Abstract
This article examines the development and implementation of a strategic cultural change program from a case study perspective. Initially, the article describes how the program was developed, including an explanation as to how a communication component was integrated into the program from inception. This integration helped reduce the anxiety that change programs traditionally initiate. Additionally, the article examines preliminary findings captured during the program’s implementation. These findings provide generalized insights about ways communication, strategy, and cultural change programs interact. As such, the findings provide real-world support that communication facilitates organizational change.
In the summer of 2009, representatives of a major international manufacturer sought assistance in implementing a strategic and cultural change program developed at its corporate headquarters. The combination of strategy and cultural change makes sense since a positive corporate culture is seen as a major strategic asset (Flamholtz & Randle, 2012). The division seeking assistance has facilities around the world; however, the focus for this program was only its North American operations.
The overriding goal for the program was to create a leadership culture in each manufacturing facility. The subtext of the cultural change was to increase the employees’ sense of empowerment. More specifically, the company wanted to augment its high-performance manufacturing culture with a greater emphasis on employee responsibility. The tag line used was, “Every employee is a CEO.” The desired outcome was to shift the organizational culture from one of employee dependency to one in which the employees took and accepted more responsibility for their work performance. In other words, the program sought to empower employees to make decisions on their own rather than constantly seeking approval from superiors. From an academic standpoint, the organization was attempting to institute whatChreim (2002)called an identification shift, that is, the company was attempting to move from identification with one kind of behavior and reidentify with a second kind of behavior.
As noted earlier, the strategic program and its general goals had been developed at corporate headquarters. The leaders at headquarters mandated that the program be implemented at each divisional unit; however, each unit was given wide latitude as to how to develop and implement the program. This “leeway” resulted from the belief that the best way to implement the program in Asia was different than in Europe and different again from that in Africa or South America. The specific assistance being sought in the division used in this study was twofold: (a) to help top management in the North American unit design a program to communicate the required cultural changes and (b) to assist in the implementation of these changes.
The Organization
The divisional headquarters for which the program was developed employs more than 3,500 workers, 12% of whom work in managerial or supervisory roles. This latter group (421 individuals) encompassed the population toward whom the cultural change program was targeted. The plant, which is nonunionized, has been located in the United States for more than 20 years. The divisional CEO given the task of implementing the program had been in place less than a year, having moved to the United States from Europe. His top five lieutenants—three executive vice presidents and two vice presidents—had worked at the plant an average of 12.7 years.
Program Development
A series of meetings was held with the top management team prior to the creation of a proposed pilot program. The purpose of the meetings ranged from getting familiar with one another, to learning the specific goals for the program, to determining how the program would be announced and implemented.Lewis, Laster, and Kulkarni (2013)saw these latter two steps as essential to the development of cultural alignment.
Even though the broad goals for the program had been developed at organizational headquarters, it quickly became apparent that the CEO was a “true believer” in what the program hoped to accomplish. He saw this cultural adjustment as a vital component to his effectiveness as a new divisional CEO. At the outset, the CEO expressed a desire to frame the program positively; this approach is consistent with that examined bySonenshein (2010). Beyond that framing, however, the CEO even provided a specific description of the kind of culture he wanted to develop: We need to be less threatening and more inclusive. Our employees need to be as willing to take actions as they are to take orders. But to do that, the organization needs to develop a culture based on openness and transparency. Everyone needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing.
As will be shown later, this commitment to openness, transparency and communication, which are consistent with those recommended byO’Toole and Bennis (2009)as well asBarrett (2002), became a key foundation for the program. Even more important, the CEO’s unwavering commitment to the cultural change became the foundation on which the program was built as well as the lynchpin that saved the program when its validity was called into question.
Program Format
An initial pilot program proved successful, receiving a 92% approval rating from participants. Slight modifications were thus added and the final program emerged in early September. Thereafter, the program was delivered nine times between mid-September and late December of 2009.Figure 1provides an overview of the process used. Textual commentary followingFigure 1provides a more detailed description as to how the process worked.
The gap analysis process.
Top Team Participation and Commitment
Channels are an important part of any change initiative (Lewis, 1999). Thus, each version of the program began with the CEO and three of his top lieutenants meeting with a group of between 30 and 50 employees on Thursday afternoons from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was to describe the company’s 5-year strategic plan as well as the desired organizational/cultural changes planned for implementation. The CEO viewed the intent of his presentation as being a combination of conveying the information about the planned changes and of demonstrating a personal, emotional commitment to these changes.Lundin, Paul, and Christensen (2002)as well asMichelli and Yokoyama (2004)emphasized the importance of this level of commitment from a practical standpoint—that is, both books describe a specific location, Pike’s Place Fish Market, where this level of commitment has worked with amazing success.Fox, Amichai-Hamburger, and Evans (2001)provided an academic support for this approach by identifying the important link between emotional input and effective change programs. The CEO in this study was most definitely emotionally invested in this cultural change program.
At the end of the Thursday meeting, facilitators for the next day’s meeting were introduced and provided a 5-minute explanation of the activities planned for the next day. Following this description, a social gathering—usually a barbeque picnic—was held for those participating in the next day’s events. The CEO and his lieutenants hosted the event. The premise behind the social event was, as suggested byGroysberg and Slind (2012), to initiate engagement, to begin a “conversation,” and to ultimately achieve alignment throughout the organization.
Gap Analysis
The second day of each session began on Friday at 7:00 a.m. with two outside facilitators offering a brief summary of the previous day’s content. The facilitators also provided a detailed outline of the day’s activities and the hoped for outcome. Outside facilitators were used to encourage open participation and to lessen fears of reprisals from supervisors.
The first activity involved an exercise labeled a gap analysis. The exercise worked as follows: facilitators provided the employees with a list of the key strategic and cultural goals identified the previous day. Facilitators then divided the employees into groups and asked them to assess the organization’s present cultural condition in comparison to the desired cultural goals.
Groups developed their respective views of the gaps and then presented them on flip charts to the entire group. Group discussions led to the development of the three to five key gaps that had to be bridged for the cultural changes to have a chance of success. An 80% vote from the entire group was required for a cultural gap to be labeled “significant” and to move forward into the next activity.
Bridging the Gap
After a short break, groups were provided with a list of the key gaps they had identified as needing organizational attention. In essence, this list framed the conversational boundaries and realities for the remainder of the day (Ford, 1999). Groups were then sent back into breakout rooms to devise specific strategies to “bridge” the identified gaps. These suggestions were then reported to the entire team to analyze, discuss, and strive for a “resolution” consensus. Bridge suggestions that received 80% support were preserved for later usage.
Report Preparation
Following a lunch break, the groups met as a whole to select gap and bridging the gap suggestions for presentation later in the day. Once selected, teams were then charged with developing a bottom-line/to-the-point presentation to deliver to the CEO and his lieutenants (Fielden & Dulek, 1984).
Report Delivery
The CEO and his lieutenants returned to the meeting location late on Friday afternoon, usually about 3:30 p.m. Team representatives delivered presentations to the leaders about the gaps that were identified along with suggestions for bridging these gaps.
The CEO and his lieutenants listened to the presentations, with only the CEO being allowed to ask questions and respond directly to points being made. If necessary, he could ask his lieutenants for clarification.
These closing meetings were done as “stand up” meetings—only those with confirmed medical disabilities were allowed to sit. This standup approach improved the efficiency of the meeting (Bluedorn, Turban, & Love, 1999). Additionally, the tone for each of these nine meetings was cordial and respectful.
Debrief
The CEO and top lieutenants met with the session facilitators to evaluate the gaps identified and the bridges suggested. Discussions centered first on the validity of the insights and the feasibility of implementing the suggested changes. Those identified as extremely important or easily implemented were to receive attention on Monday morning. Others, which required either additional analysis or longer-term preparations, were assigned later target dates for implementation.
Findings
The gaps identified and the bridges recommended cannot be shared; it is, however, permissible to share some general observations extracted during the process. The sources for these observations derive from copies of the flipcharts completed during the gap identification and bridge development exercises; copies of PowerPoint presentations developed for the CEO presentation; and notes from a diary that was kept from the beginning to the end of the project. For purposes of identification, these findings are labeled as observations.
Observation 1: Communication Drives Cultural Change
The academic literature has established a strong link between change, culture, and communication. Many researchers (Frahm & Brown, 2007;Kotter, 2012;Kuppler, Garnett, & Morehead, 2014;Walker, Armenakis, & Bernerth, 2007;Westover, 2010) emphasized that for change to be effective the purpose of the change and the details of the changes planned need to be communicated clearly.
One of the overriding purposes of this program, and the reason it was designed in the manner described earlier, was to give lower- and middle-level management—and by extension the employees who report to them—a voice in developing the strategy and the culture that the organization intended to pursue going forward. The voice and the ability to participate and “buy into” the proposed cultural narrative is essential to its success (Dunford & Jones, 2000;Kjellberg & Andersson, 2003).
The ongoing participation of the CEO and his lieutenants was also an essential ingredient to this culture/communication link. Their presence and participation were essential both from a power/legitimacy perspective and from a symbolic perspective (Lewis, 1999;Pfeffer, 2010). Participants knew that the message was “getting to the top” when the CEO listened and summarized issues in each week’s closing session.
Yet the most important avenue for linking cultural change and communication was located not within the organization’s hierarchy but instead within its “story set.” Several scholars (Brown, Denning, Groh, & Prusak, 2005;Deal & Kennedy, 2000;Gottschall, 2012;Peters &Waterman, 1984;Smith, 2012) discussed the important connection between an organization’s culture and its stories. This case study further reinforces and adds to these findings as well as to those that examine the importance of narrative in business (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007;Fuller & Tian, 2006;Parada & Viladás, 2010).
Early in the program, from the first session forward, it was readily apparent that the story was going to be the main avenue for conveying information about the culture. Stories proved to be the predominant means of providing proof and substance to what otherwise might risk seeming to be an unsubstantiated claim. Stories emerged as the main form of proof in each of the nine sessions conducted.
Interestingly, though, as the stories became more and more a part of the program, a subtle way in which they were being used became apparent. At one level, stories about past transgressions in this division were being shared not just as proof for statements but also as reasons the organization needed to move forward. In other words, the stories sent messages both about the way things had been culturally in the past as well as providing justification or proof of the need for a cultural change in the future. As such, these stories contradicted the long-held observations ofPeters and Waterman (1984)andDeal and Kennedy (2000)that stories “hold fast to the past culture.” In this instance, the stories actually seemed to justify the need for a cultural change.
One story in particular exemplified this need for a cultural shift. The core story was repeated in four of the nine sessions, although specific description of the location and the details of the event changed in some versions. In any case, the intended meaning of the story remained consistent. In a nutshell, this story dealt with an instance where the previous CEO entered the plant site and intervened in an established process. The key parts of the story dealt with the CEO disrespecting lines of management in that he would give orders directly to a plant-level employee in the presence of that employee’s supervisor. To add emphasis to the issue, each version of the story mentioned that the CEO’s advice to the employee contradicted what managers had previously told the employee to do.
The above story was always cited as an example of a culture that needed to be repaired. And the specific repairs needed always focused on the concept of employee and managerial respect. Equally as interesting, stories about the present leadership team were consistently hopeful. These stories stressed that a much-needed change was “in the air.” Additionally, the content of each of these stories stressed that the forthcoming cultural change would be positive.
The best evidence of this new “story frame” emerged with a companion story to the previously mentioned story about the past CEO. This story, which dealt with the new CEO, was repeated in each of the four different sessions that shared the earlier story about the past CEO. In this instance, however, each version of the story had minimal variance with regard to details. In brief, this story involved a low-level manager going to the CEO to explain why a particular production line was shut down for almost 8 hours. In each version of the story, the CEO asked informational questions about what happened and then ended by thanking the employee for bringing this information to him. In each reiteration of the story, the teller emphasized that that CEO thanked the employee for bringing the information to light. And while the tellers of this story never made a direct link to the earlier desire for respect, each teller used the story as exemplifying a desired cultural condition that they hoped to see built within the organization.
Stories, of course, include metaphors. And metaphors are one of numerous ways of seeing more deeply into a story (Dawson, 2005) and into whatO’Connor (2002)called a story line. Two sets of metaphors surfaced repeatedly in each of the nine sessions conducted. The first set—which surfaced in the early stages of each session—dealt with violence. These metaphors were used to describe the past culture, which according to most descriptions, was dictatorial. Interestingly, these metaphors were specifically linked to efforts to communicate negative information to the past administration. Specific phrases used to describe the response included “getting shot,” “getting burnt,” being “thrown under the bus,” having “your hands chopped off,” and “having your head served on a platter.” These metaphors surfaced repeatedly in response to questions about “openness” and “trust.”
The second set of metaphors dealt with a state of strategic confusion. They exemplified a lack of priorities and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for specific tasks. Key metaphors here included “Jump on the bus that doesn’t know where it is going;” the “soccer strategy” (that is, kick responsibility from one group to another); the “firefighter approach” (go from one emergency to another); and the Wile E. Coyote approach (try something once and then abandon it rather than modifying it and trying again). Each of the above descriptions surfaced at least three times in the nine sessions offered. They show the strong link between strategy and culture (Flamholtz & Randle, 2011) and a lack of respect between employees and the past administration. Each also was used to justify “shutting down” the flow of information from one level of the organization to another.
Observation 2: Information Is About Content, Power, and Respect
Twenty-eight distinct gaps were identified by the end of the nine sessions. Rather surprisingly, five of these gaps (17.9%) dealt directly or indirectly with the way information was handled. These gaps ranged from upper-level management being unwilling to share vital information with lower-level employees to accusations about the use of information to demonstrate power, importance, and membership in “in” or “out” groups. Lower-level managerial groups perceived information hoarding as exemplifying not just a lack of commitment to openness but also symptomatic of “trust” issues from above and a “lack of respect” from below. One mid-level manager expressed the challenges of information hoarding precisely: The problem is difficult. I feel disrespected when my managers withhold information from me. It’s as though the managers don’t believe that I can be trusted with confidential information. Then, the problem becomes even more complicated when my direct reports ask me if I knew about a change that just happened. When I say “no” they either think I’m lying or, as some have said, “Aren’t you a manager? Shouldn’t you know that?” I interpret that response as a lack of respect from below.
Information proved so important to one’s organizational standing that a secondary avenue developed through which low- and mid-level managers gained information about forthcoming strategic changes. These managers developed extremely strong, trusting relationships with outside suppliers. These relationships provided numerous informational benefits, but one in particular surfaced frequently: suppliers learned about forthcoming changes earlier than internal managers. This information flowed to suppliers since top-level management often needed key information prior to instituting a strategic initiative—that is “Would you be able to handle a 40% increase in orders over the next 6 months?” The result was that outside suppliers knew more about planned developments than did internal, low-level managers. Interestingly, lower-level managers did not perceive the suppliers’ attainment of this information as disrespectful. The managers understood why this information was being given to suppliers. Hence, they saw and cultivated relationships with suppliers to have a knowledge source about planned initiatives.
Observation 3: Cultural Change Depends on High-Level Behavioral Confirmation
As is by now evident, the success of this cultural change program heavily depended on a single individual: the CEO. His commitment and continuing participation made the program function effectively, especially in the early sessions. And the aforementioned story about his saying “thanks” to an employee for explaining the reasons for a plant shutdown reinforced his commitment to open communication. However, the CEO’s most significant influence on the program’s success occurred with a single incident in a single moment. This moment brought the program to a new level of acceptance. A narrative is necessary to convey what happened. About midday in the fifth session an employee challenged a facilitator with the following question: “You know the real problem here, don’t you?” The facilitator chose to return the question rather than answer it by replying: “What do you think it is?” After a moment of hesitation, the employee said that the problem was that units reported “inaccurate numbers.” Specifically, the employee said that everyone was under such pressure to meet preset numbers that they “bent” projections and accomplishments to satisfy the expectations. “It is not exactly lying,” the employee observed, “but we all know the numbers are not real.”
The end result, the employee noted, was that top management did not have an accurate picture of the plant’s situation. After some prodding, others in the group agreed with the assessment. A discussion followed that ultimately led to a question as to whether or not to share this information with the CEO and his top lieutenants at the end of the day presentation. After some debate, the decision was made to do so. The employee appointed to deliver this message at the stand-up meeting presented the information with a mixture of clarity and tact. As the CEO listened, he seemed to quickly perceive the core message being delivered: the data he was receiving were not totally accurate. His initial reaction was to cross his arms and look sternly at the speaker. Soon, however, without saying a thing, he seemed to recognize—and in a debriefing session later acknowledged as having done so—that the employee was “trusting me with the truth.” He also acknowledged the realization that this was a seminal moment in his leadership position. The entire culture change program was built on his desire for openness and transparency; if he responded inappropriately at this moment, the program would be jeopardized. After the employees finished speaking, the CEO paused for approximately 5 seconds. He then answered with the following statement: I don’t care what has happened in the past. In my administration, you will only get in trouble if you have a piece of information that you think I don’t want to hear but you fail to share that information with me. Furthermore, if you are under such pressure to meet numbers that you are having to “bend the numbers to survive,” then there must be something wrong with our system. I will have a team on this issue on Monday morning. We will not have an answer by the end of the day, but we will get this fixed as quickly as possible.
Then, after pausing for another 5 seconds, the CEO added: Thank you for sharing this problem with me. We will fix it.
From that point forward, the tone of the cultural change program shifted dramatically. Prior to the incident, most employees came to the program because they were required to do so. At one point during the first module, 33 of the 35 participants sat with their arms folded across their chests. From one perspective, this resistance was consistent with findings in the academic literature about the strength of resistors (Battilana & Casciaro, 2013). From another perspective, however, this nonverbal resistance was surprising, especially since it occurred during the CEO’s presentation on suggested strategic and cultural changes. From the sixth session through the ninth session (note, the above-mentioned incident occurred in the fifth session) no more than 10% of the participants mimicked this pose in the opening sessions. In terms of participation and “buy in,” the program had passed a tipping point (Gladwell, 2000) and had become a participatory success.
Conclusions
Case descriptions such as this one can form a valuable base on which to build other studies. These descriptions can anchor future real-world situations and real-world problems that need to be addressed and solved.Bowker (2007)acknowledged this need by calling for further examination of “discourse” at work. Yet despite the importance of this approach, we must also always look on results from these “consulting-based” projects with jaundiced eyes.Cornelissen (2005),Freedman (2013), andSolomon (2004)are among a chorus of scholars who praised the use of stories in business but also warn that these tools can oversimplify complex situations and imply that solutions are obvious and easy to implement. So, likewise, case studies, such as this one, invite us to overgeneralize from specific situations and tempt us to go further and apply these interpretations to an entire industry or even to all organizational settings. Such overgeneralization should not be done in this instance since format within this organization and the active participation by the CEO are impossible to replicate.
Even with the above qualification, case/consulting studies such as this do have important value. From a pragmatic point of view, this study describes an interesting and proven way to design and implement a cultural change program. Others having opportunities similar to this one may want to consider using the program described herein. At the very least, the program described can serve as a starting program for other initiatives.
Even more important, the observation section of this case study provides hints and insights, and extends an invitation for additional, more academically rigorous and more scientifically controlled studies. One topic mentioned here and certainly worthy of additional examination is the use of stories to change rather than just to protect the existing culture.Von Ghyczy (2003)andGioia and Chittipeddi (1991)hinted at this usage, but neither addresses it directly. This technique deserves more in-depth examination. A second topic worth review involves the use of metaphor and metaphor warnings to influence cultural initiatives. It is important to note that the metaphoric “warnings” in this situation were aimed at the previous administration. Future studies may find these insults directed either at present or future initiatives. It would be interesting to see how effectively these metaphoric alarm bells function.
Another possible research topic or theory-building initiative that could emerge from this study might include the way “respect” is communicated or denied within cultural communication situations.Katzenbach, Steffen, and Kronley (2012)provided an additional basis for the importance of respect in cultural initiatives. Also, the importance of “commitment” within a cultural change program is deserving of additional attention.Gostick and Elton (2012)provided an excellent explication as to how focus and commitment affect strategic initiatives and cultural buy-in. Additional academic studies of communication and cultural change initiatives need to be built on top of their efforts. Finally, the importance of identifying and managing the aforementioned “tipping point” in a cultural change program is a topic worthy of further research. This “tipping point” concept might provide a key insight as to when the anxiety thatNichol and Nichol (2003)observe in cultural change programs transitions into acceptance.
Each of these issues deserves rigorous academic examination. Each could provide a basis for a valuable contribution to the literature bases of change management, cultural initiatives, and managerial communication. Additionally, each of the above topics deserves time for discussion, debate, and analysis in any business communication class examining strategies for communicating change. It is in this latter venue where a case study such as this one can prove most valuable.
Footnotes
Author’s Note
This study was considered exempt from review by the institutional review board of the University of Alabama; participant comments are reproduced by permission.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The manufacturer paid the author for the consulting project on which the case study is based. The consulting project was completed in 2009 with an agreement not to share processes or general observations for five years. The case study itself was done independently of the company and does not develop from any support provided by the organization.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author Biography