B.V.

Gloster

Literature Review: Organizational dysfunction, organizational culture and resistance to change

Bridgette Verna Nevils Gloster ORGL 500-Organizational Leadership Fall Semester 2010

B.V.Gloster

Literature Review: Organizational dysfunction, organizational culture and resistance to change

Introduction As indicated in a study published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology, The dysfunctional organization, much like a dysfunctional individual, is so characterized because it exhibits markedly lower effectiveness, efficiency, and performance than its peers or in comparison to societal standards (Balthazard, Cooke, and Potter, 2006, p. 771). As such, organizations who exist in a state of dysfunction must change if they are to remain viable and competitive. To one degree or another, change is an inevitable part of the life-cycle of every organization. Whether the change is the result of planned transition into the next phase of the organizations existence or is a necessary response to internal or external forces, successful management of change is essential in order to avoid chronic levels of organizational dysfunction. Yet, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote in The Prince (1532, trans. 1908) there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things (p. 25). Stated differently, in Leadership in Organizations, Yukl (2010) suggests that Leading change is one of the most important and difficult leadership responsibilities ( p. 298).

These two statements both highlight the reality that organizational change is challenging at best. The matter is further complicated by the fact that in spite of the numerous mechanical structures(McCormick, 2008) created or implemented for the purpose of achieving organizational objectives, ultimately large-scale change is an organization usually requires some change in the organizational culture (Yukl, 2010, p. 305). Leaders and organizations that

B.V.Gloster

improperly manage the points of change within an organization will potentially find themselves in a state of dysfunction possibly creating an environment where there is resistance to change. This literature review will examine what various experts have concluded about the dynamics of organizational culture within the context of change implementation, motivations behind and ramifications of organizational resistance to change and finally, explore the roles and responsibilities of leaders in navigating change within organizations.

Organizational Culture

Various attempts have been made to adequately define organizational culture. According to a definition provided by Schein it is the accumulated shared learning of a given group, covering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive elements of the group members total psychological functioning (Schein, 2004). Similarly, according to Zintz (2003), its simply what people say and do while work gets done. Its the collective reality that permeates the organization and is expressed through behavior (2004). Research suggests that the organizational culture is pervasive and is a combination of both explicitly espoused and implicitly applied values. As indicated by Schein, Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of culture as a concept is that it points us to phenomena that are below the surface, that are powerful in their impact but invisible and to a considerable degree unconscious (Empirically based abstraction section, para. 4). It is the invisible and unconscious nature of culture that makes is difficult to change.

A study conducted by Balthazard, Cooke, and Potter (2006) concludes that understanding these cultures in terms of expected behaviors and norms can explain why some organizational units (or the entire organization) exhibit dysfunctional behaviors that are counter
2

B.V.Gloster

to the organizations expressed values or mission, and which hamper efficiency and effectiveness (p. 727). The study presented case studies that affirm that elements of an

organizations culture can lead to dysfunctional outcomes (p. 710). Using the Organizational Cultural Inventory (OCI) as their instrument of measurement, which identified three aggregate styles of organizational culture - constructive, passive/defensive, and aggressive/defensive (p. 712) - the researchers determined that a culture that has defensive cultural norms (both passive and aggressive) (p. 716) prove to be dysfunctional for both the organizations and its members (p. 716). Further the study discerned that culture is directly related to organizational-level performance drivers, many of which bear directly on efficiency and effectiveness, and conversely to dysfunctional consequences (p. 717).

Motivations for resistance to change

Gilkey, in his interview for Gonzaga University (2010) shared that change is hard for people because they like the comfort zone of where they are. Similarly, Yukl provides that resistance to change is a common phenomenon for individuals and organizations (2010, p. 299). To this end, Yukl provides a litany of reasons why people within an organization may be resistant to change. Among these are a lack of trust in those who are the proponents of the change, a disbelief in the necessity of change, and a fear of loss of status and power. (Yukl, pp. 299 300). Yukl proposes that mutual mistrust may encourage a leader to be secretive about the reasons for change, thereby further increasing suspicion and resistance(2010, p. 299). Kouzes and Posner in The Leadership Challenge (2007) provides that a counter to this is open communication The quality and accuracy of communication and the integrity of the decision
3

B.V.Gloster

making process increase when people feel part of the same team (p. 61). If the organizational members are excluded from the decision making process of change, feelings of mistrust and oppression are likely to arise. Ultimately, confidence and trust in the process of organizational change mandates that it is a dialogical process. As noted by Paulo Freire (1970, p. 67) they also must intervene critically in the situation which surrounds them.

Resistance to change can also be motivated by a disbelief in the necessity of change. As discussed later in this paper, leading an organization in the process of change requires that organizational leaders clearly identify the need for change. This may potentially be problematic because as highlighted in Careys (2010) The Four Truths presentation, there is at work in humans a force analogous to that of centrifugal force in which an object "desires" to maintain its own straight line against the curvilinear motion of the spinning wheel(p. 14). Stated

differently, there is a natural tendency within humans to maintain the status quo. There is a natural resistance to major change. As a leader in change, overcoming this resistance to change requires presenting a case for the necessity of a new approach. However, as indicated by Yukl (2010), even when radical change is necessary in an organization, some elements in the current ideology may be worthy of preservation (p. 314). Understanding the human need to maintain the status quo, lessening of resistance to change may be achieved through look[ing] for values and ideals that will continue to be relevant for the organization in the foreseeable future(p. 314). To do so creates a sense of continuity in the minds of the organizational members between the organization that was and the organization that is to be. Leaders roles and responsibility

B.V.Gloster

The leader has a definite role to play in how an organization deals with change. According to Yukl (2010, p. 317) successful implementation of change in organizations requires a wide range of leadership behaviors. Overcoming resistance to change requires of the leader behavioral flexibility which according to Yukl is best defined as the ability and willingness to vary ones behavior to accommodate situational requirements (2010, p. 214). Further, Yukl presents a summary of research by several practitioners regarding the guidelines for the implementation of change. Among the guidelines provide were: the need to express the urgency of the desired change, the need to clearly articulate the vision and the impact upon the organization and staff, and the need to garner support from the people.

Margaret Wheatley in Leadership and the New Science (2006, p. 147) postulates that any living thing will change only if it sees change as the means of preserving itself. That is to suggest that when the necessity for change is clearly articulated by the leader and linked to personal and organizational survival, the potential for buy-in from the organization member increases. Wheatley refers to the process of self-reference. She concludes that we are free to choose, but we choose on the basis of self(2006, p. 147). This is similar to the view expressed by Zimmer in his interview with Gonzaga University (2009) in which he suggested that people have a natural resonance with self-interest. He puts forward that it is incumbent upon the organizational leader to promote collective interest. In the interest of implementing organizational change, this suggests that leaders should invest time in the process of clearly providing a sense of the problems(Yukl, 2010) and in turn connect the success of reaching a resolution with both the self-interest of the staff and the collective interest of the organization.

B.V.Gloster

In the process of attempting to garner support for proposed changes within the organization, clearly defining the vision and intended direction is imperative. According to Malphurs (2005), the right vision creates meaning in peoples lives, providing them with a cause and giving them a sense of divine purpose(p. 147). Kouzes and Posner present that leaders have to arouse others to join in a cause and to want to move decisively and boldly forward (p. 141). Further, Bill Hybels (2009), in Courageous Leadership, states that Vision is the fuel that leaders run on. Its the energy that creates action. Its the fire that ignites the passion of followers (p. 31). However, Freire (2009) admonishes us to remain mindful that vision cannot be created in silos, but that it must instead be representative of the members of the organization: we must never merely discourse on the present situation, must never provide the people with programs which have little or nothing to do with their own preoccupations, doubts, hopes and fears (p. 96). As leaders engaged in the implementation of change, care must be taken to ensure that the people have a vested interest in the proposed vision and direction and that the voices from the masses are considered. Finally, in order for a leader to effectively manage change within an organization, understanding of the culture must exist. Again, as Yukl sagely suggested large-scale changeusually requires some change in the organizational culture (p. 305). According to Zintz successful culture change requires leaders to listen, and learn continuously, modeling and building the capacity for change into the fabric of their organization (2004). However, as McCormick suggests, the task is a complicated one because leaders seldom have either the time or the interest in managing culture development. (Obstacles to culture change section, para. 10).

Conclusion

B.V.Gloster

Implementing change within organizations can be challenging. As leaders and organizations push forward with new visions and new initiatives, care must be given to ensuring that an environment that is resistant to change is not created. This care is demonstrated through demonstrating a thorough understanding of the dynamics of organizational culture, by gaining the buy-in of organizational members, enlisting their input in the process, acknowledging their fears and concerns, and casting clear vision for the paths ahead. Properly managed, change can be implemented successfully with support from the organizational members.

B.V.Gloster

References

Balthazard, P., Cooke, R., & Potter, R. (2006). Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctional organization. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(8), 709 - 732. doi:10.1108/02683940610713253 Freire, P. (2009). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30 Anv Sub ed.). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gilkey, H. (2009). Self-Interest versus Collective Interests [Slide Presentation]. Retrieved from Gonzaga Univeristy: https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2 Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_10 517_1%26url%3D Hybels, B. (2009). Courageous Leadership. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan. Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2010). The Leadership Challenge (J-B Leadership Challenge: Kouzes/Posner) (4 ed.). Washington D.C.: Pfeiffer. Machiavelli, N. (2010). The Prince. London, UK: Createspace. Malphurs, A. (2005). Advanced Strategic Planning,: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders (2 ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books. McCormick, B. (2008). It's The Organizations Culture. New York City: Hrd Press, Inc. Retrieved from <http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_30534/book.asp> Schein, E. H. (2004). Leadership and Organizational Culture (The Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series) (3 ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from <http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_11277/book.asp>
8

B.V.Gloster

Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organizations (7th Edition) (7 ed.). Alexandria, VA: Prentice Hall. Zimmer, G. (2009). Self-Interest versus Collective Interests [Video file]. Retrieved from Gonzaga University: https://learn.gonzaga.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2F webapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_1051 7_1%26url%3D Zintz, A. (2004). Changing the Organizational Culture [Video file]. Retrieved from <http://common.books24x7.com/book/id_19290/book.asp>