This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
The research aims to study the relationship between employees response to organizational changes based on organizational culture characterized by Hofstede cultural dimensions.
It is assumed that organizational culture will affect employee's response to the change in their organizational structure, positions, and any other issues that affect them.
This chapter, illustrates problem statement, states main objectives of the research, and discusses the research conceptual framework.
One of the biggest obstacles to the success of any planned change is employee resistance. Resistance affects a change program. People generally resist change because of its negative consequences. Every person reacts to change differently. The leader of organization needs to identify the different responses of the employees and be able to deal with their issues and concerns. The most important response that the leader must be prepared for is resistance. Employees may perceive change as threat to their livelihoods and their workplace social arrangements, or their status in the organization. Others know that their specialized skills will be rendered less valuable after a major change.
The research tries to find the relation between organizational culture, and employee's response to change.
Hofstede dimensions are used to characterize organizational culture and relate them to employee's response to change.
The research has the following objective:
To find relation between organizational culture and response to organizational change;
To determine which one of Hofstede cultural dimensions has larger weight affecting the employee's response to change.
The Research is based on two hypotheses; each of them is related together.
First, considers the organizational culture and its characterization with Hofstede cultural dimensions; while the second relates organizational culture with organizational change.
The two hypotheses are:
H1: Organizational culture can be characterized using Hofstede cultural dimensions.
H2: Organizational culture is directly affecting the response of the employee to change.
Research has the roadmap as illustrated in Figure 1 .
Organizational Change Process
Drivers of organizational change
Employee Response to change
The above figure illustrates how research theoretical framework is constructed, based on this and beginning with the concept of organizational change, forces behind organizational change is searched , its types, and theories explaining organizational changes, as well as employee's response to that change.
On the other hand, Hofstede cultural dimensions are studies to formulate the hypothesis linking these two concepts together.
A survey is then investigates the validity of these hypothesis, in the same time if valid, it will results in weight of each dimension on the response of change.
The research is constructed from five chapters; first chapter introduces a research problem statement; research objectives and conceptual framework; the second chapter introduces a literature review about the organizational change, Hofstede cultural dimensions, and employee's response to change, the operational definitions are stated according to the most suitable form research point of view.
Chapter three discussed the research methodology, method, and sampling; data collection plan and data analysis is stated as well.
Findings of the research are presented in chapter four, as well as the analysis of the data.
Finally, chapter five is the conclusion ad recommendations.
In this chapter, a review of literature is introduced; the review includes references of books and scientific publications in recent years.
As well, definitions of keywords are introduced, based on operational definitions of terms used in the research.
What is Organizational change?
Organizational change can be defined as "the difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity".de Ven, Andrew, ( 2004) where Culture is defined as a set of meanings and values shared by a group of people.Alvesson, (2002), so relating the organizational change to organizational culture we can define organizational culture as a specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. ; the research will define the point under consideration of resistance to change as a Negative emotional, cognitive, and intentional responses to change de Ven, Andrew, ( 2004) where magnitude of change is the magnitude of change represents a continuum ranging from fine-tuning changes, such as employee training, to radical organizational changes, such as reengineering and mergers. Pasmore, Woodman, (2007).
Employee's response to change
Most models in organizational psychology include a transition from ordinary state to a period of disruption (usually accompanied with lower performance), then return to its normality. For example, Lewin's (1952) model of freezing the normal state, moving, and then unfreezing. Or the Kubler-Ross (1969) model, where people go through many stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Actually; there is no model has been found to predict the human response to a certain constant change; the models that have been developed are trying to handle the issues of change itself, its factors etc.
There are three general forms of responses to system changes: de Ven, Andrew, ( 2004)
Negative feedback loops. These system responses attempt to attenuate or eliminate the impact of the change on the system.
Positive feedback loops. These system responses magnify the impact of the change on the system. This can be in the form of switching (before, during, or after the event) to alternative structures or functions, increased disorder beyond what is directly produced by the change event itself and, if the increased disorder is extreme enough, either ''creative innovation'' or ''collapse.''
No response. The system may give no apparent response to a given event: This may occur because either the group failed to note the event, or assumed it would not alter the group's ''fitness landscape,'' or, Some feature of the group's history, its self-regulatory processes, and/or its routines prevented or impeded response. Alternatively, an apparent ''no response'' may be an artifact of the observation process. It may be imputed to a system by an observer erroneously, because the system's response to the event was time-shifted. If the change event is already anticipated, or if response to it is delayed, the response occurs before or long after the observer ''looks'' at the group and concludes ''no response.''
Negative feedback dampens the impact of change; while Positive feedback magnifies the impact. Time shifting obscures the impact. Hence, we should not expect to find the impact of changes on the system to be isomorphic, in either valence or magnitude, with the valence and magnitude of the change.
This discussion implies several ''principles'' of adaptation, first, There is no reason to expect strong proportionality between magnitude of change events and responses to them; second responses to change events often have unintended consequences, both desirable and undesirable. Third, Temporal displacement can obscure the fact of, and the nature of, adaptive changes; finally, Not all changes are adaptations; some are spontaneous innovations. That is, new patterns of group action may occur that are not traceable to any particular event in the system's embedding contexts. Such changes are sometimes attributable to the intentionality of the system or its embedded members.
Resistance to change
Resistance to change has been an important area of inquiry. In fact, the importance placed on this issue might lead one to believe that resistance is inevitable when change is being implemented. Newer research Mills, Dye and Mills, (2009) indicates that this is not always so. On the contrary, some people embrace change and become bored and uninterested if change is not imminent. Some researchers (Wei , (2003) argue that the younger generations of workers are more used to a constant rate of change, are more adept at change, and actually expect to be moving forward constantly. Despite this, resistance to change can and does occur - just not all the time by everybody. Given that, resistance to change can be a very real problem for those leading change.
Patrick Connor and Linda Lake argue that; Mills, Dye and Mills, (2009) people tend to resist change or alterations of the status quo. This resistance is broader than simple opposition to a particular change; more widespread than a particular group's or individual's refusal to accept a specific change. There is simply the wish in most people to maintain the consistency and comfort that the status quo holds. This generalized resistance to change stems from a variety of sources.
Although their theory of resistance is one of the many that seem to indicate all people will resist change all of the time, their framework is still quite helpful. It creates a framework for understanding why resistance may be happening, when it happens.
Organizational change models
Modeling the process of change is an important issue; this modeling can facilitate the process of monitoring change, assessing the results (for both Macro and micro levels); models also can explain the reason behind changes happen, it's driving forces, and it's consequences.
The following sections discusses the early theories addressed the organizational change, followed by discussing the modern theories.
Categories of Theories and Models of Organizational Change
The model assumes that the change process is dependent on circumstances, situational variables, and the environment faced by each organization. Social systems as diversified, interdependent, complex systems evolve over time naturally. However, evolution is deterministic, and people have only a minor impact on the nature and direction of the change process. The model focus on the inability of organizations to plan for and respond to change, and their tendency to "manage" change as it occurs. The emphasis is on a slow process, rather than discrete events or activities. Change happens because the environment demands change for survival. The assumptions in these theories range from managers having no ability to influence adaptability to managers having significant ability to be proactive, anticipating changes in the environment.
As seen ; The theory ignores important environmental variables, and ignores the complexity of organizational life Kezar, (2001) by focusing on a few factors within the external and internal environment, such as resources and size of organization. Environmental disturbance and constraints are overemphasized.
The model assumes that organizations are purposeful and adaptive.
Change occurs because leaders, change agents, and others see the necessity of change. The process for change is rational and linear, as in evolutionary models, but individual managers are much more instrumental to the process. Internal organizational features or decisions, rather than the external environment, motivate change.
Key aspects of the change process include planning, assessment, incentives and rewards, stakeholder analysis and engagement, leadership, scanning, strategy, restructuring, and reengineering.
At the center of the process is the leader, who aligns goals, sets expectations, models, communicates, engages, and rewards. Strategic choices and human creativity are highlighted.
Goal formation, implementation, evaluation, and modification based on experience are an ongoing process. New additions to the repertoire of management tools include collaborative culture definition, large group engagement processes, and individual in-depth interventions. The outcome of the change process is similar to that in evolutionary models: new structures or organizing principles.Kezar, (2001)
Based on above, it can be concluded that, the model analyzes the change process strategy as based on technological terms like reengineering, planning, assessment, restructuring; which is more realistic than other psychological terms like motivation.
It also assumes that the process of change is controllable by managers and stockholders.
The emphasis on the role of people and individual attitudes to the change process was introduced, especially in research on resistance to change. The ability to, at times, forecast or identifies the need for change was an important contribution, helping organizations to survive and prosper in what otherwise would have been difficult times.
The main criticisms relate to the overly rational and linear process of change described within the model.
Researchers of second-order change demonstrate a chaotic process and find management models to be lacking needed information on the importance of culture and social cognition.Kezar, (2001)
The model assumes that organizations pass through long periods of evolutionary change and short periods of revolutionary change, when there is an impasse between the two perspectives. An organization's polar opposite belief systems eventually clash resulting in radical change. Conflict is seen as an inherent attribute of human interaction. The outcome of change is a modified organizational ideology or identity. Predominant change processes are bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion, influence and power, and social movements. Leaders are the key within any social movement and are a central part of these models .collective action is usually the primary focus. Progress and rationality are not necessarily part of this theory of change; dialectical conflict does not necessarily produce a "better" organization.Kezar, (2001)
It is seen that, this model provided explanation for regressive change and highlighted irrationality.Kezar, (2001)
The model does not take the effect of the environment upon the change processes.
Most models of change describe organizations as rational places with norms and rules. The major contribution of cultural models to the change literatures their emphasis on irrationality (also emphasized in dialectical models), the spirit, or unconscious, and the fluidity and complexity of organizations.
The model assumes that change occurs naturally as a response to alterations in the human environment; cultures are always changing. Cultural and dialectical models often overlap with the image of social movements as an analogy for cultural and political change.
The change process tends to be long-term and slow. Change within an organization entails alteration of values, beliefs, myths, and rituals.
There is an emphasis on the symbolic nature of organizations, rather than the structural, human, or cognitive aspects emphasized within earlier theories. History and traditions are important to understand, as they represent the collection of change processes over time.Kezar, (2001)
Change can be planned or unplanned, can be regressive or progressive, and can contain intended or unintended outcomes and actions.
Change tends to be nonlinear, irrational, non-predictable, ongoing, and dynamic. Some cultural models focus on the leaders' ability to translate the change to individuals throughout the organizations through the use of symbolic actions, language as the key to creating change. If there is an external motivator, it tends to be legitimacy, which is the primary motivator within the cultural model, rather than profit or productivity, which exemplify the teleological and environmental models.
It is obvious that the model simplifies the culture as it can be easily handled or understood; but this actually not the case; other complex models to handle culture effect on change is introduces but not easy to apply.
Organizational change theories and models
Cameron, Green, (2004)
Lewin, three-step model: organism, machine
Kurt Lewin developed his ideas about organizational change from the perspective of the organism metaphor. His model of organizational change is well known and much quoted by managers. Lewin is responsible for introducing force field analysis, which examines the driving and resisting forces in any change situation. The underlying principle is that driving forces must outweigh resisting forces in any situation if change is to happen.
it assumes that ; if the desire of a manager is to speed up the executive reporting process, then either the driving forces need to be augmented or the resisting forces decreased; or even better, both of these must happen.
Lewin proposed that organizational changes have three steps. The first step involves unfreezing the current state of interactions. This means defining the current state, surfacing the driving, resisting forces, and picturing a desired end-state. The second step is about moving to a new state through participation and involvement. The third step focuses on refreezing and stabilizing the new state of affairs by setting policy, rewarding success, and establishing new standards.
Lewin's three-step model
Source: Lewin (1951)
Lewin's model is good, and can be considered as a fundamental base for further study or theory.
The model is seen as plan of actions, which can be used to make the change, rather than a model of change Model. It also ignores the assumption of the organism metaphor that "groups of people will change only if there is a felt need to do so". Mills, Dye and Mills, (2009) The change process can then turn into an un-well studied plan that does not tackle resistance and fails to harness the energy of the key players. The effect of culture also is ignored in this model.
Bullock and Batten, planned change: machine
Bullock and Batten's (1985) phases of planned change draw on the disciplines of project management; there are many similar 'steps to changing your organization' models.
This particular approach implies the use of the machine metaphor of organizations. The model assumes that change can be defined and moved towards in a planned way. A project management approach simplifies the change process by isolating one part of the organizational machinery in order to make necessary changes, for example developing leadership skills in middle management, or reorganizing the sales team to give more engine power to key sales accounts.
this approach implies that the organizational change is a technical problem that can be solved with a definable technical solution. The approach also simplify the process of change , but it can not handle complex situation for organizational change , i.e. when organization has complex situation of changing where change drivers and forces are unknown
Kotter, eight-steps: machine, political, organism
Kotter's (1995) proposed 'eight steps' to make change in organization; his model is derived from analysis of his consulting practice with 100 different organizations going through change. His research highlighted eight key lessons, and he converted these into a useful eight-step model.
The eight steps are:
Establish a sense of urgency, 'felt-need' for change.
Form a powerful guiding group. Assembling a powerful group of people who can work well together.
Create a vision. Building a vision to guide the change effort together with strategies for achieving this.
Communicate the vision. Kotter emphasizes the need to communicate at least 10 times the amount you expect to have to communicate. The vision and accompanying strategies and new behaviors need to be communicated in a variety of different ways.
Empower others to act on the vision. This step includes getting rid of obstacles to change such as unhelpful structures or systems. Allow people to experiment.
Plan for and create short-term wins. Look for and advertise short-term visible improvements. Plan these in and reward people publicly for improvements.
Consolidate improvements and produce still more change. Promote and reward those able to promote and work towards the vision. Energize the process of change with new projects, resources.
Institutionalize new approaches. Ensure that everyone understands that the new behaviors lead to corporate success.
This eight-step model gives more defined and detailed procedure for change process; the steps are clear and well defined; but it may take more time to implement and, maybe, it would be difficult to follow strictly. The approach did not refer to the situation of inability of achieving one-step; and how it can be handled.
Beckhard and Harris, change formula: organism
Beckhard and Harris (1987) developed a formula of change that defines some parameters to take into consideration Figure 3.
Source: Cameron, Green, (2004)
Factors A, B, and D must outweigh the perceived costs X for the change to occur. If any person or group whose commitment needed is not sufficiently dissatisfied with the present state of affairs A, eager to achieve the proposed end state B and convinced of the feasibility of the change D, then the cost X of changing is too high, and that person will resist the change.
Resistance is normal and to be expected in any change effort. Resistance to change takes many forms; change managers need to analyze the type of resistance in order to work with it, reduce it, and secure the need for commitment from the resistant party.
The formula is sometimes written (A x B x D) > X. This adds something useful to the original formula. The multiplication implies that if any one factor is zero or near zero, the product will also be zero or near zero and the resistance to change will not be overcome. This means that if the vision is not clear, or dissatisfaction with the current state is not felt, or the plan is obscure, the likelihood of change is severely reduced. These factors (A, B, D) do not compensate for each other if one is low. All factors need to have weight.
This formula is simple but in the same time useful. It illustrates the factors affecting change process; if each party in the process applies in this formula, it will help determining the weak points, and help enhance the performance in each phase of change.
On the other hand; the formula gives each factor the same weight, and did not correlate any of these factors together; which may be in accurate.
Stacey and Shaw, complex responsive processes
There is yet another school of thought represented by people such as Ralph Stacey (2001) and Patricia Shaw (2002). These writers use the metaphor of flux and transformation to view organizations. The implications of this mode of thinking for those interested in managing and enabling change are significant:
Change, or a new order of things, will emerge naturally from clean communication, conflict, and tension (not too much).
As a manager, you are not outside of the system, controlling it, or planning to alter it, you are part of the whole environment.
In Patricia Shaw's book Changing Conversations in Organizations, rather than address the traditional questions of 'How do we manage change?' she addresses the question, 'How do we participate in the ways things change over time?' This writing deals bravely with the paradox that 'our interaction, no matter how considered or passionate, is always evolving in ways that we cannot control or predict in the longer term, no matter how sophisticated our planning tools'.
As a first look, the model seems to be passive one; it discards the ability of making change goes as we want; also, it assumes that change is an ongoing process by itself, we have no control upon it; all we have to do is to watch and participate in it with a limited role.
This can be translated to practical as follow:
Managers have to decide what business the organization is in, and stretch people's thinking on how to adapt to this.
Ensure that there is a high level of connectivity between different parts of the organization, encouraging feedback, optimizing information flow, enabling learning.
Focus people's attention on important differences between current and desired performance, between different styles of work and between past and present outcomes.
Organizational culture and change process
As mentioned in the previous sections change process is complicated as has to be managed carefully from the management side.
Responses to change from employees are differ from organization to another, depending on many factors; one of them is the organizational culture.
Theories and models discussed above; tries to explain the process of change and its causes; while it is very important to take care of the cultural model of change, where other models and theories did not take the effect of culture in it.
Therefore, we need to characterize the organization culture based on a measurable parameters or dimensions.
Hofstede introduced four dimensions to characterize the culture of nations, this dimensions can be used to characterize the organizational culture.
Characterization of organizational culture
On the other hand, Hofstede cultural dimensions can be used to characterize the organizational culture and can be defined as psychological dimensions, or value constructs, which can be used to describe a specific culture Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004). Where Hofstede has defined 4 dimensions to define culture ,first is the Power distance is The extent to which a society accepts that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally.Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004), second dimension is uncertainty avoidance, is the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain or ambiguous situations. Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004), third dimension is Individualism, which is loosely knit social framework in a society in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only.Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004); and Collectivism, which is the opposite, occurs when there is a "tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups; they expect their in-group (relatives, clan, organizations) to look after them, and in exchange for that owe absolute loyalty to it" Error: Reference source not found.finally; masculinity is The extent to which the dominant values in society are assertiveness, money, and material things, not caring for others, quality of life, and people. Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004)
Hofstede cultural dimensions
The pioneering work on cultural measurement could be credited to Hofstede (1980).
In the earlier stage, Hofstede identified four dimensions of culture and highlights the most important culture differences in a multinational organization. The four dimensions are individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity and femininity. These four dimensions were initially detected through the comparison of the value among the employees and managers working in 53 national subsidiaries of the IBM Corporation.
Dr. Geert Hofstede, believes that "culture" counts and has identified four dimensions of national culture:Harris, Moran , Moran, Judith (2004)
1. Power distance: indicates "the extent to which a society accepts that power in institutions and organizations is distributed unequally."
2. Uncertainty avoidance: indicates "the extent to which a society feels threatened by uncertain or ambiguous situations."
3. Individualism: refers to a "loosely knit social framework in a society in which people are supposed to take care of themselves and of their immediate families only." Collectivism, the opposite, occurs when there is a "tight social framework in which people distinguish between in-groups and out-groups; they expect their in-group (relatives, clan, organizations) to look after them, and in exchange for that owe absolute loyalty to it."
4. Masculinity: with its opposite pole, femininity, expresses "the extent to which the dominant values in society are assertiveness, money and material things, not caring for others, quality of life, and people."
Criticism of Hofstede's cultural dimensions
Hofstede's work on culture is the most widely cited in most of studies. His observations and analysis provide scholars with a highly valuable insight into the dynamics of cross-cultural relationships. However, his work does not escape criticism.
In this section, most of criticized points will be listed and discussed.Jones, (2007)
Many researchers allude a survey is not an appropriate instrument for accurately determining and measuring cultural disparity. This is especially apparent when the variable being measured is a value which culturally sensitive and subjective. Hofstede addresses this criticism saying that surveys are one method, but not the only method that was used.
During the time of its delivery, there was very little work on culture, and at this time many businesses were just entering the international arena and were experiencing difficulties; they were crying out for credible advice. Hofstede's work met and exceeded this demand for guidance.
This actually is very convincing for researcher to base their research on Hofstede's work.
This criticism is perhaps the most popular. Hofstede's study assumes the domestic population is a homogenous whole. However, most nations are groups of ethnic units. Analysis is therefore constrained by the character of the individual being assessed; the outcomes have a possibility of arbitrariness. On the other hand, Hofstede tends to ignore the importance of community, and the variations of the community influences.
This critic is somewhat true; but if we will speak about the majority of groups within one culture; as well as the probability of being the individual have the common features of his culture, I do believe that is worth to pursue Hofstede's work.
Nations are not the proper units of analysis, as cultures are not necessarily bounded by borders. Recent research Jones, (2007) has found that culture is in fact fragmented across group and national lines. Hofstede points out however that national identity is the only means we have of identifying and measuring cultural differences.
This is true, as we can agree that "national identity" is not the only mean to measure cultural differences; but it is one of them, hence the model still valid , may be less accurate but reliable.
One Company Approach
A study fixated on only one company cannot possibly provide information on the entire cultural system of a country. Hofstede said he was not making an absolute measure, he was merely gauging differences between cultures, and this style of cross-sectional analysis was appropriate.
However, this international organization is worldwide spread, and is considered as a typical example of cultural diversity, so it worth to be considered.
Some researchers have claimed that the study is too old to be of any modern value, particularly with today's rapidly changing global environments, internationalization, and convergence. Hofstede countered saying that the cross-cultural outcomes were based on centuries of indoctrination, recent replications Jones, (2007), Nakata, (2009) have supported the fact that culture will not change overnight.
Conclusion about Hofstede's cultural dimensions
It is obvious that more research is needed to evaluate culture in terms of contemporary standards.
However, Hofstede's work has controversy surroundings; the work is still quite high, as it remains the most valuable work on culture.
Based on the theoretical and practical value of Hofstede's work, research hypothesis refers to its effect on employs reaction toward organizational changes; and this will be investigated.
In this chapter, a review of literature has been introduced; the review includes references of books and scientific publications in recent years.
Definitions of keywords are listed, based on operational definitions of terms used in the research.
It can be concluded from these that the process of organizational change is targeted by many scholars as well as many research topics, many models addressed the process of change trying to define the drivers of change as well as it consequences, non of these models have addressed the effect of organizational culture on the change outcomes.
Cultural model studied the effect of phenomenological and social constructivist but never refer to organizational culture.
In this chapter, research methodology will be illustrated, followed by the method of implementation of methodology as well as instrumentation for research.
Sampling method, data collection and its analysis is also discussed.
The research is going to be quantitative; based on data collection and analysis for examining the proposed hypothesis; research strategy is descriptive, the research is cross-sectional because of limited time.
Survey will be carried out through internet groups and hard papers with coworkers
Organizational culture characterized by Hofstede cultural dimensions (Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, Masculinity, individualism, long-term orientation) are the independent variables, where reemploys response to change (positive negative, no response) are the dependant variables.
The samples are going to cover a wide variety of participants, through co-workers, fiends, and internet groups.
The research population is any working employee in top-level management, middle level management and subordinates.
Simple random sample is going to be followed in the research, as it is the best way to generalize the finding allover the population.
Survey questionnaire is used in this research to elicit information and to get feedback from participants.
Questionnaire is going to be distributed by E-mail, and as hardcopy paper.
Questionnaire encompassed of a series of questions for gathering data or information from participants through about 39 questions.
Questionnaire begins with investigation of the participant's position in the organization, and then a series of question is designed to measure the Hofstede cultural dimensions in this organization.
This set of questions has a multiple choice varying from 1 to 5 according to which each dimension will be measured.
Second part of the questionnaire is to propose certain changes in the organization for the participant and see his response to this change (positive, negative or no response).
The questionnaire has some duplicated questions in different syntaxes to investigate whether the participant is truly answers questions or just filling places; also there is questions that depend on previous ones, that measures the degree of reliability of responds.
Data Collection Plan
Steps in Data Collection:
Data are collected from different resources, first from books and palliations from literature review part; second from survey questionnaire described above.
The plan of data collection will be carried out according to the following steps:
Identifying Data Types and Sources
During questionnaire development, data needed for evaluation is identified. Also creating and inventory for types of data collected and where or from whom data will be collected.
Identifying Who Will Be Involved
It is important to involve stakeholders, as well as anyone who will be involved in collecting or obtaining data. This will help eliminate questions or issues that may impede or delay data collection.
Setting a Schedule
Timing is one of the most critical elements of data collection. To avoid planning data collection for times when data may be unavailable an early evaluation planning for participants who will provide data is carried out.
Implementation of data Collection
Implementation of data collection is very critical; it should address the right person to grantee the appropriate feedback as well as timely bounded response.
Data analysis should help to classify data. This involves grouping of data into categories that allow quickly determine what factors are involved and potentially what the data means.
Research design and particularly the type of data collected together with the methods used in this collection, will determine not only whether quantitative techniques can be used, but often will determine the specific quantitative technique to be used.
The results are analyzed using SPSS to get the correlation and parameters.
Research Ethical Considerations
In this research ethical consideration have been adopted during all phases of research;
Participant in survey phase is informed with the process of research.
No names or entities have been mentioned in research.
No action has caused physical or emotional harm to subjects.
Bias toward certain assumption or hypothesis has been avoided as possible.
All findings of survey and research outcomes are anonymous.
Survey has covered all possible categories of participants, not focused on one category.
Impressions and stereotypes are avoided as possible.
During research process some limitation occurred.
Access to information, and participants with large number; Time is very limited and all activities have been carried out with in a tiny time schedule; Support from organizations and participants were not available all time and not in all cases.
In this chapter, research methodology has been illustrated, followed by the method of implementation of methodology as well as instrumentation for research.
Sampling method, data collection and its analysis is also discussed.
The research will be quantities based on a survey with questionnaire for implementation; SPSS software is selected for data analysis.
Research Ethical rules are followed and research limitations are overcome.
This chapter presents the data, results, and analysis from the study. Samples of different management levels of employees were surveyed. The researcher gathered 65 respondents' questionnaire results from different companies and organizations.
Ten responds have been excluded due to incompatibility answers and reliability check.
First, some statistics about gathered data is represented graphically; then graphs for the measured parameters are introduced and summary of results is presented.
Demographic data of samples
About 53% of the sample from middle management, where 31% are employees, 11% are top management and 5% did not specify their managerial level.
This section lists the results of the questionnaire presented in a graphical form.
Each graph shows a group of participants four dimensions adjacent with response to change.
Power distance dimension
Uncertaninty avidance dimension
This section represents measure of each hofstede cultural dimensions versus response to change.
individualism/collectivism cultural dimension and response to change
Figure 4 ; Response to change is considered positive when it is 10 on the graph while negative response is illustrated with -10.
Individualism is represented in the graph above horizontal line at 60, while collectivism is under the line.
Figure 5 Response to change is considered positive when it is 10 on the graph while negative response is illustrated with -10.
Points above horizontal line at 90 is feminine cultural while under this line is masculine culture.
Figure 6 , the same for response to change; for points above horizontal line at 120 the cultures is high uncertainty avoidance while under line is low uncertainty avoidance.
Femininity/Masculinity with response to change
High uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance with response to change
Figure 7, power distance is considered high for above horizontal line at 150, while under the line is low power distance.
High Power distance
Power distance with response to change
High uncertainty avoidance
Hofstede cultural dimensions with response to change
Figure 8; illustrates the four cultural dimensions of organizational culture and the response to change.
it can be seen from the figure that about 63% of the responses are negative while about 18% is negatively responds to change and the same percentage have no response to change.
Percentage of response to change
Test of hypothesis
H1: Characterization of organizational culture using hofstede cultural dimensions
From Figure 8 , it can be seen that from the survey question that have been oriented to measure the culture of participant's organization, the organizational culture can be characterized using the hofstede dimensions.
for power distance, the questionnaire has investigated how the participants feel of inequality in the organization, which can be seen as how participants experience frequently situations that makes them feel inequality; on the other hand the uncertainty avoidance handles the issue of handling the unknown.
Individualism actually measure how participants used to work together within the organization, masculinity dimension measures to what extend organization apply gender roles.
Finally, the hypothesis is true.
H2: Organizational culture is directly affecting the response of the employee to change.
As can be seen response to change is positive, neutral, or negative.
For each response; in graph; a region is highlighted; and within each region the four dimensions of culture is represented.
For positive response of change, it can be seen that most of the participants that has positive response to change a relatively high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, masculine and individual organizational culture.
On the other hand; the employees that response to change negatively have high power distance as well; high uncertainty avoidance; masculine and collectivism organizational culture.
Participants that response to change neutrally i.e. no response to change; have low power distance; masculine and collectivism organizational culture; but the uncertainty avoidance cannot be characterize.
Comment on results
We can see that power distance is high in both positive and negative response to change; as the Egyptian culture Is always characterized as a high power distance culture so as it was expected that most of the responses is already high power distance.
Low uncertainty avoidance reflect the desire to be risk taker, hence it would be logic that risk taker would like to positively react to change, whatever the change is.
Most of the participants are working in a masculine working environment; hence, the dimension effect did not actually explored.
It was noticed also that participants that responds positively to change used to work in an individual manner.
Another note that also can be noticed from the graph that individualism / collectivism curve is almost that same as femininity/masculinity curve.
It has been seen that response to change is related to the organizational culture, that culture can be characterized by hofstede dimensions; positive response is strongly related with culture of risk taking and individual work.
Negative response is related to risk avoidance and collectivism working environment.
Conclusion and recommendations
In the previous chapter, the findings have been analyzed and hypotheses have been tested; in this chapter, a conclusion is constructed based in the whole previous work related with theories, and a recommendation is formulated based on conclusion.
Discussion based on the findings is presented and a conclusion is formulated.
In the previous chapter, hypothesis have been tested; we can concluded that the response of employees toward organizational change is somewhat related with the organizational culture; organizational culture is characterized by hofstede cultural dimensions.
Culture defines what is rewarded and what is punished. It encompasses formal as well as informal systems.
The effect of culture on, people, strategy, and development processes is not clear. It is important to analyze if the existing organizational culture supports the undertaken change or not. A strong reaction indicates that the change will require people to move outside current cultural boundaries.
In this research, since almost all participants are from Egypt; hofstede cultural dimensions of Egypt are influencing the results; we can see that most of the participants have a high power distance, which is a very dominating dimension in the Arab culture.
Also, the same thing with masculinity and femininity dimension; the masculinity is also dominating most participants organizational culture.
On the other hand, uncertainty avoidance and femininity/ masculinity dimensions are sharply variants between all participants.
It was noticed also that the two curves of femininity/ masculinity and individualism / collectivism are very similar.
It was found that persons that respond to change positively are risk takers and work individually; whereas persons respond negatively to change, are risks averse, and work collectively.
It was also noticed that most of the participants are responds negatively to change; these may be the nature of the Egyptian culture.
Finally; two hofstede cultural dimensions are affecting the employees response to change (individualism / collectivism and uncertainty avoidance); while both power distance and femininity/ masculinity have no measurable effect on the response to change of employees.
As discussed earlier in cultural model of change Kezar, (2001); the model expresses the change as a reason of human environmental change; this is somewhat related to this work; as we investigate the response to change based on the organizational culture, the model refers the change to cultural change.
As a result of the research, characterization of organizational culture is very important methodology for management; it can be used as an indirect orientation of the employees toward change.
Hofstede cultural dimensions are used to characterize the organizational culture; as it is always desired from the management that the employees respond to change positively or at least naturally; these study should be carried out in order to first predict the response then , evaluate the general attitude of the employees against the proposed change.
If this has been carried out early enough, management can have time to prepare employees to change by modifying the organizational culture.
Managers in organizations, who are planning to make a change in organization, have to consider the organizational culture.
Managers have to characterize their organizational culture for uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and collectivism; assuming most probably the organization is high power distance and masculine nature.
Organizational change should be carried out carefully in order to get the desired results and wanted response.
Managers have to investigate the organizational culture before carrying out any planned change.