What Are Ways to Reverse Negative Cultures Created by Leaders?

As organizations move from early stages when they are first created to a mid-point and

subsequently to full maturity their respective cultures serve “different functions” (Schein, 2010,

p. 296). As this evolutionary process is transpiring particular assumptions and values gain

prominence each reflecting and resonating with the temporal needs of the organization. As a

result, the introduction of change and the reversing of negative cultural traits must also be

tailored to the organizational life timeline in order to retain their effectiveness. Here, in the early

stages, culture is viewed as a “positive growth force” whose priorities demand to be “elaborated,

developed, and articulated” (Schein, 2010, p. 296), highlighted and continuously re-emphasized.

In an organization’s midlife, multiple subcultures have been formed and as a result “Deciding

which elements need to be changed or preserved” (Schein, 2010, p. 296) is a more difficult

endeavor although change agents and leaders possess “more options to change assumptions by

differentially rewarding different subculture” (Ibid). In maturity, cultural change may demand

“more drastic processes such as scandals and turnarounds” (Schein, 2010, p. 296).

In the early growth period of an organizational life “proposals to deliberately change the

culture from either inside or outside will be totally ignored or strongly resisted. Instead,

dominant members or coalitions will attempt to preserve and enhance the culture” (Schein, 2010,

p. 274). In this culturally resilient environment only “an external crisis of survival in the form of

a sharp drop in growth rate, loss of sales or profit, a major product failure, the loss of some key

people, or some other event that cannot be ignored” may lead to the removal of leadership, the

installment of new management and the introduction of new cultural characteristics. In the event

that the conditions of external stress are manageable and the founders remain at the helm of the

organization “the culture evolves in small increments by continuing to assimilate what works

best over the years” (Schein, 2010, p. 275). In this environment culture evolves through a

process of “general evolution” (Schein, 2010, p. 275) where the “overall corporate culture will

adapt to changes in its external environment and internal structure” (Ibid). An additional aspect

of cultural adaptation that may be observed in this early growth period involves “specific

evolution” (Schein, 2010, p. 276) that implies the “adaptation of specific parts of the

organization to their particular environments and the impact of the subsequent cultural diversity

on the core culture” (Ibid). At this juncture, the phenomena of “subgroups” (Schein, 2010, p.

276) and “subcultures” (Ibid) begin to gain prominence in an organizational culture representing

multiple “underlying assumptions about the nature of the world and the actual growth experience

of the organization” (Ibid). In order to implement cultural reform, members of the organizations

may also alter “some of the priorities within the core set of assumptions or abandoning one

assumption that is a barrier by subordinating it to a higher-order assumption (Schein, 2010, p.

277). This “insight” (Schein, 2010, pp. 277-279) driven evolution may involve abandoning a

given assumption or “mechanism” (p. 278), “design compensatory mechanisms” (P. 278) or

“break the company down into smaller units in which the consensual process could work because

people could remain functionally familiar with each other and build efficient consensual

processes” (p. 278). A further possible strategy for cultural reform in the growth period is the

introduction of “gradual and incremental change” (Schein, 2010, p. 279) in the form of the

“systematic promotion of insiders whose own assumptions are better adapted to the new external

realities” (Ibid). The unique quality and indeed strength of these insiders is the very fact that

“they accept much of the cultural core and have credibility” (Schein, 2010, p. 279) however

“because of their personalities, their life experiences, or the subculture in which their career

developed, they hold assumptions that are to varying degrees different from the basic paradigm

and thus can move the organization gradually into new ways of thinking and acting” (Ibid).

Most importantly, “a promoted insider…understands the culture well enough to know how to

make the necessary changes” (Schein, 2010, p. 280) where as an outsider who is introduced into

the organization “may have the values and assumptions that are needed, but they almost always

lack the cultural insight that would enable them to figure out how to implement the desired

changes” (Ibid).

Cultural reform in the midlife period of an organization is influenced by the challenges

relating to the issue of succession such as founders being replaced by the next generation of

leaders in matters having to do with “operational control” (Schein, 2010, p. 280). Organizational

practices relating to succession must include “those parts of culture that provide identity,

distinctive competence and protection from anxiety” (Schein, 2010, p. 281). An important

feature of the midlife period of organizations is that “consciousness of the culture and the

deliberate attempt to build, integrate or conserve the culture have become less important”

(Schein, 2010, p. 283). Nevertheless, the cultural effects of factors such as “geographical

expansion, mergers and acquisitions, and introductions of new technologies” (Schein, 2010, p.

283) will have to be evaluated. One constant characteristic of organizations during their midlife

period is the “diversity” (Schein, 2010, p. 283) of subcultures where it may be regarded as a

“distinct advantage if the environment is changing” (p. 284). Schein (2010) argues that

“diversity increases adaptive capacity” (p. 284) and organizations may introduce cultural change

by “systematically promoting people form” (p. 283) different subcultures “into key power

positions” (p. 283). A further dynamic that may facilitate cultural change in organizations during

the midlife period is the “subtle, cumulative, and sometimes unintended consequences of new

technology” (Schein, 2010, p. 284). Certain technology applications may also introduced

intentionally within the organization as a vehicle to reduce “cultural diversity” (Schein, 2010, p.

284) and helping employees to “think and behave in common terms” (Ibid). Here technologies

such as groupware, social media and other IT enabled organizational programs facilitate the

emergence of “a new common language and concepts in a given cultural area…will gradually

force organization members to adopt a common frame of reference that will eventually lead to

common assumptions” (Schein, 2010, p. 285). Cultural change may also be brought about by the

introduction of outsiders into leadership positions. Dyer (1986, 1989) proposes that the

introduction of outsiders into leadership positions follows a continuum where “the organization

develops a sense of crisis because of declining performance” (as cited in Schein, 2010, p. 287)

leading to “a weakening of…procedures, beliefs and symbols that support the old culture”,

installment of a “new leader with new assumptions” (Ibid) leading to conflict “between the

proponents of the old assumptions and the new leadership” (Ibid). Dyer (1986, 1989) observes

that in this scenario if the crisis is successfully dealt with, the new leader is able to introduce

“new assumptions” (as cited in Schein, 2010, p. 288) that will be “embedded and reinforced”

(Ibid). A further variety of this aforementioned strategy is “by systematically bringing outsiders

into jobs below the top management level allowing them gradually to educate and reshape top

management’s thinking” (Schein, 2010, p. 288). This also transpires when “outsiders take over

subgroups, reshape the culture of those subgroups, become highly successful, and thereby create

a new model of how the organization can work” (Schein, 2010, p. 288).

In mature organizations, at times inconsistencies and contradictions evolve between

“espoused values and basic assumptions” (Schein, 2010, p. 291). In these situations “scandals

and myth explosion become primary mechanisms of culture change” (Schein, 2010, p. 291).

Here, when new practices are introduced into the organization in order to address the effects of

the scandal “they do not automatically create new cultures because the new practices may not

result in greater external success or internal comfort” (Schein, 2010, p. 293). Cultural reform

may also be realized through turnaround strategies where new assumptions are introduces by

“defining new values and goals through teaching, coaching, changing the structure and processes

where necessary; consistently paying attention to and rewarding evidence of learning the new

ways; creating new slogans, stories, myths, and rituals; and in other ways coercing people into

adopting new behaviors” (Schein, 2010, p. 293). Cultural turnarounds or transformations may

be implemented by adopting a “strong vision model” (Schein, 2010, p. 293) where a leader “has

a clear vision of where the organization should end up, specifies the means by which to get there,

and consistently rewards efforts to move in that direction” (Ibid). Turnarounds may also be

implemented through a “fuzzy vision model” (Schein, 2010, p. 293) where the leader “states

forcefully that the present is intolerable and that performance must improve within a certain time

frame but then relies on the organization to develop new visions of how to actually get there”

(Ibid). Culture change may also be implemented through mergers and acquisitions where “the

two cultures can be left alone to continue to evolve in their own way…one culture will

dominate…the other culture … [or]…blend the two cultures by selecting elements of both

cultures for the new organization (Schein, 2010, p. 294). In mature organizations, cultural

change may also be attempted by “removing key culture carriers” (Schein, 2010, p. 295) such as

top officers and replacing them with “new people with new assumptions” (Ibid).

In reversing negative cultures, Gilbert (2014) observes that a successful change strategy

must “create a sense of urgency” (Leaders Create Culture, PowerPoint Slide # 5), “create a guide

team with the skills, credibility, connections and authority to move things along” (Ibid), “create

an uplifting vision and strategy” (Ibid) and “communicate the vision and strategy” (Ibid).

Gilbert (2014) also adds that successful change strategies must also “remove obstacles or

empower people to move forward” (Leaders Create Culture, PowerPoint Slide # 5), “produce

visible signs of progress” (Ibid), “stick with the process” (Ibid) and “nurture and support a new

culture to support the new innovative ways” (Ibid).

References:

Dyer, W. G., (1986). Culture change in family firms. In E. H. Schein, Organizational culture

and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dyer, W. G., (1989). Integrating professional management into a family-owned business. In E.

H. Schein, Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.

Gilbert, S. (2014). Managing Organizational Culture, Leaders Create Culture [PowerPoint

slides]. Retrieved form Lecture Notes Online Northeastern University College of

Professional Studies Blackboard Web site:

https://nuonline.neu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_group=courses&url=

%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Fcontent%2Ffile%3Fcmd%3Dview

%26content_id%3D_7168843_1%26course_id%3D_2236906_1%26framesetWrapped

%3Dtrue .

Schein, E, H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.