the vision, and explain the rationa

the vision, and explain the rational for the new culture. The indi- viduals they taught were those in the family group at the next lower level in the hierarchy. Fourth, the members of Family Group 1 were required to monitor or assess the effectiveness of the change efforts. They not only monitored their own actions but also served as out- side auditors for the change plans of Family Group 2. This same process was repeated for Family Group 2, who targeted Family Group 3 as the focus of its teaching and assessments.
Consequently, the members of each family group were exposed to the new culture in four different ways and four times: when they learned about it, when they formulated action plans to try to achieve it, when they taught it to others, and when they assessed or measured it. Step 1, learning about it, helped clarify the key princi- ples on which change was based. Step 2, formulating an action plan, made the culture change personal. It could not be delegated to someone else. Personal change was required. Step 3, teaching, helped clarify the preferred culture, created commitment to it by


the teachers, and provided involvement for the entire organization. Step 4, monitoring, helped clarify the key criteria that indicated success.
We suggest that you follow a strategy similar to Xerox’s in your own culture change efforts. Your change process will be more suc- cessful if you have a rational strategy for implementing the culture change, rather than just hoping that somehow things will be differ- ent in the future. After all, the axiom is true: If you do the things you’ve always done, you’ll get the results you’ve always gotten.


Summary

Our intent in outlining these six steps for implementing culture change is to help ensure that the organization is clear from the out- set about its current culture and why it needs to change. A common mistake in organizations desiring to improve is that they do not take the time to arrive at a common viewpoint among employees about where the organization is starting from and where it needs to go. Unsuccessful organizations often launch right into a new change program without considering the need to develop a consensual view of the current culture, the need to reach consensus of what change means and doesn’t mean, and the specific changes that will be started, stopped, and continued. This six-step strategy will help you overcome these common obstacles to change and make the man- agement of culture change more systematic.
Culture change at a deep level, of course, may require actions that supplement and build on this six-step process. As an example, we provide one more case study of an organization that faced the need to change its culture. The key to culture change in this orga- nization, however, was certain actions taken by the top manage- ment team that complemented the OCAI methodology. We discuss this case in order to illustrate variations that are possible when the OCAI serves as the foundation but not the comprehensive strategy for culture change.


Supplementing the OCAI Methodology

The company we describe in this case was divided into a number of business divisions, each of which offered customers a different prod- uct or service. Thick boundaries existed among the divisions, and division managers functioned as the heads of their own kingdoms. In a discussion of the company’s future, the CEO and the president of the business concluded that any customer should be able to ef- fortlessly access all the company’s products and services across dif- ferent businesses. But such an outcome was completely fictitious at the present time. Since they wanted to present a seamless front to their customers, these two senior managers felt it was essential to begin with the top management team. They needed a team that re- ally was a team. They knew that if the top managers continued to behave in fragmented, self-serving ways, the organization simply wouldn’t survive over the long term. A new culture, emphasizing cooperation, teamwork, and customer service, was required.
Although everyone within the organization claimed to agree with this vision, little changed. Particularly troublesome were the division heads, who had learned to operate successfully in an inde- pendent manner and were quite uncomfortable with the concept of working cooperatively with one another. The president, who en- countered continual resistance and increasing frustration as he worked with these division heads, asked one of us to join him as a change agent. Our charge was to help him change the organiza- tion’s culture, beginning with the building of an effective top man- agement team.
After engaging in interviews, analyzing company documents, and holding lengthy conversations with the president, we agreed that a deep culture change was necessary. Subsequently, one of us attended a two-day meeting with the management group. It was clear that this group was comprised of bright, well-intentioned peo- ple who wanted to fulfill the organization’s objectives. They had ini- tiated a number of rational steps to try to implement a change


process. For example, they had rearranged boxes on the organiza- tional chart, reconfigured reporting relationships, and written new policies. They were not, however, acting like a team.
Toward the end of the meeting, we discussed the team-building process together, and we planned a two-and-a-half-day meeting to work on team building. We decided to begin by analyzing the cul- ture of the team. We would then employ a series of exercises to an- alyze and change the actual behavior of the team. We also planned a series of follow-up meetings designed to check on progress and to realign assignments, if necessary.
The head of human resources, a man who was also an experi- enced change agent, assisted in the team-building meeting. On the first morning, the group appeared uneasy. We began with the non- threatening task of employing the OCAI to analyze the current and desired cultures within the organization. The group consisted of fif- teen people, representing both line and staff functions. In the be- ginning of the cultural analysis process, three subgroups of five people were created. Each individual completed a personal analysis and then shared his or her results with the subgroup. Each subgroup compiled its results and shared them with the entire group. A com- prehensive profile of these results appears in Figure 5.7.
The group members found that depicting the organization on a cultural profile was an easy and insightful exercise. Their results pro- vided us with the material we needed for a discussion of where they were and where they needed to go. After the discussion, we asked them to return to their subgroups and carefully consider the mean- ing of change in each quadrant, as described earlier in this chapter. Their subgroup discussion was structured around this question: What does it mean and what does it not mean to increase, decrease, or stay the same in a quadrant? Using the form presented in Figure
5.4, they produced the results shown in Figure 5.8.
The group members were pleased with their lists and were con- sequently feeling very comfortable and confident. We indicated that this diagnostic process was consistent with their usual pattern of cognitive work and that they were now going to slowly move