Leadership & Organization Development Journal
The influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change
Md Zabid Abdul Rashid, Murali Sambasivan, Azmawani Abdul Rahman,
Article information:
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
To cite this document:
Md Zabid Abdul Rashid, Murali Sambasivan, Azmawani Abdul Rahman, (2004) "The influence of
organizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change", Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 25 Issue: 2, pp.161-179, https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410521831
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730410521831
Downloaded on: 26 February 2018, At: 03:40 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 30887 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2001),"Changes in employee perceptions during organizational change", Leadership
&amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 291-300 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437730110403222">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730110403222</a>
(2008),"Interrelating leadership behaviors, organizational socialization, and organizational culture",
Leadership &amp; Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 Iss 1 pp. 85-102 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437730810845315">https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730810845315</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:439433 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
The influence of organizational
culture on attitudes toward
organizational change
The influence of
organizational
culture
161
Md Zabid Abdul Rashid
Centre for Graduate Studies, Open University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
Murali Sambasivan and Azmawani Abdul Rahman
Received June 2003
Revised August 2003
Accepted September
2003
University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
Keywords Organizational change, Organizational culture, Malaysia
Abstract This study investigates the influence of organizational culture on attitudes toward
organizational change in Malaysia. Based on the work of Goffee and Jones and Dunham et al., a
structured questionnaire was developed and self-administered to 258 companies listed in the
Federation of Malaysian Manufacturing directory. The results showed that there is an association
between organizational culture and the affective, cognitive, and behavioral tendency of attitudes
toward organizational change. The findings also showed that different types of organizational
culture have different levels of acceptance of attitudes toward organizational change. This means
that certain type of organizational culture could facilitate the acceptability of change, while other
types of culture could not accept it. The implications of this research are also discussed.
Introduction
Change is the movement away from a present state toward a future state (George
and Jones, 1996) or generally a response to some significant threat or opportunity
arising outside of the organization (Gilgeous, 1997). Today, the business
environment is changing fast. The changes in technology like computerization
and e-commerce have created a quantum leap in data communication, work
processes and the way of doing business. With the impending move toward
globalization and liberalization of markets, organizations have to be prepared to
cope with the rapid changes in the business dynamics. Every organization must
submit to the varying demands and changes in the environment. Changes within
an organization take place in response to business and economic events and to
processes of managerial perception, choice, and actions where managers see
events taking place that indicated the need for change (Pettigrew, 1985).
Many organizations found change to be a real challenge. The change process in
each organization is unique in each situation, due to the differences in the nature
of the organization, the nature of the business, the work culture and values,
management and leadership style, and also the behavior and attitude of the
employees. Further, the risk of failure is greater as people are generally resistant
to changes. For some, change may bring satisfaction, joy and advantages, while
for others the same change may bring pain, stress and disadvantages.
The Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 25 No. 2, 2004
pp. 161-179
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/01437730410521831
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
162
According to Linstone and Mitroff (1994), there were three factors to be
considered in implementing change processes, that is the technological,
organizational and personal perspectives. Although people are the most
important factor in making change, however, they are also the most difficult
element to deal with (Linstone and Mitroff, 1994). Therefore, managing the
human part of the organization becomes a major challenge in handling change
processes in the organization as it involves values, preferences, and attitudes
toward a particular activity. Attitudes, for instance, are difficult to change as
people are generally more comfortable with what they have learned or knew
due to stereotyping, fear of taking risks, intolerance to ambiguity, and possibly
the need to maintain tradition (Dunham, 1984; Carnall, 1990).
Dunham (1984) stated that complex attitudes could be understood better by
recognizing that every attitude has three distinct components, which are
cognitive, affective and behavioral tendencies. Each of this type of attitude
toward change may induce a person to support or not changes occurring in an
organizational setting. Nonetheless, for any change to be effective, it is crucial
to challenge and clarify people’s beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes because the
most potent leverage for significant and sustainable change resides within the
human system at the core of every business system (Juechter et al., 1998).
Few studies have investigated the relationship between attitudes toward
organizational change and organizational outcome such as organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and work ethic. For example:
.
the relationship between Islamic work ethics and attitudes of employee
toward organizational change (Yousef, 2000);
.
organizational commitment and attitudes toward organizational change
(Iverson, 1996; Yousef, 2000); and
.
job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change (Yousef,
2000).
These studies showed the importance of those factors with attitudes toward
change. It was also known that organizational culture played an important role
in the change process (Pool, 2000; Ahmed, 1998; Silvester and Anderson, 1999;
Lorenzo, 1998; DeLisi, 1990; Schneider and Brief, 1996) However there was no
attempt to examine the relationship between organizational culture and
attitudes toward organizational change. Therefore, the fundamental issue
guiding this research paper is whether organizational culture has an impact on
attitudes toward organizational change.
This study is particularly important as it could provide us with a better
understanding of the relationship between organizational culture and attitudes
toward organizational change, particularly in the Malaysian context, as the
dynamics of the business environment is changing rapidly. This is especially true
as the Malaysian economy had experienced slow economic growth in the last five
years (since 1997 financial crisis), and followed with short-term buoyant growth
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
in the year 2000. These changes have compelled organizations to consider The influence of
restructuring and reengineering their organizations in light of the impending
organizational
merger and acquisition moves made in the last few years. For example, when
culture
Telekom Malaysia Berhad (a public listed company in the Kuala Lumpur Stock
Exchange) acquired Technology Resources Industries Berhad (TRI), changes in
the organizational structure, systems and process were inevitable. Besides
163
changing the composition of the board of directors and the top management team,
the new TRI also changed its way of doing business, thus changing its values and
culture. From this study, it is possible to enhance our understanding on how or
what type of culture is more favourable to organizational change. The findings of
this study also have potential implications to managers and consultants on the
need to find appropriate organizational culture, consistent with the attitude
toward organizational change.
Literature review
Organizational change
A change in organization refers to any alteration in activities or task (Dawson,
1994). Kanter et al. (1992) defined change as the process of analyzing the past to
elicit the present actions required for the future. Cao et al. (2000), believed that
organizational change showed a diversity of the organization in its
environment, and also the interaction of the technical and human activities
that had interrelated dimensions in the organization.
Attitudes can be difficult to change once they have been learned (Dunham,
1984). This is because there can be resistance to change from within. Dawson
(1994) also noted that resistance to organizational change may result from one
or a combination of factors such as substantive change in job, reduction in
economic security, psychological threats, disruption of social arrangements,
and lowering of status. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the attitude
toward change by individuals may differ. Some are more resistant to change
while others are more receptive to change. According to Elizur and Guttman
(1976), there are three types of individuals’ or groups’ response to
organizational change: affective, cognitive and instrumental. Affective
response refers to the feeling of being linked to satisfaction or anxious about
change. Cognitive responses are opinions relating to usefulness and necessity
and about knowledge required to handle change, while instrumental responses
refers to actions already taken or which will be taken to handle the change.
Dunham et al. (1989) also suggested that there are three types of attitudes
toward change: affective, cognitive and behavioral. The affective component
consists of the feelings a person has toward an attitude object, which involves
evaluation and emotion, and is often expressed as like or dislike for the attitude
object. The cognitive component of an attitude consists of the information a
person possess about a person or thing which is based on what a person
believes is true. The behavioral tendency concerns the way a person intends to
behave toward an attitude object.
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
164
Several studies had provided insights on the impact of internal and external
factors like organizational age, size, and inertia/momentum on an organization’s
effectiveness in responding to environmental (internal/external) changes (Meyer
et al., 1990; Kelly and Amburgey, 1991; Haveman, 1992; Fox-Wolfgramm et al.,
1998). Other studies had focused on the link between an outcome or criterion
variables (like receptivity, resistance, commitment, cynicism or stress) and the
success or failure of organizational change. Iverson (1996) found that an
employees’ acceptance of organizational change increases with organizational
commitment, a harmonious industrial relations climate, education, job
motivation, satisfaction and security. The employee acceptance decreases with
union membership, role conflict, tenure and environmental opportunity. Yousef
(2000) found that certain dimensions of organizational commitment directly
influence certain attitudes toward organizational change, and job satisfaction
with certain facets of job directly and indirectly (through different dimensions of
organizational commitment) influences the different dimension of attitudes
toward organizational change. Tierney (1999) found employees’ relationships
with their supervisors and teams shape their attitudes to the organization. The
employees’ perception of the change climate within the organization is consistent
with those of their teams and supervisors. The quality of the relationship with
the supervisor is important for employees’ perception of the change climate.
Organizational culture
Culture consists of some combination of artifacts (also called practices, expressive
symbols or forms), values and beliefs and underlying assumptions that
organizational members share about appropriate behavior (Gordon and
DiTomaso, 1992; Schein, 1992; Schwartz and Davis, 1981). Although there are
many definitions of culture, organizational culture has been viewed as holistic,
historically determined, and socially constructed. Culture involves beliefs and
behavior, exists at a various levels, and manifests itself in a wide range of features
of organizational life (Hofstede et al., 1990). As such, organizational culture refers
to a set of shared values, belief, assumptions, and practices that shape and guide
members’ attitudes and behavior in the organization (Davis, 1984; Denison, 1990;
Kotter and Heskett, 1992; O’Reilly and Chatman, 1996; Wilson, 2001).
In trying to understand better the concept of corporate culture, several
typologies had been developed. One of the most recent typologies was developed
by Goffee and Jones (1998). Goffee and Jones (1998) categorized organizational
culture into four main types based on two dimensions: sociability and solidarity.
Sociability can be defined as friendliness in relationships between people in an
organization. It is valued for its own sake and independent of its impact on the
performance of the organization. Through friendships, ideas, attitudes, interests
and values are shared. Reciprocity is a hallmark of friendship; so that actions are
taken that favour others with no expectation of immediate payback.
On the other hand, solidarity is the ability of people to pursue shared goals
efficiently and effectively for the larger good of the organization without much
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
regard for the impact on individuals and the relationships between them. The influence of
Solidarity is favorable in the sense that it generates single-minded dedication
organizational
to the organization’s mission and goals, quick response to changes in the
culture
environment, and an unwillingness to accept poor performance. In this type of
culture, work roles are defined and understood and everyone is working for
the overall good and everyone held to the same high standards. People in
165
high-solidarity organizations often trust their employers to treat them fairly,
based on merit, with resulting commitment and loyalty to the firm.
When the two dimensions of sociability and solidarity are placed on the axes
of a diagram (see Figure 1) four cultures are defined by the quadrants of the
figure. The four main types are:
(1) communal culture;
(2) fragmented culture;
(3) networked culture; and
(4) mercenary culture.
In that framework, culture is a community or the way in which people relate to
each other.
The communal organization with high sociability and high solidarity is typical
of new, small, fast-growing companies. People are driven by common goals, and
at the same time are united by strong social bonds. Fragmented organizations
might appear to be completely dysfunctional. The low sociability and low
solidarity of this organizational culture seems to leave it rudderless and
ungovernable. The networked organization has a culture of low solidarity and
high sociability. High sociability is evident from the frequent “water-cooler”
conversations, and colleagues going to lunch together and spending time in
activities and social gatherings outside the workplace. Finally, mercenary
organizations with low sociability and high solidarity are focused on strategy and
Figure 1.
Corporate culture
framework
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
166
winning in the marketplace. They have clear priorities and act quickly in response
to outside events. Persons who do not perform are encouraged to go if they are
incapable of improvement. From past studies, it is clear that organizational
culture can affect the organizational performance, and consequently affect the
changes in the organization.
From past research, studies on corporate culture focused on its relationship
with performance (Denison, 1990; Denison and Mishra, 1995; Gordon, 1985; Kotter
and Heskett, 1992; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Ouchi, 1981), cultural change
(Harrison and Carrol, 1991; Ogbonna and Harris, 1998; Sathe, 1983; Silvester and
Anderson, 1999), strategy (Choe, 1993; Schwartz and Davis, 1981) and the
relationship between organizational culture and industry characteristics
(Christensen and Gordon, 1999; Gordon, 1991; Hofstede et al., 1990; Spender,
1989;). Despande and Farley (1999) studied the relationship between corporate
culture and market orientation in Indian and Japanese firms. They found that the
most successful Indian firms had entrepreneurial culture, while the Japanese
firms had entrepreneurial and competitive culture. Organizational culture has
also been recognized to have an important role in assuring efforts in
organizational change (Ahmed, 1998; DeLisi, 1990; Lorenzo, 1998; Schneider and
Brief, 1996; Silvester and Anderson, 1999; Pool, 2000). Herguner and Reeves (2000)
investigated Turkish organizational culture change in higher education. Between
1991-1994, the Turkish culture was more consultative, but by 1998, it was more
toward participative. This means that over a period of time, there was a change in
the organizational culture. Since organizational culture also described the part of
the organization’s internal environment (organizational climate and culture),
which incorporates a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values that organizational
members share and use to guide their functions (Kilmann et al., 1985; Schein,
1992), therefore it could be expected that these assumptions, belief, and values
might guide and shape people’s attitudes toward organizational change.
Theoretical framework
Organizational culture appeared to have some influence on attitudes toward
organizational change (Ahmed, 1998; Lorenzo, 1998; Silvester and Anderson,
1999; Pool, 2000). According to Ahmed (1998), innovation is the engine of
change and the possession of positive cultural characteristics provides the
organization with necessary ingredients to innovate. Culture could enhance or
inhibit the tendency to innovate. Pool (2000), however, suggested that
organizational culture allowed an organization to address ever-changing
problems of adaptation to the external environment and the internal integration
of organization resources, personnel and policies to support external
adaptation. Therefore, it is expected that certain types of culture might
facilitate the change process while other types of culture might not. One major
issue confronting organizations is to determine which type of organizational
culture favors organizational change. This can be a challenging task for top
managers, as the managers have to decide how to implement changes in their
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
organization. Some have argued that the process has to start at the top while The influence of
others have suggested that it should also start with the bottom-up approach
organizational
(Lupton, 1971). As such it appears that there may be a relationship between
culture
organizational culture and attitudes toward organizational change.
In this research, organizational culture is defined in terms of the sociability
and solidarity dimensions as proposed by Goffee and Jones (1998). Goffee and
167
Jones (1998) categorized organizational culture into four main types based on
two dimensions: sociability and solidarity. Sociability is defined as the extent of
friendliness in relationships between people in an organization. Solidarity is the
ability of people to pursue shared goals efficiently and effectively for the larger
good of the organization without much regard for the impact on individuals
and the relationships between them. Based on these two dimensions, Goffee
and Jones suggested that there were four main types of corporate culture,
namely the communal culture, fragmented culture, networked culture and
mercenary culture. In this framework, culture is a community or the way in
which people relate to each other. This typology was selected as it was found
(from personal interview and observation) that the categorization of the
cultural types appeared similar or comparable to organizations in Malaysia.
The attitude toward change refers to the three types of attitudes as proposed
by Dunham et al. (1989) comprising three types, namely the affective, cognitive
and behavioral attitudes toward change. One issue raised, is which of the three
types of attitudes are more critical, is it the cognitive, affective or behavioral.
Should organizational changes start by adopting the cognitive or affective mode
and then followed by the behavioral mode? Following the argument that one of
major obstacles of change is “fear of the unknown” or “unfamiliar situation”, the
cognitive mode can be an effective mode to be addressed first. This is because
once a person has information and knowledge of the potential changes to be
made, his or her feelings toward change may be changed to favor such changes.
It should also be highlighted that handling the cognitive component on attitude
toward change can also be a daunting task if it is not well communicated. This
will be demonstrated by the action or behavioral mode of the person in
responding to the changes. As such, this model provided a comprehensive
approach in understanding the attitudes toward organizational change.
The theoretical model in this study is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Theoretical model
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
168
From the above literature review and the model of the study, it is hypothesized
that there is an association between organizational culture and attitudes
toward organizational change
Methodology
Sample and data collection
A total of 1,965 companies registered with the Federation of Malaysian
Manufacturers Directory in the year 2001, was used as the sample population.
Questionnaires were mailed to the chief executive officer (CEO) and/or
managers in the sample population. A total of 281 completed questionnaires
were returned (representing a response rate of 14.3 percent) but only 258 are
usable for data analysis.
In the sample, nearly 65 percent of the total respondents were male and the
rest were female. About 41 percent of the total respondents were Malays, 46
percent were Chinese, and 9.7 percent were Indians. In terms of age group,
nearly 62 percent of the respondents were between 31-50 years old, 23 percent
were below 30 years old, and 13.6 percent were above 50 years old. In terms of
educational background, nearly 75 percent had tertiary education (bachelor’s
degree or equivalent). With respect to job position, 22.9 percent of the
respondents were CEOs, 26.4 percent were general managers, and 30.2 percent
were human resource managers. Table I summarizes the background of the
respondents.
Table II shows the major characteristics of the companies that participated
in this study. In terms of the product category, the highest number of
companies were from electrical and electronics, chemicals, and automotive and
component parts. These three accounted for 19.8 percent, 18.6 percent and 10.1
percent respectively.
With respect to the ownership of the company, majority (78.3 percent) was
private limited company. In terms of the number of years of establishment, 65.5
percent of the sample companies had been established for more than ten years.
With regard to the number of employees, 32.9 percent of the companies had 100
or less number of employees, 27.5 percent had between 101 to 300 employees,
17.8 percent had between 301 to 500 employees, 10.5 percent had between 501
to 700 employees, 5.8 percent had between 701 to 1,000 employees and 5.4
percent had more than 1,000 employees.
Measures
Organizational culture was measured using Goffee and Jones’s (1998) cultural
typology. The instrument on organizational culture comprised of 23 items, with
12 items assigned to each of the two dimensions of organizational culture. A
high score on both sociability and solidarity indicated the organization
possessed a communal culture. A low score on both sociability and solidarity
indicated the organization possessed a fragmented culture. A high score on
sociability and low on solidarity indicated the organization possessed a
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
Characteristics
Gender
Male
Female
Respondent ethnic origin
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Others
Respondent age
Under 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
Above 50
Current position
CEO
General manager
HR manager
Executive
Production manager
Manager (others)
Education level
SPM/STPM
Diploma
Degree
Master
Professional
Others
Frequency
(n ¼ 258)
Percentage
167
91
64.7
35.3
105
119
25
9
40.7
46.1
9.7
3.5
59
79
85
35
22.9
30.6
32.9
13.6
59
68
78
29
4
20
22.9
26.4
30.2
11.2
1.6
7.8
8
54
105
84
5
2
3.1
20.9
40.7
32.6
1.9
0.8
networked culture. Finally, a low score on sociability and high on solidarity
indicated the organization possessed a mercenary culture.
A five-point interval scale was employed to measure each of the responses.
The respondents were asked to indicate their responses ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s
alpha) for solidarity dimension and sociability dimension of organizational
culture were 0.8895 and 0.8309, respectively. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for organizational culture for the 23 items was 0.7157.
The attitude toward change was measured using Dunham et al.’s (1989)
18-item instrument. This instrument consists of three subscales, namely
cognitive, affective and behavioral tendency toward change and each subscale
consists of six items. A five-point interval scale was used, ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Scores on each subscale (six items)
were totaled and divided by six to yield a mean score reflecting that subscale.
Then, the mean score on each subscale (three subscales) were averaged again to
The influence of
organizational
culture
169
Table I.
Demographic
characteristic of
respondents
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
170
Table II.
Profile of companies
Profile
Product category
Agricultural products
Construction and building materials
Food and beverages
Household products and appliances
Textiles and wearing apparel
Electrical and electronic products
Rubber products
Iron and steel products
Automotive and component parts
Chemical products
Furniture and wood-related products
Machinery and engineering products
Pharmaceutical, medical, cosmetics and toiletries
Plastic products
Glass products
Others
Company ownership
Private limited
Public limited
Foreign majority
Joint venture
Years of establishment
Less than 3
3-5
5-10
More than 10
Total employee number
100 or less
101-300
301-500
501-700
701-1,000
More than 1,000
Frequency
(n ¼ 258)
Percent
8
7
19
6
7
51
19
9
26
48
12
6
4
14
3
19
3.1
2.7
7.4
2.3
2.7
19.8
7.4
3.5
10.1
18.6
4.7
2.3
1.6
5.4
1.2
7.4
202
37
13
6
78.3
14.3
5.0
2.3
16
15
58
169
6.2
5.8
22.5
65.5
85
71
46
27
15
14
32.9
27.5
17.8
10.5
5.8
5.4
yield a mean score for the overall attitudes toward organizational change. The
internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for overall attitudes toward change
was 0.8929, while the coefficient for each of the dimensions on cognitive,
affective, and behavioral was 0.7806, 0.7714 and 0.7935 respectively.
Analysis
Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 10.0 for Windows software. Descriptive statistics, which include
frequencies and percentages, were utilized to present the main characteristics
of the sample and the profile of organizational culture and attitudes toward
organizational change. Cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis were also The influence of
employed to measure the association between the variables.
organizational
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
culture
Results and discussion
Organizational culture
Table III shows the profile of organizational culture of the respondents. The
results showed that 46.9 percent of the companies had mercenary culture. In
this type of culture, the emphasis was on strategy and winning in the
marketplace. The members in the organization have clear priorities and act
quickly in response to outside events. People who did not perform were
encouraged to go if they were incapable of improvement. This implies that, at a
time where the country is still facing the economic uncertainty and stock
market volatility, the business environment is highly competitive and fragile.
Thus, mercenary culture would be more capable of achieving higher efficiency
and effectiveness in an organization.
On the other hand, fragmented culture was least evident in the sample. About
3.9 percent of the respondents have such culture. This is not unusual as many of
the respondents were in manufacturing industries, while the fragmented culture
should be more evident in the professional services (Goffee and Jones, 1998).
Virtual organizations that outsource many functions or services could also have
such a type of culture, which was not found in this study.
The results also showed that 33.7 percent of the total respondents adopted
the network culture and 15.5 percent adopted the communal culture. The
higher proportion of the respondents in the networked culture is not surprising
as it is consistent with the cultural values of the Malaysian managers, and a
typical of business communities world-wide. The high sociability suggests that
it has high commitment and therefore ensures overall organizational success.
The low solidarity scale would not hamper the organizational growth and
development as many decisions are made on an informal basis or say at golf
courses rather than at formal meetings. To a certain extent it showed the
concept of collectivity among the Asians/Malaysians.
The presence of communal culture may be related to the fact that these
organizations were small or new. Common goals and strong social bonds drive
these organizations. Over time, the culture of the organization may change
(Goffee and Jones, 1998).
Cultural type
Fragmented culture
Networked culture
Mercenary culture
Communal culture
Total
Frequency
Percentage
10
87
121
40
258
3.9
33.7
46.9
15.5
100
171
Table III.
Profile of organizational
culture
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
172
The results of this study showed the presence of certain types of organization
and culture in Malaysian manufacturing industries. It was also clear that
certain types of organizational culture were more dominant than others.
Attitude toward change
Table IV showed the attitude toward organizational change. Nearly 46 percent of
the total respondents have positive attitudes toward change, and 52.3 percent
portrayed strongly positive attitude toward organizational change. This means
that almost 98 percent of the total respondents were receptive to change. This
could be attributed to the present economic condition (slow growth) and rapid
technological advancement in the business environment. The unexpected
changes in the world economic and political scenario have also heightened the
level of uncertainty, and consequently adapting to the impending changes
needed to ensure organizational survival. Some of the issues are related to
e-business, mergers and restructuring exercises/rightsizing, and unexpected
socio-political actions due to “terrorism” and financial scandals or unethical
practices like the Worldcom, Arthur Anderson or Enron incidents. These factors
had made managers more receptive toward change, and consider newer ways to
do work or business in the advent of greater challenges ahead. Managers are,
therefore, determined and always look forward to change to prosper and survive
in the demanding environment. In the local (Malaysian) scene, similar or related
turn of events had also created a more positive attitude toward change, like the
takeover by Telekom Malaysia of Celcom (Technology Resources Industries
Berhad – TRI) and the Malaysia Airlines by the Government of Malaysia from
TRI Berhad. The restructuring of Renong Berhad, another large conglomerate
and mergers of the financial institutions may also suggest the greater
acceptability toward organizational change. The changes were not only evident
at the top management level, but also at the senior positions in the respective
organizations.
Relationship between organisational culture and attitudes toward change
Tables V-VIII showed the results of the x 2 test on the relationship between
organizational culture and the attitudes toward organizational change
(cognitive, affective and behavioral tendency), and the overall attitude
toward organizational change.
Table V showed that there is an association between organizational culture
and the cognitive attitude toward organizational change. The x 2 value was
Attitudes toward organizational change
Table IV.
Profile of overall
attitudes toward
organizational change
Negative
Positive
Strongly positive
Total
Frequency
Percentage
5
118
135
258
1.9
45.7
52.3
100
Type of culture
Cognitive tendency attitude
Negative
Positive
n
%
n
Strongly
positive
% n
%
Total
n
%
The influence of
organizational
culture
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
Fragmented culture
Networked culture
Mercenary culture
Communal culture
Total
7
2.7
3 1.2 10
3.9
4
0.8
56
21.7 29 11.2 87 33.7
173
2
1.2
27
10.5 91 35.3 121 46.9
3
1.2
12
4.7 25 9.7 40 15.5
9
3.5
96
37.2 153 59.3 258 100
Value df Asymp. sig. (two-sided)
Pearson Chi-square
41.122a 6
0.000
Table V.
Likelihood ratio
41.505 6
0.000
Chi-square test between
Linear-by-linear association 13.573 1
0.000
organizational culture
No. of valid cases
258
and cognitive tendency
Note: a Five cells (41.7 percent) have expected count less than five. The minimum expected count
attitudes towards
is 0.31
organizational change
Type of culture
Fragmented culture
Networked culture
Mercenary culture
Communal culture
Total
Affective tendency attitude
Negative
Positive
n
%
n
3
2
3
1.2
0.8
1.2
Strongly
positive
% n
6
2.3
1
56
21.7 29
27
10.5 91
14
5.4 26
3.1
103
39.9 147
df Asymp. sig. (two-sided)
6
0.000
6
0.000
1
0.000
%
Total
n
%
0.4 10
3.9
11.2 87 33.7
35.3 121 46.9
10.1 40 15.5
57 258 100
8
Value
Pearson Chi-square
68.497a
Likelihood ratio
57.169
Linear-by-linear association 32.778
No. of valid cases
258
a
Note: Five cells (41.7 percent) have expected count less than five. The minimum expected count
is 0.31
41.122, significant at p , 0.0001. Table VI showed the association between
organizational culture and affective attitude toward organizational change, and
the x2 value was 68.497, significant at p , 0.0001. Table VII showed the
association between organizational culture and behavioral attitude toward
organizational change, and the x 2 value was 42.151, significant at p , 0.0001.
Finally, Table VIII showed that there is an association between organizational
culture and the overall attitude toward organizational change, and the x2 value
was 82.764, significant at p , 0.0001.
From the above results, it implies that the hypothesis that there is an association
between organizational culture and attitudes toward change is supported.
Table VI.
Chi-square test between
organizational culture
and affective tendency
attitudes toward
organizational change
LODJ
25,2
Type of culture
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
174
Table VII.
Chi-square test between
organizational culture
and behavioral
tendency attitudes
toward organizational
change
Fragmented culture
Networked culture
Mercenary culture
Communal culture
Total
Behavioral tendency attitude
Negative
Positive
n
%
n
2
4
Strongly
positive
% n
%
Total
n
%
0.8
1.6
8
3.1
10
3.9
55
21.3 28 10.9 87 33.7
39
15.1 82 31.8 121 46.9
0.4
14
5.4 25 9.7 40 15.5
2.7
116
45 135 52.3 258 100
df Asymp. sig. (two-sided)
6
0.000
6
0.000
1
0.000
1
7
Value
Pearson Chi-square
48.151a
Likelihood ratio
49.857
Linear-by-linear association 30.351
No. of valid cases
258
a
Notes: Five cells (41.7 percent) have expected count less than five. The minimum expected
count is 0.27
Overall attitude towards change
Type of culture
Fragmented culture
Networked culture
Mercenary culture
Communal culture
Total
Table VIII.
Results of
cross-tabulation
between organizational
culture and overall
attitudes toward
organizational change
Negative
n
%
2
2
1
5
Value
Pearson Chi-square
82.764a
Likelihood ratio
88.979
Linear-by-linear association 36.455
No. of valid cases
258
Positive
n
%
Strongly
positive
n %
n
Total
%
9
3.5
1 0.4 10
3.9
0.8
69
26.7 16 6.2 87 33.7
0.8
24
9.3 95 36.8 121 46.9
0.4
16
6.2 23 8.9 40 15.5
1.9
118
45.7 135 52.3 258 100
df Asymp. sig. (two-sided)
6
0.000
6
0.000
1
0.000
Notes: a Five cells (41.7 percent) have expected count less than five. The minimum expected
count is 0.31
It could also be discerned there were clear associations between types of
corporate culture and the attitude toward organizational change. More
specifically, in the fragmented culture, 90 percent have a positive attitude
toward change, and 10 percent had a strongly positive attitude toward change.
In the network culture 79.3 percent had a positive attitude, and 18.4 percent had
strongly positive attitude toward organizational change. In the mercenary
culture 78.5 percent had a strongly positive attitude toward organizational
change, and 19.8 percent had positive attitude toward organizational change. In
the communal culture, 57.5 percent had a strongly positive attitude and 40
percent had a positive attitude toward organizational change.
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
The results also showed that strongly positive attitudes toward organizational The influence of
change are dominated by organizations with mercenary culture (70.4 percent),
organizational
and positive attitudes toward organizational change are dominated by
culture
organizations with networked culture (58.5 percent). These results suggest that,
if organizational culture promotes single-minded dedication to the
organization’s mission and goals, quick response to changes in the
175
environment, and an unwillingness to accept poor performance, people are
much more receptive to change. Meanwhile, people are less tolerant to change if
the organizational culture promotes a tolerance of poor performance on the part
of friends, an “exaggerated concern for consensus” when friends are reluctant
to disagree with or challenge or criticize one another, insufficient focus on
mission, strategy, and goals.
The results, therefore, showed that organizational culture plays an
important role in the successfulness of the change process (Lorenzo, 1998;
Ahmed, 1998; Pool, 2000). This result also supported Yousef’s (2000) assertion
that certain patterns of organizational culture might facilitate the acceptance of
change while others might not.
Conclusion
The findings of this study showed that organizational culture is associated
with attitudes toward organizational change. Different types of organizational
culture have different levels of acceptance on attitudes toward organizational
change. Overall, the sample in this study showed that the respondents have a
positive or strongly positive attitude toward change.
One major implication of this finding is that organizational culture has an
effect in the organizational change process. This study has provided empirical
evidence and suggested that certain types of organizational culture have an
effect on attitudes toward potential changes in an organization, which was not
known earlier. Second, this study showed how the cultural typology was
related/associated with each type of attitudes toward change. This
demonstrated the importance of each type of culture and level of acceptance
on attitude toward change. Finally, the findings of this study support the
previous studies on the importance of culture in organizational change
processes in non-Western context, which is not widely known in the literature.
The present research has several implications for managers. The findings
showed that mercenary culture have strong positive attitude toward change.
This is not unreasonable as the mercenary culture survived on “who rewarded
them most”. In other words, in the present organizational context where
survival is critical, the mercenary culture adopted well to ensure his/her
survival. Therefore, as managers, the mercenary culture in an organization can
ensure effective and efficient management of organizational goals and
objectives. This type of culture will ensure that people will work hard, make
things happen and hit the targets that were set. The largest percentage of
Malaysian managers in this type of culture suggests the need to ensure
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
176
achievement of organizational goals and objectives. As such, some managers
may be ruthless in handling the situation and have negative effects on other
employees or organizations. On the contrary, this type of culture is most
appropriate in a rapid changing business environment that required immediate
action. This type of culture is also appropriate for short-term orientation and
adopted in a non-complex environment.
The study also found that network cultural groups had positive attitudes
toward change. In this type of culture, the need to change the attitude of other
members in the organization to adopt changes would not be difficult as they are
among “friends” in the organization. This is a positive trait of a network
culture. However, this type of culture may have difficulties in implementing the
changes in an organization when the proposed changes may affect their friends
in the organization, particularly when their friends are non performers in the
organization. Managers in this type of culture have to be skillful in handling
sensitive issues so as not to arouse any negative impact on the organization.
One way of handling change in this type of culture would be to use more
informal networks and take time to introduce changes. In other words, time and
patience is needed to prepare the employees to accept changes in the
organization, if the changes are difficult for one of their friends.
Finally, one managerial implication is that any form of changes to be made to
an organization should be reviewed in relation to the type of organizational
culture. In other words, managers may need to understand first, the type of
organizational culture prevalent in an organization, and then adopt one or several
approaches to handle changes in the organization. In an organization where there
is a dominant culture, it may not be as complex as compared with organizations
that have weak cultures, that is may sub-cultures in an organization. This posed
a real challenge to managers in introducing changes considering the rapid
development in the current business environment. Since change involves people,
handling them is critical in addressing change in the organization.
Organizational change implies a variation from the normal situation. As
such this finding has implications on organizational policy. One implication is
related to the issue of organizational leadership. In this study, the negative
attitude toward change was not prevalent. This means that Malaysian leaders
have fewer problems in introducing organizational changes. Nonetheless, the
task of handling change in an organization can be difficult if the organizational
policy is not well communicated throughout the organization. Further, effective
leaders have to ensure that the proposed changes are accepted and committed
by all members in the organization. Organizational reforms should not only be
“top-down”, but also “bottom-up” to ensure its effectiveness in the long run. It
also implies that managers have to revise organizational policies at an
incremental pace, and patiently make improvements leading to the intended
change in the organization.
This study also has limitations. First, the sample size (n ¼ 258) is relatively
small compared to the total number of manufacturing concerns in Malaysia.
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
Further, the findings are focused on manufacturing firms, and did not include The influence of
the services and other sectors. This might constrain the generalizability of the
organizational
findings and conclusions. Further, the organizational culture was measured in
culture
a nominal scale instead of the Likert or interval scale. This inhibits the
application of more advanced statistical techniques in the analysis. Third, the
use of questionnaire to collect data regarding employees’ attitude toward
177
organizational change might not fully capture the dynamic nature of
organizational change. A questionnaire followed by series of interviews might
better capture individuals’ attitude toward organizational change.
For further research, a few suggestions are recommended. First, a longitudinal
study of the relationships between various dimensions of attitudes toward
organizational change, organizational culture and organizational strategy might
better capture the dynamic nature of attitudes toward organizational change.
Second, a study on the relationship between organizational culture and attitudes
toward organizational change and its impact on financial performance may also
provide potential implications on organizational performance. This is
particularly important as the fundamental issue in organizations is to meet its
profitability expectations or shareholders’ return on investment. Further
research could also be considered by considering the impact of organizational
size, age of the organization and the type of industry/sector of the firms.
References
Ahmed, P.K. (1998), “Culture and climate for innovation”, European Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Cao, G., Clarke, S. and Lehaney, B. (2000), “A systematic view of organizational change and
TQM”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 186-93.
Carnall, C.A. (1990), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice-Hall International (UK), Hemel
Hempstead.
Choe, M.K. (1993), “An empirical study of corporate strategy and culture in Korea”, Quarterly
Review of Economics and Business, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 73-92.
Christensen, E.W. and Gordon, G.G. (1999), “An exploration of industry, culture and revenue
growth”, Organization Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 397-422.
Davis, S. (1984), Managing Corporate Culture, Balinger, Cambridge, MA.
Dawson, P. (1994), Organizational Change: A Process Approach, Paul Chapman, London.
DeLisi, P.S. (1990), “Lessons from the steel axe: culture, technology, and organizational change”,
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Denison, D. and Mishra, A. (1995), “Towards a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness”,
Organization Science, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 204-24.
Denison, D.R. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Despande, R. and Farley, J. (1999), “Executive insights: corporate culture and market orientation:
comparing Indian and Japanese firms”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 111-27.
Dunham, R.B. (1984), Organizational Behavior, Irwin, Homewood, IL.
LODJ
25,2
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
178
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., Gardner, D.G., Cummings, L.L. and Pierce, J.L. (1989), “The development
of an attitude toward change instrument”, paper presented at the Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
Elizur, D. and Guttman, L. (1976), “The structure of attitudes toward work and technological
change within an organization”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 611-23.
Fox-Wolfgramm, S., Boal, K. and Hunt, J. (1998), “Organizational adaptation to institutional
change: a comparative study of first-order change in prospector and defender banks”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 87-126.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1996), Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gilgeous, V. (1997), Operations and the Management of Change, Pitman Publishing, London.
Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (1998), The Character of a Corporation: How Your Company’s Culture
Can Make or Break Your Business, Harper Business, London.
Gordon, G.G. (1985), “The relationship of corporate culture to industry sector and corporate
performance”, in Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (Eds), Gaining Control of the
Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 103-25.
Gordon, G.G. (1991), “Industry determinants of organizational culture”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 16, pp. 396-415.
Gordon, G.G. and DiTomaso, N. (1992), “Predicting corporate performance from organizational
culture”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 783-98.
Harrison, J.R. and Carrol, G.R. (1991), “Keeping the faith: a model of cultural transmission in
formal organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 552-82.
Haveman, H. (1992), “Between a rock and a hard place: organizational change and performance
under conditions of fundamental environmental transformation”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 48-75.
Herguner, G. and Reeves, N.B.R. (2000), “Going against the national cultural grain: a longitudinal
case study of organizational culture change in Turkish higher education”, Total Quality
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D. and Sanders, G. (1990), “Measuring organizational
cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 286-316.
Iverson, R.D. (1996), “Employee acceptance of organizational change: the role of organizational
commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 122-49.
Juechter, W.M., Caroline, F. and Alford, R.J. (1998), “Five conditions for high performance
cultures”, Training and Development, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 63-7.
Kanter, R.S., Stein, B. and Jick, T.D. (1992), The Challenge of Organisational Change, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Kelly, P. and Amburgey, T. (1991), “Organizational inertia and momentum: a dynamic model of
strategic change”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 591-612.
Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (1985), Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J.L. (1992), Corporate Culture and Performance, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Linstone, H.A. and Mitroff, I.I. (1994), The Challenges of the 21st Century, State University of
New York Press, New York, NY.
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
Lorenzo, A.L. (1998), “A framework for fundamental change: context, criteria, and culture”,
Community College, Journal of Research & Practice, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 335-48.
Lupton, T. (1971), “Organizational change: ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ management”, Personnel
Review, Autumn, pp. 22-8.
Meyer, A.D., Brooks, G.R. and Goes, J.B. (1990), “Environmental jolts and industry revolutions:
organizational responses to discontinuous change”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11,
pp. 93-110.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L. (1998), “Managing organizational culture: compliance or genuine
change?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 273-88.
O’Reilly, C.A. III and Chatman, J A. (1996), “Culture as social control: corporation, cults, and
commitment”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in Organizational
Behaviour, Vol. 8, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 157-200.
Ouchi, W.G. (1981), Theory Z, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run
Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1985), The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in Imperial Chemical
Industries, Blackwell, Oxford.
Pool, S.W. (2000), “Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension in measuring
outcomes among business executives”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 32-49.
Sathe, V. (1983), “Implications of corporate culture: a manager’s guide to action”, Organizational
Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 5-23.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schneider, B. and Brief, A. (1996), “Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational
change”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 7-19.
Schwartz, H. and Davis, S.M. (1981), “Matching corporate culture and business strategy”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 30-8.
Silvester, J. and Anderson, N.R. (1999), “Organizational culture change”, Journal of Occupational
& Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Spender, J.C. (1989), Industry Recipes, Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Tierney, P. (1999), “Work relations as a precursor to psychological climate for change – the role
of work group supervisors and peers”, Journal of Organizational Change, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 120-33.
Wilson, A.M. (2001), “Understanding organizational culture and the implication for corporate
marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3/4, pp. 353-67.
Yousef, D.A. (1998), “Predictors of decision making styles in a non-western country”, Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 366-73.
Yousef, D.A. (2000), “Organizational commitment and job satisfaction as predictors of attitudes
toward organizational change in a non-western setting”, Personnel Review, Vol. 2 No. 5,
pp. 567-92.
Further reading
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rules of Corporate Life,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Kilmann, R.H., Mary, J.S. and Serpa, R. (1985), “Introduction: five key issues in understanding
and changing culture”, in Kilmann, R.H., Saxton, M.J. and Serpa, R. (Eds), Gaining Control
of the Corporate Culture, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 1-16.
The influence of
organizational
culture
179
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. Ahmed Eid, Doris Quinn. 2017. Factors predicting training transfer in health professionals participating
in quality improvement educational interventions. BMC Medical Education 17:1. . [Crossref]
2. TrigunarsyahBambang, Bambang Trigunarsyah. 2017. Organizational culture influence on client
involvement. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 24:6, 1155-1169. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
3. PintoLuisa Helena, Luisa Helena Pinto, Cabral CardosoCarlos, Carlos Cabral Cardoso, Werther JrWilliam
B., William B. Werther Jr. 2017. Expatriates’ withdrawal intentions. Personnel Review 46:8, 1852-1869.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. William Clark. Exploring Inclusive Leadership through the Lens of a Collaborative Structure 103-118.
[Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
5. Kevin M. Baird, Graeme L. Harrison. 2017. The association between organizational culture and the use
of management initiatives in the public sector. Financial Accountability & Management 33:3, 311-329.
[Crossref]
6. Yuryna ConnollyLena, Lena Yuryna Connolly, LangMichael, Michael Lang, GathegiJohn, John Gathegi,
TygarDoug J., Doug J. Tygar. 2017. Organisational culture, procedural countermeasures, and employee
security behaviour. Information and Computer Security 25:2, 118-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Neale J. Slack, Gurmeet Singh. 2017. Diagnosis of Organizational Culture in Public Sector Undertakings
Undergoing Reforms. Public Organization Review 20. . [Crossref]
8. MOHAMED ZAIN, NORIZAN KASSIM, NASSER KADASAH. 2017. ISN’T IT NOW A CRUCIAL
TIME FOR SAUDI ARABIAN FIRMS TO BE MORE INNOVATIVE AND COMPETITIVE?.
International Journal of Innovation Management 21:03, 1750021. [Crossref]
9. Yasar Kondakci, Kadir Beycioglu, Mehmet Sincar, Celal Teyyar Ugurlu. 2017. Readiness of teachers for
change in schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education 20:2, 176-197. [Crossref]
10. Ghasem Rezaei, Hamed Gholami, Awaluddin Bin Mohamed Shaharou, Muhamad Zameri Mat Saman,
Laleh Sadeghi, Norhayati Zakuan. 2017. Shared knowledge mediated correlation between cultural
excellence and organisational performance. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28:3-4,
427-458. [Crossref]
11. EndriulaitieneAukse, Aukse Endriulaitiene, StelmokieneAurelija, Aurelija Stelmokiene, GeneviciuteJanonieneGiedre, Giedre Geneviciute-Janoniene, GustainieneLoreta, Loreta Gustainiene,
JarasiunaiteGabija, Gabija Jarasiunaite, Buksnyte-MarmieneLoreta, Loreta Buksnyte-Marmiene. 2017.
Attitudes of staff members towards development of elder care organizations. International Journal of Public
Leadership 13:1, 40-50. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Hassan Abu Bakar, Robert M. McCann. 2017. An Examination of Leader-Member Dyadic Politeness
of Exchange and Servant Leadership on Group Member Performance. International Journal of Business
Communication 43, 232948841559751. [Crossref]
13. Sandra S. Liu, Beth Meyerson, Jerry King, Yuehwern Yih, Mina Ostovari. 2017. Drivers and Barriers
for Adopting Accreditation at Local Health Departments for Their Performance Improvement Effort.
Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 23:6, e25-e35. [Crossref]
14. A. M. S. Al-Raqadi, A. Abdul Rahim, M. Masrom, B. S. N. Al-Riyami. 2017. Sustainability of knowledge
and competencies management on the perceptions of improving ships’ upkeep performance. International
Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 8:S1, 230-246. [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
15. SemedoAna Suzete Dias, Ana Suzete Dias Semedo, CoelhoArnaldo Fernandes Matos, Arnaldo Fernandes
Matos Coelho, RibeiroNeuza Manuel Pereira, Neuza Manuel Pereira Ribeiro. 2016. Effects of authentic
leadership, affective commitment and job resourcefulness on employees’ creativity and individual
performance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 37:8, 1038-1055. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
16. Ching-Yuan Huang, Chieh-Peng Lin. 2016. Enhancing performance of contract workers in the
technology industry: Mediation of proactive commitment and moderation of need for social approval and
work experience. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 112, 320-328. [Crossref]
17. 조조조, 조조조, 조조조. 2016. A Study on The Influence of The Organizational Culture on The Organizational
Effectiveness of The Deluxe Hotel Employees - Focused on the DISC Behavioral Styles -. Management
& Information Systems Review 35:4, 57-77. [Crossref]
18. Mathilde Lien, Per Øystein Saksvik. 2016. Healthy Change Processes-A Diary Study of Five
Organizational Units. Establishing a Healthy Change Feedback Loop. Stress and Health 32:4, 258-269.
[Crossref]
19. Laura Gover, Michael Halinski, Linda Duxbury. 2016. Is it Just Me? Exploring Perceptions of
Organizational Culture Change. British Journal of Management 27:3, 567-582. [Crossref]
20. Marianne Hock, Thomas Clauss, Esther Schulz. 2016. The impact of organizational culture on a firm's
capability to innovate the business model. R&D Management 46:3, 433-450. [Crossref]
21. Eun-Jin Lee. 2016. The organizational culture, psychological empowerment, and organizationefficiency
in fashion companies. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture 24:2, 198-217. [Crossref]
22. Eun-Jin Lee. 2016. The organizational culture, psychological empowerment, and organization efficiency
in fashion companies. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture 24:2, 198-217. [Crossref]
23. Cristian Bedoya Dorado, Mónica García Solarte. 2016. Efectos del miedo en los trabajadores y la
organización. Estudios Gerenciales 32:138, 60-70. [Crossref]
24. Graeme L Harrison, Kevin M Baird. 2015. The organizational culture of public sector organizations in
Australia. Australian Journal of Management 40:4, 613-629. [Crossref]
25. Gail F. Latta. 2015. Modeling the cultural dynamics of resistance and facilitation. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 28:6, 1013-1037. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Hassan Abu Bakar, Robert M. McCann. 2015. A longitudinal examination of the effects of self perceived
leader–member dyadic communication differentiation and perceived group member performance: Does
ethnicity make a difference?. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 47, 56-68. [Crossref]
27. M Muzamil Naqshbandi, Sharan Kaur, Rashmi Sehgal, Indra Devi Subramaniam. 2015. Organizational
culture profile of Malaysian high-tech industries. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 7:1, 2-19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. M. Kutt, M. Rungi. In search of measuring organizational culture: ICT peculiarities 1438-1442.
[Crossref]
29. Nattavud Pimpa, Elsie Hooi. 2014. Modern Leadership in Singaporean and Thai Organizational Contexts.
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations 4:4, 21-35. [Crossref]
30. Hassan Abu Bakar, Robert M. McCann. 2014. Matters of demographic similarity and dissimilarity
in supervisor–subordinate relationships and workplace attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations 41, 1-16. [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
31. Hassan Abu Bakar, Timothy Walters, Haslina Halim. 2014. Measuring Communication Styles in the
Malaysian Workplace: Instrument Development and Validation. Journal of Intercultural Communication
Research 43:2, 87-112. [Crossref]
32. Mohamed Haffar, Wafi Al-Karaghouli, Ahmad Ghoneim. 2014. An empirical investigation of the
influence of organizational culture on individual readiness for change in Syrian manufacturing
organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management 27:1, 5-22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Catrin Johansson, Sture Åström, Anders Kauffeldt, Lars Helldin, Eric Carlström. 2014. Culture as a
predictor of resistance to change: A study of competing values in a psychiatric nursing context. Health
Policy 114:2-3, 156-162. [Crossref]
34. FRED PHILLIPS, YU-SHAN SU. 2013. CHAOS, STRATEGY, AND ACTION: HOW NOT TO
FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management
10:06, 1340030. [Crossref]
35. Jack K. Ito, Céleste M. Brotheridge, Kathie McFarland. 2013. Examining how preferences for employer
branding attributes differ from entry to exit and how they relate to commitment, satisfaction, and
retention. Career Development International 18:7, 732-752. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Loredana Di Pietro, Francesca Di Virgilio. 2013. The Role of Organizational Culture on Informal Conflict
Management. International Journal of Public Administration 36:13, 910-921. [Crossref]
37. Jason von Meding, Keith McAllister, Lukumon Oyedele, Kevin Kelly. 2013. A framework for stakeholder
management and corporate culture. Built Environment Project and Asset Management 3:1, 24-41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Min Hyounae, P. Magnini Vincent, Singal Manisha. 2013. Perceived corporate training investment as
a driver of expatriate adjustment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25:5,
740-759. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Luciane Reginato, Reinaldo Guerreiro. 2013. Relationships between environment, culture, and
management control systems. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 21:2, 219-240. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
40. Daniel H. Burger, Freddie Crous, Gert Roodt. 2013. Exploring a model for finding meaning in the
changing world of work (Part 3: Meaning as framing context). SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 39:2. .
[Crossref]
41. Hassan Abu Bakar, Che Su Mustaffa. 2013. Organizational communication in Malaysia organizations.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 18:1, 87-109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. PinprayongBoriboon, Boriboon Pinprayong, WongsurawatWinai, Winai Wongsurawat. 2012. Strategic
change for sustainability in Thai Commercial Bank. Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies 2:8, 1-10.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Eric S. W. Chan, Jennifer Choi. 2012. Undergraduates' Perceptions Toward the Adoption of ComputerBased Training in Hotels. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 12:4, 358-376. [Crossref]
44. William L. Pessemier, Robert E. England. 2012. Safety culture in the US fire service: an empirical
definition. International Journal of Emergency Services 1:1, 10-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Francis Y. Owusu. 2012. Organizational culture and public sector reforms in a post–Washington consensus
era: Lessons from Ghana’s good reformers. Progress in Development Studies 12:2-3, 135-151. [Crossref]
46. Brigita Horvat, Milan Pagon. 2012. Attitudes Toward Workplace Mobbing in Slovenian Research
Organisations. Organizacija 45:4. . [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Sharjah At 03:40 26 February 2018 (PT)
47. Ramlee Abdul Rahman. 2011. Knowledge sharing practices: A case study at Malaysia’s healthcare research
institutes. International Information & Library Review 43:4, 207-214. [Crossref]
48. Ramlee Abdul Rahman. 2011. Knowledge sharing practices: A case study at Malaysia’s healthcare research
institutes. The International Information & Library Review 43:4, 207-214. [Crossref]
49. Arnifa Asmawi, Avvari V. Mohan. 2011. Unveiling dimensions of organizational culture: an exploratory
study in Malaysian R&D organizations. R&D Management 41:5, 509-523. [Crossref]
50. Cengiz Demir, Nazli A. Ayyildiz Unnu, Emel Erturk. 2011. Diagnosing the Organizational Culture of
a Turkish Pharmaceutical Company Based on the Competing Values Framework. Journal of Business
Economics and Management 12:1, 197-217. [Crossref]
51. Richa Awasthy, Vijayalakshmi Chandrasekaran, Rajen K. Gupta. 2011. Top‐down change in a public
sector bank: lessons from employees' lived‐in experiences. Journal of Indian Business Research 3:1, 43-62.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Roland K. Yeo, Moktar Y. Ajam. 2010. Technological development and challenges in strategizing
organizational change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18:3, 295-320. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
53. Jeong-Ran Roh. 2010. Success Factors in Effecting Cultural Change in Organizations: A Case Study.
Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science 44:2, 427-445. [Crossref]
54. Roland K. Yeo. 2009. Electronic Government as a Strategic Intervention in Organizational Change
Processes. Journal of Change Management 9:3, 271-304. [Crossref]
55. Fred Phillips. Chaos, strategy, and action: How not to fiddle while Rome burns 125-131. [Crossref]
56. Lee Huey Yiing, Kamarul Zaman Bin Ahmad. 2009. The moderating effects of organizational
culture on the relationships between leadership behaviour and organizational commitment and between
organizational commitment and job satisfaction and performance. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal 30:1, 53-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
57. Tobin P. Lopes. 2006. Career Development of Foreign-Born Workers: Where is the Career Motivation
Research?. Human Resource Development Review 5:4, 478-493. [Crossref]
58. J.M. Twati, J.G. Gammack. 2006. The impact of organisational culture innovation on the adoption of
IS/IT: the case of Libya. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 19:2, 175-191. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
59. Fodhla McGrane, John Wilson, Tommy Cammock. 2005. Leading employees in one‐to‐one dispute
resolution. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 26:4, 263-279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Antonios D. Kargas, Dimitris Varoutas. The Role of Organizational Culture to the Management of
Telecommunication Companies 310-323. [Crossref]
61. Nattavud Pimpa, Elsie Hooi. Modern Leadership in Singaporean and Thai Organizational Contexts
1389-1405. [Crossref]