza-tional development generally today (Burke,1997). Partly this importance stems from theincreased need for trust in a period when hi-erarchical structures are being dismantledand employees’ interactions are increasinglyself-managed. The era of downsizing, hugeCEO salaries, and corporate greed that coin-cided with the rise of quality managementmay also be a factor in the rise of concernwith trust. Finally, there is hypocrisy in vari-ous forms, as when executives call for open-ness but hide impending changes from em-ployees until they have all their facts togetherand all their ducks in a row.

We suspect that climate lurks in the back-ground for quality management in otherways that have not been fully articulated inthe literature. One indication comes from anobservation made by Jha et al. (1996): An-nouncements by management of many qual-ity programs, dating back to one of the earli-est in 1894 (see Schroeder & Robinson,1991), have been accompanied by announce-ments of actions to improve working condi-tions. This observation suggests that a cli-

mate of positive feeling toward the employeris necessary if employees are to change theirways of working as required for quality.

Climate for Innovation

An analysis of organizational conditionsfor innovation offered by West (1990) andhis colleagues (Anderson, Hardy, & West,1990) makes reference to values and normsbut ultimately hinges on climate. The empiri-cal research in this line has concerned teamsin an oil factory (Burningham & West, 1995)and other settings. The research model positsthat the determinants of group innovative-ness are participative safety, support for in-novation, climate for excellence, and vision.Participative safety is a climate factor involv-ing an expectation that one will be appreci-ated rather than vilified for offering sugges-tions in the innovation process. Support forinnovation is basically a shared value that in-novation is good. As indicated earlier in thischapter, these expectations and values maybe instilled explicitly in socialization or im-plicitly in cultural messages. In addition, al-though it does not directly influence innova-tion, a climate for excellence often is helpfulbecause people striving for excellence willnaturally seek innovation when appropriate.Similarly, a clear, attainable, andconsensually shared vision or mission is help-ful because people become motivated toreach the goal by appropriate means.

In a discussion that addresses connectionsbetween innovation and many variables fromorganizational behavior and organizationaltheory, Anderson and King’s (1993) coverageof organizational climate keys on a study byNystrom (1990). In this study of a chemicalmanufacturer, climate was conceptualized asplaying a role along with strategy, structure,and culture. Moreover, specific configura-tions of culture and climate factors were ob-served to coincide with particular levels of in-novative or creative output. For example, thefirm’s most innovative division displayed rel-atively high conflict and low trust and har-


mony, although risk taking and debate wereencouraged, as was playfulness.

Amabile’s (1998) work on creativity of-fers additional insight into pertinent aspectsof climate for quality and innovation. In oneof her studies, she asked research and devel-opment scientists about characteristics of theorganizational environment that facilitate orinhibit creativity (Amabile, 1988). The inhib-itors most frequently mentioned by the scien-tists included an organizational climatemarked by lack of cooperation across divi-sions and levels and lack of value placed oncreativity by the organizational culture. In-hibitory organizational structures and poli-cies, such as inappropriate reward systems,also were mentioned frequently. The oppo-sites of these factors, such as a creativ-ity-promotive culture, were mentioned fre-quently by the scientists as facilitators. Alsonoteworthy among the facilitators was asense of freedom over one’s work, particu-larly in the day-to-day conduct of one’swork. Nystrom’s study mentioned previ-ously and other research cited by Amabilehave pointed to freedom as a favorable factoras well.

Amabile (1988) characterizes managers’tasks in support of creativity as a balancingact. In the area of feedback about perfor-mance, the wrong amount or wrong kind ofperformance evaluation is detrimental. Toomuch or overly specified criteria for evalua-tion may inhibit risk taking. Too little evalua-tion leads employees to feel forgotten andthus unmotivated. Thus Amabile recom-mends “a constant, constructive, less formalexchange of information about a project’sprogress on the part of all team members andmanagement” (p. 149). Arriving at a recom-mendation about another balancing act, ap-plying the right amount of pressure, is moredifficult. On the one hand, some amount oftime pressure and possibly competition ap-pears to be facilitative; on the other, too muchpressure appears to lead to unimaginative so-lutions.

Amabile has offered an encompassingmodel of creativity and innovation that in-

corporates factors ranging from those at thehighest level of organization (e.g., the mis-sion statement for the organization as awhole) to the individual level (e.g., skills).Many aspects of Amabile’s recommenda-tions and model are consistent with one ofthe models of dynamics in organizationalperformance and change (particularly,transactional dynamics) that we describe inthe next major section of this chapter. Beforedescribing those models, we will completethe present section by examining one furtherconnection of climate to quality and innova-tion.

Climate for TechnologyImplementation

Comprehensive analyses of quality recog-nize that even when people are highly moti-vated as a result of culture, climate, and otherfactors, they can provide world-class goodsand services only if they make use of the bestavailable technology for the task. Klein andSorra (1996) argue that organizational cli-mate is a key factor in technology implemen-tation and other innovation implementation.These writers adapted Schneider’s (1990a)conceptualization of climate, involving em-ployees’ shared perceptions concerningwhether specific behaviors (as related to in-novation, for example) are “rewarded, sup-ported and expected in a setting” (p. 384).Findings from employees with access to com-puter-assisted design and drafting systems inan engineering and construction firm providean illustration. Although the technology hadbeen adopted and installed, and employeeshad received sufficient training and ratio-nales to use it, use for some time was sporadicat best. The problem appeared to stem from acombination of unfavorable conditions thatKlein and Sorra term a climate—lack of re-wards for using the new technology and fail-ure to remove barriers such as sluggishness inthe operation of the computer itself. In otherinstances, indicators of a poor climate for in-novation implementation could include lack


of training or coaching, failure to addressconcerns about change, scheduling or othertime incompatibilities, and other shortcom-ings of organizational support for change.

A further aspect of Klein and Sorra’s(1996) analysis suggests that when values (asdiscussed earlier in this chapter, in connec-tion with culture) are incongruent with avail-able innovation, implementation will suffer.One example involves an operational tech-nology (as opposed to a mechanical or elec-tronic one), statistical process control. Kleinand Sorra cite Bushe’s (1988) case study, inwhich manufacturing employees’ high valueon performance or production was seen as in-terfering with the change and learning re-quired for SPC. They also provide other ex-amples relating to teamwork, design forsoftware development, and flexible produc-tion innovations.

In an article that is mostly about organiza-tion design and culture in relation to successin implementing advanced manufacturingtechnology, Zammuto and O’Connor (1992)discuss climate and individuals’ motivationto maximize their skills with advanced tech-nology. Various aspects of the employer-em-ployee relationship that bear on climate fea-tures, such as security and warmth, appear tobe key. For example, Zammuto andO’Connor cite Hildebrandt (1988) on thepoint that high-level learning about technol-ogy is more prevalent in “high-trust organi-zations.” Walton’s (1989) work on“high-commitment organizations” points inthe same direction. High commitment is atwo-way proposition: The employer pro-motes the employee’s welfare in variousways, and the employee is fully engaged inlearning and performance.

Evaluating the Contribution of theConcept of Climate to Innovation

Some of the research reviewed in this sec-tion may be questioned concerning either thesubjectivity in case-based, qualitative studiesor the design limitations of correlational

studies (such as a potential reverse causal se-quence in which innovating groups mighthave given high ratings to participative safetybecause their ideas were well received). Nev-ertheless, some reassurance comes from thefrequent harmony of the findings of variousresearchers using somewhat different ap-proaches (Amabile, Anderson, Nystrom,West, and others). Indeed, there may be moreempirical basis for saying climate is associ-ated with outcomes (such as more output ofinnovative ideas) than for saying the sameabout culture.

However, this empirical superiority issomewhat offset by the greater conceptualambiguity surrounding climate. One issue iswhether many so-called climate effects arebetter termed culture effects, as they arebased in motivation stemming from eithervalues or social pressure. Another is whetherthe “summary” nature of the “climate for”construct (i.e., climate as the social and psy-chological encapsulation or upshot of a widevariety of possible objective conditions) is astrength or weakness. Klein and Sorra (1996)note astutely that comparison of innovationacross organizations, despite tremendousvariation in specifics of policies and prac-tices, could be greatly fostered by a focus ofresearch on the cumulative influences oftraining, rewards, user-friendliness, and soon, which is to say, on climate for innovationimplementation. However, a hazard in thisapproach is that, depending on how it is mea-sured, the “climate for” conception may notadd anything beyond its components (train-ing, rewards, and so on). Alternatively, it maycollapse into outcome variables such as moti-vations thought to govern work behavior(e.g., if conceptions of both “climate for”and “motivation” include expectationsabout rewards for behaviors). Moreover, if aresearcher finds the middle ground betweenthese alternatives, this may undermine his orher making connections back to the specificfactors that need action by management orforward to explain how associated conse-quences are generated.


The issues here are reminiscent of those inthe field of work stress, where stress is seen asthe cumulative result of a wide variety of en-vironmental and personal factors. Kasl(1984) concludes that the statement “Stresscan cause illness” is both tenable and virtu-ally meaningless without further specifica-tion; the same seems to apply to “Organiza-tional climate can promote quality andinnovation.” At the same time, just as theconcept of “stress” may have real heuristicvalue, “climate” may point in productive di-rections for research and practice.

In order for the climate construct to con-tribute to true explanation of employee be-havior—either as the “climate for” version ofthe construct or as discrete dimensions of cli-mate—more complete theoretical accountsmust be developed. These accounts may needto draw on the interplay of perceptions of theenvironment (e.g., what is permitted, or en-couraged, or expected), personal prefer-ences, motivations, and social processes (seeKlein & Sorra, 1996; Michela, Lukaszewski,& Allegrante, 1995). For example, if a cli-mate of freedom is associated with innova-tion, a proper account of this associationmight require a description of the motiva-tional and behavioral processes and eventsthat occur when freedom is perceived or ex-perienced.

For the moment, the empirical findingsprovide ample basis for management atten-tion to organizational conditions likely to in-fluence perceptions and experiences encom-passed by “climate.” Some approaches tointervention, to achieve favorable organiza-tional conditions, are the topic of the nextsection.

COMPREHENSIVE PERSPECTIVESON ORGANIZATIONAL

TRANSFORMATION

The array of concepts, variables, and pro-cesses discussed so far in this chapter is po-tentially overwhelming. If all these factorsmust be considered in organizational changefor quality and innovation, is there hope forthe leader who seeks change? The answer isyes, because this huge task has been brokendown into more manageable components inwritings available in the quality literatureand in the literatures on organization devel-opment and organizational change or trans-formation.

We favor writings in the latter literaturesas points of departure for planning and initi-ating large-scale change for quality and inno-vation, because the models presented arecomprehensive, systematic, and explicitlybased on motivational and other psychologi-cal theory and research of the kind we re-viewed in the earlier sections of this chapter.We will discuss three models in order to drawout three distinctions: transformational ver-sus transactional dynamics, fixed-order ver-sus contingent interventions, and orchestra-tion versus improvisation.

The Burke-Litwin Modelof Transformational andTransactional Dynamics

Burke and Litwin’s (1992) model, pre-sented in Figure 14.2, is a useful frameworkfor understanding organizations in at leasttwo ways. It addresses (a) what drives indi-vidual and organizational performance, andin what priorities, and (b) how to conceptual-ize and implement change. For our purposesin the context of this chapter, we will concen-trate on the change dimension.


It is pragmatic to think of organizationchange in terms of two levels: transfor-mational and transactional. Transforma-tional refers to fundamental, significant, andcomprehensive change in an organizationand is represented in the model by the top

boxes: external environment (the forces fromoutside the organization that drive change,e.g., competition, changing technology,and/or market dynamics or globalization,new or reduced government regulations),mission and strategy (the purpose of and di-


Figure 14.2. The Burke-Litwin Model of Transformational and Transactional Dynamics inOrganizational Performance

rection for the organization, including howto get there), leadership (executives who areresponsible for coordinating all the boxes inthe model), and culture (the way we dothings, the overt and covert rules, or normsand values). Typically, transformationalchange occurs when organizational membersand primary stakeholders (e.g., the board) re-spond to environmental forces with entirelynew behavioral sets. New ways of workingfor quality (think “culture”) are paradig-matic here. Organization transformation,then, requires (a) new organizational direc-tions in response to environmental changes,(b) new behaviors that will implement thedifferent directions and are linked to new val-ues and norms that support the new direc-tions, and (c) leadership that promotes thesenew behaviors, understandings, and values.

The transactional level refers to organiza-tion changes that are more operational, dayto day, and in many cases associated withcontinuous improvement. This level is repre-sented in the model by the boxes in the lowerhalf: structure (organizational design, ac-countability, decision making, and how unitsrelate to one another, including hierarchy),management practices (the daily behaviors ofmanagers as they relate to their bosses, peers,direct reports, and other relevant constitu-ents, e.g., customers), systems (policies andmechanisms designed to facilitate work, e.g.,rewards, communication, measures), workunit climate (the collective perceptions bymembers of a local work unit about what isexpected of them, their feelings about theirmanager and one another, work standards,recognition, and other dimensions), motiva-tion and other factors that have direct effectson motivation congruence, task require-ments and individual skills/abilities, and in-dividual needs and values. Climate resultsfrom the transactions of a number of boxes inthe model, but particularly managementpractices (e.g., Litwin & Stringer, 1968). Ear-lier, when we referred to the supervisor’s rolein group climate (Fishman & Kavanaugh,1989) and to the balancing acts required ofmanagers seeking innovation (Amabile,

1988), we were addressing transactions ofthis kind.

Diagnosing and monitoring employees’beliefs, perceptions, and motivations, espe-cially those related to culture and climate, arecritical to any change effort. A model of thiskind can point to the types of questions to askin this diagnostic process and how to inter-pret identified shortcomings (see Trahant &Burke, 1996). The value of culture or climatediagnosis in the process of transformation toquality, specifically, is reflected in the work ofCollard (1989). And, finally, it should bepointed out that

executives and managers typically concernthemselves with the left side of the [model]:mission and strategy, structure, task re-quirements and individual skills or abili-ties. In contrast, behavioral scientists aremore likely to be concerned with the rightside and middle of [the model]: leadership,culture, systems (especially rewards), man-agement practices, climate, individualneeds and values, and motivation. For afundamental, large system change effortone should be concerned with the entiremodel and with a more effective integra-tion of purpose and practice. (Burke,1994, p. 138)

Kilmann’s Integrated Sequence ofEight Tracks for Transformation

A good example of a sequenced model ofcorporate transformation is the one offeredby Kilmann (1998), which describes eight in-terconnected “tracks” or thrusts of organiza-tional and personal development. Thesetracks are culture, skills, team, strategy, re-ward, gradual process, radical process, andlearning process. Although we cannot fullydescribe the model here (see Kilmann, 1995),the following points are noteworthy.

Kilmann’s model is distinguished by itsproposal of a preferred ordering of the kindsof actions for transformation that we have


been discussing throughout this chapter.Some of this ordering appears to be loose,and overlap in time is recommended (e.g.,skills training begins while culture is still be-ing addressed). Nevertheless, there is a defi-nite starting point, culture, and some tracksare not to be followed until others have runtheir course (e.g., strategy and reward afterculture and skills).

It should be noted that prescriptions forthe ordering of actions for organizationalchange are fairly common in the literature fo-cused more specifically on quality manage-ment (e.g., Camisón, 1998; Schmidt &Finnigan, 1992). However, some more gen-eral approaches, such as the Burke-Litwinmodel, imply a more contingent approach inchoosing when to address the various com-ponents of the model.

Culture in Kilmann’s model refers tonorms about how people behave toward oneanother. In Kilmann’s words, these are “dosand don’ts,” not values. People can be spe-cific in discussions of the corresponding be-haviors, and they can call one another onnorm violations. Within the culture track it isnecessary to engender open communicationand other behaviors that will enhance trustand other attributes of a positive social andtask climate in the organization. Withoutthese attributes, the difficult choices inreengineering or other sweeping transforma-tions would be extremely difficult to discuss,let alone resolve. Support for innovation asadaptation to environmental requirementsshould also be fostered in this phase.

Finally, personal development andself-knowledge are as important as organiza-tional development in Kilmann’s approach.In part this is because radical organizationaltransformation bears on individuals’ identi-ties and attachments. Kilmann (1998) be-lieves that people with strong egos—whoknow themselves and value their strengths—are better able to cope with radical change.

Bartunek’s Model of SchemaConflict and Resolution

In contrast to the two “orchestrated” ap-proaches to organizational change just de-scribed, Bartunek’s (1993) approach couldbe described as “improvisational.”Bartunek’s analysis of organizational changehinges on her version of the concept ofschemas. Illustrating the approach, Bartunekexamined the schemas of five categories ofemployees or other stakeholders (i.e., consul-tants) during an initiative for greater produc-tivity in a food-processing firm. Bartunekdistinguishes among these schemas in termsof (a) what each group wanted to arise fromthe initiative, (b) means to achieve desiredends, (c) expressed concerns, and (d) a sum-mary label. For example, Bartunek labels theschema for local management “paternalism”because it sought productivity and qual-ity-of-life enhancements through a systemthat would maintain management domi-nance in decision making. Machinists’ “com-petition” schema sought to maintain pay dif-ferentials with other, less skilled groups byrefusing to participate in the intervention.

The improvisational nature of this ap-proach lies in how the particular content ofdifferent groups’ schemas will differ acrossorganizations. (This contrasts with the moreuniversal nature of the boxes of theBurke-Litwin model or the tracks ofKilmann’s model, for example.) Neverthe-less, most organizations may be expected tocontain groups with different goals, differentideal paths to goals, and so forth. In some in-stances the sources of these differences willbe “occupational cultures,” defined by vonMeier (1999) as different mental models orcognitive representations of technology andwork effectiveness that are adaptive for theoccupational groups but may lead to conflict-ing evaluations of innovation.

Misunderstandings or different under-standings of the most effective ways of work-ing are not the only basis of logjams that oc-cur in attempts at organizational change.


Conflicting interests are also key. For exam-ple, local management might insist that itspaternalistic orientation is necessary for ev-eryone’s ultimate benefit; line employees areunlikely to agree with this orientation if itmeans that their wishes will receive littleweight in the decision process. In consultingpractice, Bartunek induces the variousgroups to address each other’s perspectives(schemas) explicitly. One of the functions ofthis direct engagement is to discover legiti-mate interests of the other, thus providing abasis for negotiation. Another function is tostimulate a dialectical process in which thestatus quo thesis and an alternative antithesismay become seen as reconcilable in a synthe-sis. Bartunek (1993) describes such an out-come for a religious order that arrived at asynthesis of two seemingly incompatibleroles for itself in its community (somewhat asReger et al., 1994, discuss in connection withidentity-based change, described earlier).Finally, in direct engagement it may be dis-covered that notions about the legitimacy ofconflict itself and acceptable ways of han-dling conflict are intrinsic to one or moregroups’ schemas, and that these notions mustbe addressed.

Conflict should be expected to lie under (ifnot above) the surface of many instances ofchange for quality or innovation. Over time,as ways of doing things become entrenched inorganizations, many organization membersacquire a stake in keeping things that way(e.g., in their job titles/authority, value oftheir skills). Change threatens these vestedinterests. A good starting point for furtherreading on this matter is Kanter (1988).

Evaluating Systematic Approachesro Organizational Change forQuality and Innovation

It seems unlikely there is one best way toapproach change in culture or climate forquality and innovation—which is why wehave tried to present several different kinds

of models for organizational change. Otherrelevant models may be found in Burke(1994). Even within each model, a contingentapproach (informed by diagnostic data) isgenerally necessary, and elements may needto be combined from multiple models. Forexample, Kilmann (1998) does not recom-mend just jumping in with the first track inhis model. He advises strategy analysis anddiagnosis of barriers to strategy implementa-tion before the tracks are scheduled and im-plemented.

INTERPRETATIVE ANDCRITICAL PERSPECTIVES

Earlier in this chapter, we pointed to idealvalues, norms, and understandings for qual-ity. However, actual approaches to qualityvary considerably. In a rich discussion thatcovers more ground than we can summarizehere, Spencer (1994) conceptualizes this vari-ation in terms of three models of organiza-tion: mechanistic, organismic, and cultural.She argues that in some respects or some im-plementations, TQM is basically an exten-sion of the old, mechanistic model of organi-zations and maintains a whiff of Taylorism.Other writers have pointed to the increasedstress felt by workers in manufacturingplants where TQM has yielded processes sowell controlled and measured that produc-tion standards are extremely demanding anddeviations are immediately detected and at-tributable to individuals or groups. The or-ganismic model as presented by Spencerquestions the “always and everywhere”TQM prescriptions, such as Deming’s (1986)14 principles, and reflects a focus that is rela-tively more external (toward satisfying cus-tomers) than internal (toward optimizingprocesses—consistent with its systems viewof the organization). Organizations that op-erate according to this organismic model mayprovide opportunities for intrinsic satisfac-tions as discussed earlier, but they have notfully embraced the value on “fulfilling work


and respect for employees” (see Table 14.1)that is central to Spencer’s cultural model.For example, in the mechanistic and organis-mic models, managers are cast as designersand coordinators of the organizational sys-tems; in the cultural model, they are seen asinspiring and exemplifying leaders, coaches,and mediators.

Spencer’s “interpretative” orientation re-minds us that writings like this chapter maythemselves be value-laden rather thanvalue-free. The organizational analyst’s orchange consultant’s choice is to act eithernormatively, articulating and acting in ac-cord with his or her own stated values, orcontingently, as by focusing on obtainingvalid data that a client may use to pursuewhatever his or her goals may be (Burke,1982, 1994, 1997). In an era when transfor-mations to quality are sometimes accompa-nied by downsizing and other exercises ofcorporate power over individuals and societ-ies (e.g., see Estes, 1996; Korten, 1995), weare comfortable in supporting the em-ployee-oriented and society-oriented valuesthat can be well aligned with total qualitymanagement. However, as Spencer’s analysisof quality approaches and organizationalmodels makes clear, this alignment is not au-tomatic. Like any management approach,quality management principles may end upeither helping or hurting people. It is ourhope that this chapter can aid those whowant to promote workplaces that are morerewarding and effective in all senses.

SUMMARYAND CONCLUSIONS

The quote from Woods (1997) near the be-ginning of this chapter helped to set the toneand perspective for our approach, namely,that quality and innovation in organizationsare inextricably intertwined with organiza-tional culture. The question immediatelyraised is how to ensure an appropriate inter-

twining. The answer usually entails, at leastat the outset of a quality emphasis, organiza-tion change, especially in the dimension ofculture. To change culture, one must first un-derstand it. We have therefore examinedsome of the fundamentals of culture—valuesand norms—highlighting examples that re-late to quality and innovation.

Our discussion of these fundamentals hasdeparted from most other analyses of organi-zational culture in its coverage of the conceptof schemas, which we have defined as cogni-tive structures that help people to understandand explain complex matters such as the crit-ically important dimensions of organiza-tional change. We have noted that pertinentschemas can take at least two forms—modelsand stories—and that the concept of schemasappears in various forms in the literatures onculture, climate, quality, and innovation(e.g., as reframing).

We have also discussed the importance ofkey processes in cultural change, particularlytraining, measurement, and rewards.Training helps to orient organizational mem-bers toward the kinds of behaviors that willlead to a culture that stresses the importanceof quality and innovation in their daily work.With respect to measurement and rewards, itis interesting to note that managers often say,“What you measure is what you get,” and be-havioral scientists just as often say, “Whatyou reward is what you get.” Both are cor-rect. Yet great care must be taken with bothto make certain that one is measuring theright behaviors to ensure individual and or-ganizational performance for high qualityand to ensure that the relevant behavior andperformance are rewarded (Kerr, 1995).

Finally, in considering organizationchange, we have argued that it is important tomake a distinction (yet understand the over-lap) between culture and climate—organiza-tional background and foreground, respec-tively. Culture may be the ultimate goal, butto get there, climate must be affected. The lat-ter requires change in people’s everyday ex-periences of the ways in which they are man-aged and their relations with one another.


With all of the complexities of culturechange that we have considered, one can eas-ily feel overwhelmed. Choices have to bemade, priorities determined, and time andenergy devoted to the effort. These complexi-ties explain, in part, the reason so many cul-ture change efforts are never realized. In ad-

dition, getting a change under way is onething—keeping it going is quite another andmore difficult matter.

Whether in the direction of higher qualityand greater innovation or in the direction ofcustomer focus and market orientation, or-ganizational culture change is possible (see,


e.g., Burke, 1994; Goodstein & Burke,1991). To make it possible, those who wantto make such change must pay attention tothe dimensions of relevant organizationalmodels that emphasize change, be clearabout the direction and priorities of change

ingredients and activities, and provide persis-tent and consistent leadership to make it allhappen in the first place and then to sustainand renew the process.


Documents

Organizational Culture and Climate in Transformations for ...€¦ · organizational change. The concept of organizational cul-ture shows similar prominence in the ex-panding literature