A COMPARATIVE INVESTIGATION INTO THE
MANAGEMENT STYLE AND CULTURE OF A 2ND WAVE
ORGANISATION AND A 4TH WAVE ORGANISATION
by
H Carneiro
SHORT DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
MAGISTER COMMERCII
in
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT
in the
FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT
at the
UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG
Supervisor: PROF S. KRUGER
OCTOBER 2007
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all persons and institutions that
contributed and helped me complete my dissertation. In particular I would like
to thank Professor Kruger for his unwavering support throughout the process.
Without you this would not have been possible. Then I would also like to thank
all the employees from Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden who
participated in the research. Lastly I need to acknowledge the sacrifices made
by my family during this time. Your support and encouragement during this
time is greatly appreciated. In spirit I would like to dedicate this work to my
husband, Fernando and my mom, Elviere.
i
Abstract
The aim of this research is to determine the difference between Ericsson
South Africa and Ericsson Sweden in terms of wave management, leadership
and management style, culture and change management. The research
proposes to determine what behaviours are exhibited in Ericsson South Africa
versus the behaviours exhibited in Ericsson Sweden and how this affects the
organisation. This will then be used to provide the management team of
Ericsson South Africa with feedback in terms of what the current issues are in
the organisation and the proposed changes.
A
thorough
literature
study
of
wave
management,
leadership
and
management style, culture and change management was undertaken. The
study revealed that there is a distinct difference in 2nd wave and 4th wave
organisations in relation to leadership and management, culture and change
management. It emphasised that organisations in 4th wave are far more
advanced in all the elements which allows the organisations to be very
successful.
The research was conducted by a using qualitative approach. The benefit of
qualitative research is that it allows for a greater understanding of the concept
as well as to learn more about the concept. A questionnaire was used which
was sent out to employees in Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden.
The data was then analysed which allowed for certain conclusions to be
drawn. It raised some pertinent issues that the management team in Ericsson
South Africa need to focus on.
The research has indicated that currently Ericsson South Africa is a 2nd wave
organisation and that the key focus areas for the organisation is the
leadership and management style, culture and change management.
ii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i
ABSTRACT
ii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION
1.1
INTRODCTION
1
1.2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
2
1.3
PURPOSE AND IMPORTNACE OF STUDY
2
1.4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
2
1.4.1
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
2
1.4.2
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES
3
1.5
RESEARCH PROPOSITION
3
1.6
ENVIRONMENT
4
1.7
DEMARCATION AND SCOPE OF STUDY
6
1.8
LITERATURE REVIEW
7
1.8.1
1ST WAVE
8
1.8.2
2ND WAVE
9
1.8.2.1
Standardisation
10
1.8.2.2
Specialisation
10
1.8.2.3
Synchronisation
10
1.8.2.4
Stability and Security
10
1.8.3
3RD WAVE
11
1.8.4
4TH WAVE
14
TH
DISCPLINE
15
1.8.5
5
1.9
RESEARCH DESIGN
15
1.9.1
SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS
15
1.9.2
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
1.9.3
DEFINITION OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED
16
1.9.4
METHODS OF COLLECTING QUANTITAIVE DATA
16
1.9.5
THE MEASURING INSTRUMENT/
1.9.6
QUESTIONNAIRE
16
THE POPULATION AND SAMPLING
17
PROCEDURE
iii
1.9.7
PLAN OF DATA ANALYSIS
18
1.10
CLARIFICATION OF KEY CONCEPTS
18
1.11
CHAPTER OUTLINE
19
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
20
2.2
LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMNET
21
2.3
CHANGE
34
2.4
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
44
2.5
WAVE MANAGEMNET
65
2.6
CONCLUSION
70
CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DESIGN
PROCEDURES AND FINDINGS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
72
3.2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DESIGN
72
AND PROCEDURE
3.2.1
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
72
3.2.2
RESEARCH DESIGN
73
3.2.3
POPULATION AND SAMPLE
74
3.2.3.1
Sampling type and size
74
3.2.4
DATA COLLECTION
75
3.2.5
ETHICAL ASPECTS
75
3.2.6
IMPORTANCE OF STUDY
76
3.3
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
76
3.3.1
THE RESEARCH
76
3.3.2
FINDINGS ON LEADERSHIP
79
3.3.3
FINDINGS ON MY MANAGER
84
3.3.4
FINDINGS ON CULTURE
90
3.3.5
FINDINGS ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT
97
3.4
CONCLUSION
103
iv
CHAPTER 4 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
SUMMARY
104
4.2
CONCLUSION
105
4.3
RECOMMENDATIONS
106
4.3.1
LEADERSHIP
106
4.3.2
MY MANAGER
110
4.3.3
CULTURE
111
4.3.4
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
112
LIST OF TABLES
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
LIST OF REFERENCES
116
APPENDIXES
120
APPENDIX 1 – QUESTIONNAIRE
120
APPENDIX 2 – STATISTICS
124
v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.3.1
SPLIT FREQUENCY TABLE FOR
80
LEADERSHIP
TABLE 3.3.2
SPLIT FREQUENCY TABLE FOR
85
MY MANAGER
TABLE 3.3.3
SPLIT FREQUENCY TABLE FOR
92
CULTURE
TABLE 3.3.4
SPLIT FREQUENCY TABLE FOR
99
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1
TARGET ELEMENTS OF CHANGE
38
FIGURE 3.3.1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON LEADERSHIP
81
IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 3.3.2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON LEADERSHIP
81
IN SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 3.3.3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON MY MANAGER
86
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS 3&6) IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 3.3.4
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON MY MANAGER
86
(FOR QUESTIONS 3&6) IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 3.3.5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON MY MANAGER
87
(EXCLUDING QUESTIONS 3&6) IN
SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 3.3.6
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON MY MANAGER
87
(FOR QUESTIONS 3&6) IN SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 3.3.7
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CULTURE
93
(QUESTIONS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 &15)
IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 3.3.8
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CULTURE
94
(QUESTIONS 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, & 14)
IN SWEDEN
vii
FIGURE 3.3.9
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CULTURE
94
(QUESTIONS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 &15)
IN SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 3.3.10
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CULTURE
95
(QUESTIONS 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, &14)
IN SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 3.3.11
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CHANGE
100
MANAGEMENT IN SWEDEN
FIGURE 3.3.11
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CHANGE
100
MANAGEMENT IN SOUTH AFRICA
FIGURE 4.1
PARTICIPATION IN SETTING OBJECTIVES
109
viii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION
1.1
Introduction
What effect do wave management, management style and culture have on an
organisation's ability to adapt to a changing environment?
Ericsson is an international company that has existed for 131 years and has
been through many technological changes as well as structural ones. The
Ericsson companies in many European countries such as Sweden and the
Americas are very well established and have been able to adapt to the changes
that have occurred in the environment. Ericsson South Africa, however, has been
in existence for only 13 years and is still developing as an organisation. As a
result, there is a difference between Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden
in terms of culture and management style.
Ericsson South Africa has a first-class executive team which comprises mainly
expatriates from different European companies. These managers and leaders
have come from mature organisations and have a 4th wave mindset. This has
caused a great deal of conflict within Ericsson South Africa, as the employees
there have a 2nd wave mindset and there is a clash between the two groups. It
means that there are two different cultures and management styles within the
organisation and these are not always being managed effectively. The clash is
inhibiting the organisation from moving forward and adapting to its changing
environment.
As, at present, no studies have been conducted, the management problem will
require exploratory research.
1.2
Problem Statement
Ericsson companies around the world have a 4th wave management style and
culture. Ericsson Sweden's leadership and management style and its culture aim
to promote the behaviours required to move the organisation into the 21st
century and turn it into more of a learning organisation. On the other hand,
Ericsson South Africa currently faces a situation whereby there is considerable
conflict between top management and employees. Top management consists
largely of European managers who have a 4th wave approach. Ericsson South
Africa, however, still has a 2nd wave culture.
Owing to these different mindsets, the company is not able to perform as
efficiently as possible, as it has not been able to merge the two cultures.
Management wants to understand the difference between the two cultures and
styles.
1.3
Purpose and importance of the study
The purpose of the study is to compare Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson
Sweden with regard to their culture and management styles. The literature study
will be expanded by extensive empirical research to draw up a comparison
between Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden regarding a 2nd wave and
4th wave management, relating to the management style which will include
leadership and culture, and the organisation's ability to change.
1.4
Research objectives
Research objectives express the goals of the study. These goals refer to what
the result will be once the research has been conducted, and are divided into
primary and secondary objectives.
1.4.1 Primary objectives
The primary objective of this study is to do a comparative study between
Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden with regard to wave management,
leadership and management styles, culture and the ability to adapt to change.
1.4.2 Secondary objectives
•
To define the behaviours that are exhibited by employees in 2nd wave and
4th wave organisations.
•
To compare the organisational structures of a 2nd wave and 4th wave
organisation.
•
To determine the drivers needed to develop the culture to enable Ericsson
South Africa to move with the changing times.
•
1.5
To determine the norms and values important for Ericsson South Africa.
Research proposition
Cooper and Schindler (1998) argue that the research literature disagrees on the
meaning of the terms “proposition” and “hypothesis”. A research proposition is
seen as a statement about the concepts that may be judged as true or false if it
refers to an observable phenomenon. When, however, a proposition is
formulated for empirical testing, it is called a hypothesis. As a declarative
statement, a hypothesis is of a tentative and conjectural nature (Cooper et al,
1998). The reasons for using research propositions rather than hypotheses are:
•
The empirical part of the study is of an exploratory nature.
•
The research is not based on previous models and can, therefore, be
approached from a more pragmatic point of view.
In this study, therefore, research propositions will be used as the research is of
an exploratory nature and is not based on previous models.
P1: There is a difference in the leadership and management style of a 2nd wave
and a 4th wave organisation. A 2nd wave organisation is managed very
differently, and therefore impacts on the ability of an organisation to react to its
environment and other forces.
P2: The difference between a 2nd wave and 4th wave organisation lies in their
culture and ability to adapt to change. There is also a different mindset within the
organisations, which in turn affects the organisation's efficiency.
1.6
Environment
Ericsson, as a global company, has been in existence for 131 years and is the
leading provider of telecommunication solutions in the world. Today, every third
telephone call goes through an Ericsson switch. Ericsson was started as a oneman show by Lars Magnus Ericsson, who began to experiment with telephones
in 1876. Since then, Ericsson has opened offices in 140 countries with 60 000
employees around the world.
Ericsson’s head office is situated in Sweden with approximately 31 000
employees. Ericsson was started in South Africa in 1994, shortly after the
country's first democratic elections. It was also around this time that MTN and
Vodacom started their operations in South Africa. The telecommunications
industry was booming and Ericsson was riding high on the telecommunications
bubble.
The boom, however, did not last. In 2001, the global telecommunications industry
plummeted, with all the major players taking huge losses, Ericsson being one of
them. Ericsson was close to bankruptcy and the company realised that it needed
to make some major changes in order to survive the downturn.
At this stage, Ericsson globally appointed a new CEO who had the task of turning
the organisation around. This process was started by firstly downsizing the
company from 120 000 to 50 000 employees. This move meant that the
organisation had to look at a whole new way of running its business in order to
accommodate the loss of more than half of its employees. A great deal of work
was done on streamlining the business and making it more efficient. In the
process, a large section of the management team was replaced and the
organisational
structure
changed
dramatically.
There
was
considerable
consolidation throughout the organisation.
During this time, Ericsson South Africa was fortunate in that, as it remained
relatively small, it did not have to downsize. It did, however, have to alter many of
its processes and bring in a large number of cost-cutting initiatives. Change
management initiatives were introduced and a programme was put into place to
transform the culture of the organisation.
Ericsson globally needed a paradigm shift, and its employees needed to move
along with the changes being implemented. At first there was much resistance
against the alterations as many employees were comfortable with the situation as
it was and were reluctant to change the status quo. However, through different
programmes and initiatives, the organisation was able to make the required
changes.
By the end of 2003, Ericsson had returned to profitability. In a matter of four
years the company had managed to convert from being a giant organisation to
becoming a streamlined organisation, running effectively and efficiently. This
streamlining was the turn-around for Ericsson. Since then, the company has
gone from strength to strength and has once again established itself as the
market leader in the telecommunications arena.
At the end of 2001, Ericsson South Africa was made the hub for Sub-Saharan
Africa, which included 43 African countries. Africa is a huge growth market and,
since the formation of the hub, sales in the region have gone from 2 billion to 10
billion Swedish Kroner. In light of this rapid growth, the African continent has
become a strategic focus area for Ericsson.
The organisation itself is made up of many diverse cultures that come from all
over the world. The leadership consists predominantly of expatriates with the
levels below that mainly made up of locals. This division of course creates two
distinct cultures within the organisation. As with many start-up companies, there
is a clash between the two cultures, which has not been handled effectively. It
inevitably means that the organisation is not working as efficiently as it should.
The managing of the two cultures and organisational management are critical in
the organisation, as handling this correctly will allow it to run more smoothly and
effectively.
1.7
Demarcation and scope of study
This research is an exploratory study aimed at investigating the difference
between Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden with regard to 2nd wave
and 4th wave leadership and management styles, culture and change
management, specifically investigating the particular behaviours that are
demonstrated by individuals in the 2nd wave and 4th wave organisations.
The following aspects should be noted:
•
The study covers the theory of wave management linked to leadership and
management style, culture and change.
•
The empirical part of this study will focus on the behaviours exhibited by the
management in 2nd wave and 4th wave organisations, as well as the different
cultures that are apparent within the two organisations.
•
The investigation will focus on Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden
and relate the assumptions derived from the literature to the leadership and
management style, culture and the ability to adapt to change exhibited by the
two different organisations.
1.8
Literature review
"A powerful tide is surging across the world today creating a new and often
bizarre environment in which to work.” (Toffler, 1980).
Wave Management is a new theory that is sweeping the world. It considers how
businesses have evolved and are still evolving. As stated by Hammer and
Champy (1994:50), “... new organisations won’t look much like today’s
corporations, and the ways in which they buy, make, sell, and deliver products
and services will be very different. They will be companies designed specifically
to operate in today’s world and tomorrow’s institutions carried over from an
earlier, glorious but no longer relevant age.” Wave Management encompasses a
variety of areas and two very important ones are leadership and management,
culture and change.
Management, as defined by Kreitner and Kinicki (2001:6) is: “The process of
working with and through others to achieve organisational objectives efficiently
and ethically.” Management is a vital element within the company in that
managers coordinate and empower employees within the organisation to achieve
its objectives and goals.” Managers are team players who act as mentors and
visionaries for employees and help to define the culture within the organisation.
The management style is, therefore, the way in which managers organise
people.
The next key element is culture. Culture as defined by Adler (2002:16) is:
“patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by
symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including
their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional
(i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values.
Culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action and
on the other, as conditioning elements of future action.” Culture is an important
element in that it is made up of values, attitudes and behaviours. It defines how
individuals react to problems and gives them a sense of group cohesion. As
argued by Reese (1994), a strong corporate culture leads employees to behave
in a certain fashion in order to attain the goals of the organisation. This culture is
important in that the mindset of employees will determine the way in which
employees interpret their external environment and react to it. As advocated by
Goleman (2002) culture cannot be ignored because, if it is, the organisation will
never change.
The next important element is change. Organisational change is defined by
Bredenkamp (2002:3) as “the movement of people from a current state to a
defined state that is different, improved and a desired new state through a set of
planned and integrated interventions.”
The last element is wave management. Wave management is divided up into five
phases and they will be described below with reference to management style,
culture and change.
1.8.1 1st Wave
The 1st wave is the primary phase but before one discusses the 1st wave it is
important to discuss the theories leading up to wave management. The
predominant theory at the time was the contingency theory.
Donaldson (1995:2) states “The essence of the contingency theory paradigms is
that organisational effectiveness results from fitting characteristics of the
organisation, such as its structure, to contingencies that reflect the situation of
the organisation.” The contingency theory looks at the areas of environment,
organisational size and organisational strategy. It is important because the theory
states that linking organisational characteristics to contingencies leads to high
performance. Organisations seek to attain a fit, which means that that
organisation is shaped by contingencies, because it needs to fit to avoid loss of
performance. Donaldson (1995:3) argues that “contingency theory contains the
concept of a fit that affects performance which in turn impels adaptive
organisational change.” The resultant effect is that organisations move to fit with
their contingencies so that there is alignment between the organisation and
organisational characteristics.
This movement is supported by the structural contingency theory, as postulated
by Donaldson (2001), in that organisations adapted the structures in order to
maintain a fit with changing contingency factors such as size, technology and
strategy so as to attain high performance. Thus structural contingency theory
views management in a positive way, as the controllers that orchestrate the
adaptation of the organisation to its environment through implementing better
fitting structures. Within the structural contingency theory literature, a particularly
positive role is accorded to management. Management, therefore, plays a vital
role in leading the large multifunctional corporation in its response to the
changing environment.
The contingency theory was an early theory on which other theories are built,
and the next step is wave management.
First wave, the initial step, is defined as the agricultural era in which the
communities' existence was ensured through the cultivation of crops,
stockbreeding and hunting (Kruger, 2002). The next phase is second wave.
1.8.2 2nd Wave
Industrialisation was the trigger for the 2nd wave and led to more job
opportunities. Urbanisation took place as a result of increased knowledge, and
development opportunities expanded so that, as technology advanced, machines
gradually took over the work of humans. It inevitably led to the rise of
unemployment and of labour unions getting involved in protecting the rights of
employees and exerting pressure on employers. The period was characterised
by autocracy, bureaucracy, hierarchical structures with standardisation and
restraint by rules and regulations as well as a search for order, security and
stability, which were supported by systematic management. As described by
Bateman and Snell (2002), systematic management is an approach that attempts
to build specific procedures and processes into operations to ensure coordination
of effort. Systematic management emphasises economical operations, adequate
staffing, maintenance of inventories to meet consumer demands and
organisational control. These goals and objectives are met by clearly defining
duties and responsibilities. In addition, standardised techniques for performing
these duties are necessary as are specific means of gathering, handling,
transmitting and analysing information. Cost accounting, and wage and
production control systems are essential to facilitate internal coordination and
communications.
Systematic management emphasises internal operations because managers are
concerned primarily with meeting the explosive growth in demand brought about
by the industrial revolution. In addition, managers are free to focus on internal
issues of efficiency, in part because the government does not constrain business
practice significantly. A few characteristics of a 2nd wave organisation have been
postulated by Kruger (2002) and these are discussed below.
1.8.2.1 Standardisation
In this period, the move is towards standardisation. The effect is to create
standard processes and procedures, which results in increased efficiency and
productivity.
1.8.2.2 Specialisation
The process of specialisation involves taking complex tasks and breaking them
into simpler tasks.
1.8.2.3 Synchronisation
Synchronisation means that if one component in the production process is
delayed all other tasks in the production process are delayed.
1.8.2.4 Stability and Security
The key concept in 2nd wave is that managers and employees look for safe
appointments with a proper title and position. The phase is characterised by rigid
hierarchy and a formal autocratic management style. Machines are the main
focus in this phase. Organisations are very bureaucratic and, as argued by Boje,
Gephart and Thatchenkery (1996), bureaucracy and bureaucratic positions are
governed by rules and regulations and a rigid hierarchy of authority, a
characteristic typical of 2nd wave.
During this phase, employees are driven by status and security. Individuals are
very structured and the organisation is powered by many policies and
procedures. The structure does not allow for any creativity and reinforces a rigid
structure that is very hierarchical and autocratic.
1.8.3 3rd Wave
The external environment has started to play a big role in the organisation, and
organisations do not operate in isolation but are part of a larger system.
Companies can no longer ignore the external environment and the impact that it
has, namely that environment provides great opportunities but that there are also
threats that need to be recognised. Lassey (1998:1) states: “Learning
organisations have the capacity to reconstruct themselves rather than be
dependent upon external pressures. Learning organisations are able to exert a
level of control on their environment rather than be slaves to it.”
Certain organisations have started to see the shift in the mindsets of employees
in that employees have realised that their interests are different from those of the
managers. Managers in turn need to adapt organisations to fit the circumstances
or to change them to suit the environment. Many organisations are moving
towards 3rd wave. Sunter (1999) argues that in order for organisations to meet
tomorrow’s challenge a paradigm shift is necessary.
The key word for organisations is change. Binney and Williams (1996:1)
comment: “Learning into the future is a way of thinking about and working with
change.” It is vital that management in this phase realises the need for change.
Many organisations become stuck at the second phase as they have not realised
the need for change. Coulson-Thomas (1997) postulates that no one should be
surprised by organisational change as the need has arisen for organisations to
be more flexible and responsive.
The need for 3rd wave organisations arose in the 1980s when the philosophy
was that organisations needed to become multipurpose and not see themselves
in isolation but as part of a bigger whole. Organisations, therefore, had to
consider the stakeholders, such as the social environment, which were outside
the organisation. Peters (1996:301) states: “Concurrently a more complex
stakeholder perspective has supplanted the view that an organisation's
effectiveness is simply a factor of its stability to maximise wealth and promote
shareholder interest.” Organisations, therefore, need to take more responsibility
for the external environment, which requires a complete change in mindset,
culture and management.
The important emphasis is change. Cooper and Rousseau (1997:107) declare:
“To meet the increasing demands of the unpredictable environment in which
organisations operate, the keyword for organisations has become change.” The
last decade has been turbulent for organisations throughout the industrialised
world. Organisations are confronted with many changes in their environment,
which are caused by processes such as intensified competition, the decline of
industry and growth of the service sector. New developments in technology and
increasing customer demands as well as shorter life cycles of products and
services are also factors in these changes. This concept is supported by Antsey
(1997) in that in recent decades there has been a demand for drastic changes in
the public and private sectors. A wave of transformation initiatives is in evidence
internationally as organisations struggle to come to grips with pressure for
competitiveness in a global economy. Kruger (2002) postulates that change is
inevitable and that a strong point of an organisation is its ability to stay flexible
and viable and to be able to rejuvenate itself and adapt to the changes within the
environment. It is also supported by Manning (1987) who states that
organisations must remain feasible and generate wealth by adapting to the
changes. A very important element is that not only does the organisation need to
change but so do the employees' mindsets and behaviours. Employees also
need to remain flexible.
Management plays a very important role in this phase in that it needs to create a
climate of creativity, innovation and adaptability. It should develop a spirit of
entrepreneurship and the ability to visualise. As argued by Coulson-Thomas
(1997), the role of the manager has changed to that of coaching, facilitating,
motivating and supporting teams and groups. Antsey (1997) also states that
transformation is the central focal point and challenge for the business leaders of
today and is the primary task of management.
It requires a coordinated effort to reframe, restructure, revitalise and renew
organisations. Binney and Williams (1997) contend that the key driver in the
transformation of an organisation is a strong and aggressive leader who has a
clear vision of where the organisation needs to go. For this reason management
needs to include leadership and to be aware that there is a difference between
managers and leaders. As defined by Bateman and Snell (2002:382), “Managers
must deal with the ongoing day-to-day complexities of the organisation” and,
“Leadership includes effectively orchestrating important change.” As postulated
by Bennis (1996), the challenge for leaders in the 21st century is to release the
brainpower of the organisation. This challenge is important in that the
management style of the organisation needs to look more at leadership. Manning
(1997) states that organisational results and performance is a product of many
factors, only some of which are manageable, powerful leadership is one of them.
Another important criterion in the 3rd wave is that the needs of employees are
different and that there is a new contract between the employer and employee.
Organisations are realising how important their resources are. Peters (1987)
suggests that the main reason for organisations failure in world class competition
is the organisations failure to tap their work force's potential. This is that
employees are an organisations most valuable asset and are the intellectual
capital of most companies. As asserted by Kessler and Undy (in Coopers and
Rosseau, 1997) employers are actively seeking to define and develop a new
understanding with employees in that they are taking another look at the
employment contract with regard to the employment relationship, reward, job
security and culture. Another important aspect is that employees are also
focused on their own personal growth and therefore are looking for more
involvement within the organisation. Sunter (1992) argues that, highly motivated
employees are individuals who decide how the job can be done better in their
own areas of competence and then to be empowered with training, be given
autonomy but then to be held accountable for the results. Welch (2001) proposes
that an organisation should have a culture whereby people dare to experiment
and where individuals can feel assured in the knowledge that only the limits of
their creativity and drive are the ceiling on how far and fast the individuals are
able to move.
This phase requires a shift in the mindsets of employees as well as
management. The key in this phase is that the organisation realises the need to
change and that the external environment is altering so much that, in order for
the organisation to survive, it has to adapt. Culture becomes important, as
employees have to reconsider their values, beliefs and attitudes to adapt to the
new organisation. It is very important that management realises the need to
change the culture within the organisation. It needs to be adaptive and flexible,
which will determine how employees handle the external environment and the
changes that occur in it. The next step is 4th wave.
1.8.4 4th Wave
The 4th wave is a continuation of the 3rd wave and focuses on how the
organisation creates value, not just for the organisation itself, but also for the
community as a whole. As Peck (1993:317) writes, “Community building, leads to
much deeper changes in the corporate culture and thus falls into a new category
of activity that, at the end of the eighties, began to be called Organisational
Transformation.” The central focus in this phase is global stewardship. Kruger
(2002) argues that businesses have emerged as the dominant institution in the
global culture. Business people will become more prominent as global and
transformative leaders in the future. There is a shift away from doing business
purely for profit and towards looking at a wider range of stewardship. Private
organisations, therefore, are considering playing more of a role in providing
wealth and stability and in this way overtaking the public sector. Organisations
also need to examine business ethics.
This means that 4th wave organisations consider widening the purpose of doing
business. Organisations look at leaving a legacy behind, gaining personal
fulfilment and serving others.
1.8.5 5th Discipline
This phase can be defined as the learning era. In this phase, organisations
become "learning" organisations. The focus in this phase is even more on the
stakeholders of an organisation, and encouraging them to act as social citizens.
In the 5th wave, everyone is both a follower and a leader. The management style
means that the organisation allows employees to grow and mature as individuals,
and employees are able to be leaders as well as followers. This wave is the
ultimate phase for an organisation where it has evolved completely. The culture
in this phase is egalitarian in that there is a sense of community, compassion and
caring for one another.
1.9
Research design
Management within Ericsson South Africa has discovered a general problem
within the company in that there is a great deal of conflict between top
management and employees. The management team would like to conduct more
research into this issue in order to gain more insight into the dimensions of the
problem. The results will be used to provide information so that an analysis can
be conducted with regard to the situation.
1.9.1 Secondary data analysis
As described by Zikmund (2003), secondary data is data that has been collected
previously for purposes other than the current research. In this research, the
external source of secondary data is books. The advantage is that secondary
data analysis is unobtrusive, fast and inexpensive and provides a basis for
comparison.
1.9.2 Qualitative research
In this proposal exploratory research will be used. This research is defined by
Zikmund (2003:110) as “Initial research conducted to clarify and define the
nature of a problem.” It enables researchers to learn more about the concept and
have a greater understanding of it. Focus groups will be conducted in order to
identify issues that can be included in the questionnaire.
1.9.3 Definition of the information needed
The information required is that of the leadership and management styles,
culture, and the change-management ability of a 2nd wave organisation and a
4th wave organisation. The information will be obtained by sending out a
questionnaire to Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa. The information
gained will allow the researcher to make a comparative study of the two
organisations in terms of leadership and management style, culture and change
management.
1.9.4 Methods of collecting quantitative data
Collecting data in the research will be by means of the survey method. A
questionnaire will be distributed via Ericsson’s intranet to employees in Ericsson
South Africa and Ericsson Sweden.
1.9.5 The measuring instrument/questionnaire
“Relevance and accuracy are the two basic criteria the questionnaire must meet
if it is to achieve the researcher’s purposes” (Zikmund 2003:330).
It is very important at this stage that there is a clear and concise problem
statement and clear objectives, both of which help the researcher to identify the
questions that need to be asked in order to get the information that is required.
Such a statement also allows the researcher to determine the communication
medium used for data collection.
The next step is to examine the ways in which the questionnaire's inquiries
should be phrased. The techniques that will be used in this research are fixedalternative questions. As postulated by Zikmund (2003), this method limits the
respondent in terms of the responses and invites a choice between different
alternatives.
1.9.6 The population and sampling procedure
Sampling, as described by Zikmund (2003), is the process whereby a small
number of items or a part of the whole population is used in order to come to a
conclusion regarding the whole population.
Probability sampling, as stated by Zikmund (2003:379), is “A sampling technique
in which every member of the population has a known nonzero probability of
selection.” An important subset of probability sampling that is often used in
research is systematic sampling. This approach looks at increasing the precision
of a particular sample by making sure that certain groups are sufficiently
represented (Bowditch and Buono, 2001).
The researcher will use stratified sampling in this proposal. Ericsson South Africa
and Ericsson Sweden will be divided into different strata according to job
categories. There will be two different strata, consisting of managers and
employees. Random sampling will be used within the strata to select sampling
units.
Sample size determination is the next step in the process. In this study the
researcher will be looking at a sample size of n=300. The researcher will look at
150 samples from Ericsson South Africa and 150 samples from Ericsson
Sweden. The researcher will be using descriptive statistics, which aims to
transform raw data into a form that will make it easy to understand and interpret;
rearrange; order and manipulate so as to provide descriptive information
(Zikmund 2003).
1.9.7 Plan of data analysis
As described by Zikmund (2003), descriptive analysis is a means of transforming
raw data into a form that will simplify interpretation and understanding. Such
analysis also makes it simpler to rearrange the order and manipulate for
descriptive information. The data is transformed to information that can be
analysed by means of encoding and coding. The information is set into tabular
format and an analysis done with assistance from the statistical department.
1.10
Clarification of key concepts
The focus in this section is to provide a clarification of wave management,
leadership and management style, culture and change management.
•
Wave Management:
Wave Management is a new theory which examines the development and
evolution of businesses. Hammer and Champy (1996:62) postulates that “the
new organisation won’t look much like today’s corporations, and the ways in
which they buy, make, sell, and deliver products and services will be very
different. They will be companies designed specifically to operate in today’s world
and tomorrow’s institutions, carried over from an earlier, glorious but no longer
relevant age.” Wave Management encompasses a variety of areas with three
important ones being management, culture and change.
•
Management:
Kreitner and Kinicki (2001) argue that management is a process of working
through and with others to ultimately achieve the objectives set by the
organisation in an efficient and ethical manner. Management is a vital element
within the organisation as managers coordinate and empower employees to
achieve the organisation's objectives and goals. The management group are
team players who act as mentors and visionaries for employees and help to
define the culture within the organisation.
•
Culture:
As Kreitner and Kinicki (2001:68) have stated, “Organizational culture is the set
of shared, taken for granted, implicit assumptions that a group holds and that
determines how it perceives, thinks about, and reacts to its various
environments.”
•
Change
Organisational change is defined by Bredenkamp (2002:3) as “the movement of
people from a current state to a defined state that is different, improved and a
desired new state through a set of planned and integrated interventions”.
1.11
Chapter outline
Chapter 2 provides a summary of the range of current works that are relevant to
the question that the dissertation addresses. Chapter 3 examines research
design, procedure and the results. It investigates the way in which the
information is collected and why it has been collected in that way, as well as
discussing the research findings. The last chapter, Chapter 4, looks at the
summary, conclusions and recommendations for future research. In this chapter,
specific conclusions will be reached and recommendations provided.
CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
Organisations are continually evolving mechanisms that require flexibility and
adaptability to survive. Today’s business environment has changed dramatically,
with globalisation having a major impact. South African organisations are no
longer competing merely on a local market but globally. Organisations need to be
ready for the changes in their macro and micro environment, and to be structured
in a certain way, have a certain culture and have specific management and
leadership styles.
Ericsson has been a leader in telecommunications from its inception in 1876 and
now has companies in over 140 countries with approximately 60 000 employees.
Ericsson was started in Sweden when Lars Magnus Ericsson began to
experiment in the fixed line domain. Since then, the company has grown to be a
dominant player in the fixed line and GSM arenas. Ericsson entered the country
when the GSM market was taking off and MTN and Vodacom were established
as the first GSM operators.
Ericsson South Africa started small and grew in two years to over 150
employees. It started off in an entrepreneurial fashion, but as it grew, more
policies and processes were needed. Ericsson South Africa was set up by the
managing director who was sent from Sweden with a management team that
was predominantly Swedish. The result of this was that the Swedish
management brought its own particular culture.
Since then, there has been a downturn, followed by an upturn in the market and
the business has evolved dramatically. In terms of Ericsson South Africa’s
structure the top management team is predominantly expatriate, mostly people
from Northern European countries. Then, further down the ranks, the
organisation is mostly locally staffed. As a result, two very distinct cultures are
visible. The executive teams attempt to run the organisation from their cultural
perspective whilst local employees work from their own cultural perspective.
Clashes are inevitable and prevent the effective running of the organisation.
These clashes arise between the executive team, middle management and
employees.
In the sections below, leadership, management, culture, change management
and wave management will be further explored.
2.2
Leadership and management
The leaders and managers within the organisation play a vital role in determining
the culture and structure of an organisation. McNamara (1998) and Longenecker,
Moore and Petty (1997) define management according to four general functions:
•
Planning
Planning identifies the goals, objectives, methods and resources needed to carry
out the aims of the organisation as well as considering responsibilities and dates
for the completion of tasks. Examples of this are strategic planning, business
planning and project planning.
•
Organising resources
Organisation of resources is a method to achieve goals in an optimum fashion,
which means resource management, organising departments and human
resource management.
•
Leading
Leading sets the direction for the organisation, groups and individuals, and also
influences people to follow the vision.
•
Controlling and co-ordinating
In order to control and co-ordinate, it is necessary to focus on organisation
systems, processes and structures to reach goals and objectives effectively and
efficiently. These strategies also include the ongoing collection of feedback, and
monitoring and adjustment of systems, processes and structures.
Frequently, management is viewed as a means of getting work done by others.
Managers and leaders consider that their role is to be supportive of efforts by
employees to be fully productive members of the organisation and citizens of the
community.
When studying management, a prime focus is its history. It is very difficult to
trace back management to ancient times and it cannot really be termed
“management”, but management-like activities were exhibited (Wikipedia:
Management, n.d.b.). Sumerian traders and ancient Egyptian pyramid-builders
exhibited management skills. Management-like activities were exhibited by
innovations such as the spread of numerals (5th to 18th century) and codification
of double entry book-keeping in 1494. These were the first signs of management
assessment in terms of planning and control. Through the 19th century,
management became more visible as an off-shoot of economics. In the 20th
century, the first comprehensive theories of management arose in the 1920s.
There was a general recognition of managers as a class, a concept which was
solidified during the 20th century. Managers, in this way, gained prestige. The
recognition allowed management to become recognised as a school of thought.
In the 21st century, management is gaining more prominence as it is seen as an
important element in organisations today and is a core function to enable
organisations to reach their objectives. For this reason, more organisations are
moving away from the concept of military-style management to that of facilitation,
support and collaboration. This style focuses more on the human element and
deals with the complexities of human nature.
Management is becoming more progressive and is required to think in a new way
(Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.). Managers need to provide resources that enable
employees to do their jobs and at the same time, organisations should teach
managers to empower their employees and delegate work. Such a process
requires very specific skills and is facilitated by the organisation's environment.
Employees are, in this way, motivated to work towards the goals of the
organisation. It is very important that managers go through this process, so that
they do not bear the whole workload or become autocratic. Organisations need
to develop management-training tools that develop the skills required by
managers. When looking at management, another concept that has to be
considered is leadership and the roles of both leadership and management.
According to McNamara (1998), management and leadership are perceived as
identical; both are considered to be the people (executives and other managers)
who are primarily responsible for making decisions in the organisation. Many
theorists today, however, like McNamara (1998), feel that this view is outdated
and that management involves leadership skills, which include participative
management and instruction in the establishment and fulfilment of goals. The aim
is to establish and communicate vision and goals and to guide others to achieve
them. People do not regard this aim as a change in management techniques,
but rather a shift in focus in terms of what management should do. It is important
that leaders also develop and understand that roles need to change as
organisations evolve.
The concepts of leadership and management are very different and it is
important to understand how they interlink and the roles that each plays. The
difference between managers and leaders lies in the understanding that leaders
know what needs to be done and managers do what needs to be done. A more
standard way of defining management, as stated by McNamara (1998), is that
managers work toward the organisation's goals, using its resources in an
effective and efficient manner. In most big organisations there are usually
different levels of managers: top managers, middle managers and first-line
managers.
Leadership is usually seen as centralised or decentralised, broad or focused,
decision-orientated or morale-centred and intrinsically derived from some
authority (Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.). Any traditional traits that are associated
with management should apply also to leadership. There are many assumptions
that management is just a subset of leadership. Leadership is to be seen
whenever a person attempts to influence the behaviour of an individual or group,
regardless of the reason. Management has a part to play in this process in that,
with management, the achievement of the organisational goal is paramount. It is,
however, advisable to make a clear distinction between the two as such a
distinction allows us to see the dual relationship between leadership and
management. An effective manager should possess leadership skills and an
effective leader should demonstrate adequate management skills.
There is also the view that there is a large distinction between management and
leadership (Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.). Leaders are inspiring visionaries,
concerned about substance, while managers are planners who are more focused
on processes. The difference in terms of leadership and management is further
explained by means of 12 clear distinctions (Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.):
•
Managers are more like administrators whereas leaders are innovators.
•
Managers ask the questions “how?” and “when?”, while leaders ask the
questions “what?” and “why?”
•
Manager’s focus on systems; leaders focus on people.
•
Managers take actions in the right way: leaders take the right actions.
•
Managers maintain: leaders develop.
•
Managers rely on control: leaders inspire trust.
•
Managers have a short-term perspective: leaders have a long-term
perspective.
•
Managers accept the status quo: leaders challenge the status quo.
•
Managers are concerned with short-term results; leaders look to long-term
goals.
•
Managers imitate: leaders innovate.
•
Managers follow traditional values: leaders are individuals with their own
vision.
•
Managers copy; leaders show originality.
Birch (in Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.) also sees a distinction between
leadership and management in that management is concerned with tasks while
leadership has more regard for people, although leaders also focus on the tasks.
Leaders need to have an overall perspective, but also need to appreciate details,
as it is in this way that they are able to achieve their objectives.
The chief quality of leadership, however, is the realisation that the
accomplishment of the necessary tasks happens through the goodwill and
support of others. Managers, on the other hand, may not always realise this.
Leaders realise the importance of those who follow and recognise that people
are not merely resources to be used in completing tasks. The manager’s task, on
the other hand, is to organise the resources to ensure that tasks are
accomplished. Poor managers consider people are just one of many
interchangeable resources.
Leaders fulfil their role by ensuring that people not only follow a specific path that
they, the leaders, have laid down but also that their vision is articulated in order
to achieve a task. A leader needs to ensure that the vision inspires people to
follow and is distinct from that of their competitors. This vision is what motivates
the employee and the task is secondary to it. Leadership is a phenomenon that
occurs not only in business, but in all areas of life.
Differences in the combination of leadership and management characteristics
can determine various management styles. Some management styles tend to
focus less on leadership than others. There are different styles. Some are
participative, some democratic, and some collaborative styles: others are
autocratic (authoritarian), micro and top-down management (Anon. n.d.d.).
Leaders are generally defined as innovative, entrepreneurial, inspirational,
visionary and risk-takers. Leaders may have the qualities of steadiness, being
sensible, predictability and trustworthiness, and there are leaders who are detailorientated, uncompromising and hard-headed. All these characteristics can be
identified within different situations, depending on what is required from each
situation. In some cases, a leader needs to be democratic and team-orientated
and other circumstances dictate that the leader should be more autocratic.
Effective leaders need to be able to read the situation and determine what style
is appropriate for the situation.
A further element that is required of leadership is the ability to drive the business
and provide the overall direction of the company, which is why executives at the
top level are often referred to as the leadership of the company. This ability has
become more important with the growth in the need for many organisations and
industries to have transformational leadership that can guide organisations into
the future and help to increase competition in the global economy. This type of
leadership according to Christensen (2006) needs to ask questions such as,
“What do I want to do?”, “What can I do?” and “What am I expected to do?”
Leadership of this style requires that individuals be innovators and facilitate
change. Leaders should have the ability to guide organisations through change
for the betterment of all stakeholders.
There are differing beliefs about leadership. On one hand, the perception is that
leadership is found only at the top level and that managing occurs at levels
further down in the organisation while, on the other hand, there is a belief that
leadership occurs at all levels, even though it is usually reserved for the top
management. The third idea is that leadership and management occur at all
levels because progressive organisational leadership is not only evident at the
top but in other levels as well. Managers and leaders do not always adopt
leadership roles, as other members of the team can fulfil that position. This
concept links to those of participative management, empowerment and
delegation, which allow employees to take on different roles in the organisation.
Participative management is a very important concept that needs to be
considered. As postulated by Kruger (2002) and Gordon (1997), it is a philosophy
of management that requires the setting of goals, objectives, policies and
strategies. Plans need to adhere to certain requirements if effective delegation of
authority and responsibility is to be achieved. A major consideration is that all
levels in the organisation need to participate as much as possible in setting
goals, strategies and policies. Another aspect is that the policies and plans must
always be flexible and adaptable. It is very important for organisations to adapt
quickly to the external and internal environment. Leaders and managers need to
have two-way communication with employees and managers should work
together towards common goals.
According to theories on leadership, leadership has not changed much over
several thousands of years (Wikipedia: Leadership, n.d.a.). In other words, in
today’s environment people react to leadership and situations in the same way
as people earlier in history did. There are, however, changes in terms of the
context and structures of leading. Debate also ranges over whether leaders are
made or born. Leadership could be said to be an evolving process. In this case
individuals who attain to leadership would have to involve with self- study, selfevaluation, and would need to gain experience.
Leadership requires that an individual has the ability to inspire people, to provide
a direction for the organisation and to take the organisation in that direction. This
ability is developed by utilising beliefs, values, ethics, character, knowledge and
skills. Even though managers and leaders have the authority to carry out certain
tasks and move towards goals, this type of power alone does not create a leader
or manager. The way in which a leader or manager deals with power is what
makes the difference. Unless people are brought into the process and are
committed to objectives and goals, success will be difficult. If employees accept
the leader or manager, they will be willing to follow him or her. For this reason it
is important that leaders or managers do not use coercive power.
There are three ways by which people become leaders (Wikipedia: Leadership,
n.d.a.). The first way is defined by the trait theory, which explains that some
personality traits may lead people naturally into leadership roles. The second
way may arise from a crisis situation which forces an individual into a leadership
position. Thirdly, people choose to become leaders and can learn leadership
skills. It is this transformational leadership theory that is the most widely accepted
theory today.
Leaders are individuals who lead by example and show strength of character in
terms of being very honourable and willing to make sacrifices for the
organisation. People judge leaders by what leader’s do, which is their actions
which exhibit the personality of the leader. It is important also that leaders are
seen by employees to be trustworthy and that there is confidence in the leaders'
abilities to take the organisation forward. It is the single most reliable predictor of
employee satisfaction in an organisation. As stated earlier, employees need to be
willing to follow the leader and so employees and leaders together need to
contribute to the overall objectives of the organisation
It is also very important that leaders are excellent communicators. As Sugarman
states (2006), great leaders see the match between action and words and
communication is critical. It is also very important for leaders to be able to
communicate messages to the organisation effectively. The message is the
vision of the leader. There are other messages that leaders need to provide to
the organisation, concerning strategies and other critical information. It is vital for
all employees to have access to information as this allows for more effective
decision-making.
When analysing leadership the factors of leadership should be studied. The first
factor is that of situational leadership. Different people need to be led in different
ways (Wikipedia: Situational Leadership, n.d.c.). If, for instance, a leader has a
new employee, the leader will need to provide extra guidance to that employee
and, in this way, be more actively involved. In the case, however, of a more
experienced employee, the leader needs to empower by playing a less active
role and allowing the employee to act. It is important that leaders understand
people and what drives and motivates employees. Importance is also given to
understanding where an employee is in terms of growth, as a new employee in
an organisation requires different interactions than an employee who has
developed in the organisation.
It is essential that leaders are honest and understand that a major part of their
success is dependent on the followers. Sugarman (2006) advocates the theory
that it is the followers who make a leader. If followers are successful, a leader will
be successful. For this reason employees need to have trust and confidence in
leaders and more importance is to be placed on the aspect of followers than on
that of superiors.
Leaders lead through two-way communication. Much of this is non-verbal
communication such as setting an example. What and how leaders communicate
can either affirm or destroy the relationship between employees and leaders.
Successful organisations are characterised by strong leadership which sets high
but realistic goals and standards across the company. The leaders provide the
strategy, market leadership and other key factors in the organisation. A leader
also communicates the values in the organisation and these values define how
the organisation deals with its employees, customers, investors, vendors and
surrounding communities. It defines the manner in which business will be
conducted and determines the organisation's culture.
A very important aspect that leaders need to deal with is the issue of diversity.
Diversity is vital for many organisations in today’s global economy. Because of
this globalisation, many organisations employ people from all over the world.
Diversity has to be managed effectively and needs to be an integral part of the
culture of the organisation. An organisation's method of dealing with diversity can
greatly affect the motivation of employees.
The character of a leader will determine to a certain degree the success of the
organisation. It is, therefore, important to look at the characteristics of a leader.
Leaders, as argued by Goleman (2006), are individuals who are able to bring out
the best in employees and inspire employees to strive to achieve and to do what
is right for the organisation. In this way, the employees will develop in loyalty and
commitment. Leaders need to strive for excellence in all areas and exhibit the
characteristics required for the position. Leaders need not only ensure that the
job gets done, but that it is done in such a way that allows all individuals to
maintain their values, and get the job done expediently. Leaders need to be
dynamic, flexible and visionary and are the spearheads for any organisation.
An important quality as defined by Sugarman (2006) is the ability to be a role
model. Leaders should be able to guide individuals and be an example for
employees, as well as having talent and technical or specific skills for the task at
hand. On the question as to whether a leader needs to have all the technical
knowledge a good example can be seen in the case of Ericsson. When the
downturn happened, the company made the decision to bring in a leader who did
not come from the telecommunications industry but from the locksmith industry.
The reason for this was that Carl-Henric Svanberg was voted as the best leader
in Sweden and he was hired for his leadership qualities.
Leaders also need to be creative, to be able to take the initiative and have
entrepreneurial drive. Leaders are charismatic and are able to bring people
together. Leaders have a clear determination and purpose and a resolve that
assures attainment of goals. McKinney (2002) also states that leaders are more
focused on the goals and what is best for the people and organisation than on
themselves.
Leaders should also have the ability to understand the nature of events and to
see them in perspective. Leaders should be able to get people to be introspective
and strive for the best, but this also means that leaders should be self-reflecting
and recognise shortcomings. Leaders should have the ability to recognise
talented individuals and select these individuals to work for the organisation.
People in leadership positions should be good listeners, able to pick up verbal as
well as non-verbal cues, which means being able to listen carefully and observe
messages implicit in human behaviour. There are other theories that propose
that leadership should rather be based on motivation and that leaders have a
higher need for power, a lower need for affiliation and a high level of self control.
Situational theories offer an alternative approach which works on the assumption
that different situations call for different characteristics and styles to be used.
This theory states that there is no optimal psychographic profile of a leader. The
situational leadership model of Hersey and Blanchard (McKinney, 2002)
suggests four leadership styles and four levels of follower development. In this
model leadership becomes a function not only of the characteristics of the leader
but of the followers too. Other situational leadership models also introduce a
variety of situational variables. These include aspects such as the nature of the
task (structured or routine). Other variables include organisational policies,
climate and culture, expectations of peers, responses of followers, the nature of
the problem itself, requirements for accuracy, acceptance of initiatives, time
constraints and cost constraints.
A good example of an effective leader is Carl-Henric Svanberg who is the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of Ericsson. Carl-Henric has, in a short space of time,
been able to transform the organisation and bring it back to profitability. The most
predominant characteristics exhibited by Carl-Henric are the ability to create a
vision, to be a charismatic leader, and to inspire trust and confidence.
Leadership can be seen as either actual or potential (Wikipedia: Leadership,
n.d.a.). Actual leadership gives guidance and direction and provides good
leadership, while potential leadership implies that someone has the capability to
learn to be an effective leader.
Leaders can be found in the business environment or in a social context. A CEO
of a company is viewed in the actual context and potential leadership is groomed.
In the social context the term leadership can be assigned to someone who does
very little active leading, like a clergyman who is associated with great prestige.
Inspirational people in this context can also be called leaders, as was Gandhi.
There is also leadership that denotes a competitive advantage over competitors.
Leadership implies a relationship of power, the power to guide others and it
requires certain abilities and competencies. Organisations are continuously
seeking out and building up leadership skills within its ranks.
It is very important to see how leadership is developed within the structures of an
organisation (Anon. n.d.c.). A pyramid structure, for example, in which authority
consistently emanates from the top, can stifle initiatives and it does not leave
much scope for grooming future leaders to be found at subordinate levels. On the
other hand, universal direct democracy may become unwieldy and a system
consisting of nothing but representative leaders may drown in committees.
Leadership systems promote different rules for different levels of leadership. An
examination of the types of situations the organisation experiences will dictate
what style of leadership is required. When, for example, Lufthansa was close to
bankruptcy and had to make some drastic changes, the decision was made to
employ a more autocratic leader.
In today’s environment formal bureaucratic organisations are becoming rarer
because of their inability to deal with fast-changing circumstances (Wikipedia:
Leadership, n.d.a). An important element of this modern organisation is the
concept of visionary leadership. A very good example of this is Bill Gates, who
developed Microsoft through visionary leadership. Bill Gates has a keen sense of
where the company needs to go and has the ability to get people to move in that
direction by creating the vision. Organisations are doing whatever it takes to
acquire these types of skills, or to develop them internally. All human beings, by
nature, collect together to work towards common goals, and visionary leadership
helps to work towards this. A disadvantage of this type of leadership is the
creation of sub-leaders who are encouraged to seize resources and develop
empires, which creates competition internally within an organisation. It also
means that top leadership is involved only when arbitration is required.
It is now important to look at how leadership is measured. The best way to
measure effective leadership is to assess the size of the leader's following (Anon.
n.d.b.). This, however, is not always the most effective way, as using this type of
assessment one would come to the conclusion that Hitler was an effective leader.
Hitler was a leader in the role that he played, but he was autocratic and
delusional in the ideas and tactics that were promoted. The focus was on power
rather than real leadership. Leadership should actually be measured by the
influence that a leader has over followers and the amount of leading that occurs.
This may mean that leadership should be tested against constructs such as
visions and goals. This is that transformational leadership needs to deliver true
value and integrity (Anon. n.d.b.). This separates it from transactional leadership
which is more focused towards obtaining power that is used in turn to gain
followers. However, to quantify transformational leadership is very difficult and it
cannot be estimated by numbering the followers.
Leadership can also be seen terms of the Path Goal Model of leadership and is
based on the Expectancy Theory of Motivation (Anon. n.d.e.). This states that a
leader has the function of clearing the way for the goals of the organisation to be
reached by meeting the needs of the followers. The leader needs to create an
environment that allows individuals to pursue goals. It means that a leader has to
be able to get a group of diverse individuals to work together towards a goal. To
achieve this aim requires a great deal of skill and competency.
A leader does not always have to take the dominant role and many companies
are now looking at the concept of group leadership. In this type of situation, more
than one person can provide direction to the group as a whole. It is done to allow
the fostering of creativity and so that different individuals may grow and learn. A
leader in one situation, it should be noted, may not always be the most
appropriate leader for another situation. This type of group leadership works well
in cross-functional teams. Such an approach entails a very progressive view of
leadership.
In a leadership role an individual needs to be able to interact with people at all
levels, namely followers, peers and superiors whose support is needed to
accomplish the objectives. In order to do this a leader should understand what
motivates people, and needs to understand human nature, as argued by Blair
(1997). Needs are an important part of human nature, which is made up of
values, beliefs and customs. These may differ from country to country and group
to group, but in the end, all people have similar needs. This links with Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs (Anon. n.d.c.).
As can be seen from the above section, leadership and management play a
critical role in the functioning of an organisation. Good leadership and
management help to ensure that a company runs effectively and efficiently and is
able to deliver on the goals, objectives and strategies. Effective leaders provide
value to all stakeholders involved. Another important aspect to examine is the
ability of the organisation to handle change effectively (Anon. n.d.a.).
2.3
Change
An important role of an effective leader is to be the facilitator of change. In this
section the concept of change and change management is discussed.
Organisational change is defined by Bredenkamp (2002:3) as “the movement of
people from a current state to a defined state that is different, improved and a
desired new state, through a set of planned and integrated interventions”.
Business today is highly competitive. The way to survive is to reshape to meet
the needs of a rapidly changing world. Resistance to change is futile, as change
is an inevitable reality for any organisation (Anon. n.d.a.). Saravanja (2006)
suggests that a distinguishing feature of a successful organisation is its ability to
change rapidly and continually. Today customers are demanding excellence and
customer’s needs are constantly evolving. If one organisation is unable to meet
demands, its competitors will do so. Organisations are adapting to change more
rapidly in order to meet the needs of customers. The leaders of organisations
recognise that not all problems can be solved by money and that the organisation
needs to have a highly committed and flexible workforce that can help it through
a period of change. A leader needs to be able to recognise quickly the need to
change and lead the organisation through it efficiently.
Organisations go through four main changes throughout their life cycle (Anon.
n.d.a.). The first period is the formative period. In this phase, the characteristics
of the company are not exclusively defined and a great deal of innovation,
creativity and entrepreneurship can take place. After this comes the rapid growth
period during which direction and co-ordination are added to the organisation to
sustain and solidify growth. Any changes that take place are made in order to
define the purpose of the organisation and the direction the business will take.
The next period is the mature period where the strong growth-curve levels have
slowed down and changes are required to maintain markets and assure
maximum gains are achieved. The last phase is the declining period where the
organisation goes through a difficult period. In this phase the company usually
downsizes and re-organises. To survive, the changing organisations have to
have tough objectives and compassionate implementation. The goal here is to
get out of old patterns and to be innovative. Once the organisation succeeds, the
phases start all over again.
Change is constantly happening within a good organisation and a leader’s focus
is on how to take the organisation through the change successfully, and with the
employees' consent. Resistance is sometimes met because people become
comfortable with performing tasks and processes in a particular manner. This
sense of familiarity gives employees a sense that they are the masters of the
environment. Change disrupts employee’s environments and usually means that
functions change and new skills need to be learnt. Leaders play a critical role in
leading employees from avoidance to acceptance.
Change entails many concepts. Owing to the dynamic nature of change and its
consequences, varied responses arise from leaders, managers and workers in
and around the organisation.
There are some aspects of change that need attention before addressing the
broader scope of change. Attention needs to be paid to the macro and micro
environment. Bredenkamp (2002) talks of external forces, which are primarily
made up of demographic characteristics. These characteristics include age,
gender, race or, more particularly, the increase in diversity and the importance of
managing diversity.
The second aspect of change is technological development. Many changes in an
organisation occur as a result of technological advancement. These may include
means to improve productivity, market competitiveness, automation and
computer technology.
The third force is market change. With the globalisation of the economy, greater
numbers of companies are facing the increasing challenge of the open market.
The international demand for quality products, lower prices, after-sales service
and
client
satisfaction
are
forcing
many
companies
into
collaborative
arrangements, co-operative ventures and even alliances with former competitors.
The final force under discussion is social and political pressure. This takes into
account public values, needs, priorities and motivations, all of which are
influenced by political and social developments. Management should adjust to
accommodate these values and needs.
The next focus is that of internal forces which also affect change. The human
resource factor plays a vital role in this aspect. An understanding of employees'
perceptions concerning employee conditions, treatment and the alignment
between the individual's and the organisation's needs is necessary. There should
be a match between employees' expectations and organisational expectations.
As employees play a vital role in the organisation, it is important that there is
identification, commitment and dedication otherwise the company will not
progress. Organisations should, therefore, minimise negative stresses, conflict
and other issues such as unclear roles and responsibilities.
The other internal force is that of managerial behaviour and decisions. A
manager needs to play the role of coach and mentor and should be able to
minimise areas of conflict for employees. Managers, being the initiators of
change, must control conflict carefully by providing the right type of guidance and
skills.
These forces are important and can facilitate change in an organisation, as it is
change which encourages organisations to progress. For this reason, it is
important that people understand what forces affect change and that
management understands how to deal with change.
The system model as proposed by Kreitner and Knicki (in Bredenkamp (2002)
helps to provide understanding of how change works and all the concepts that
are involved. It also shows how the concepts are interlinked.
Figure 1.1 Target elements of change
Organising Arrangements
•
Policies
•
Procedures
•
Roles
•
Structure
•
Rewards
•
Physical setting
Inputs
Goals
People
Social Factors
Outputs
Internal
• Strengths
•
Desired end
Result
•
•
Organisational
level
•
Priorities
•
Depart/
Group Level
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standards
•
•
Resources
Individual
level
•
Linkage
throughout
the
organisation
•
Weaknesses
External
• Opportunities
•
Knowledge
Ability
Attitudes
Motivation
Behaviour
Threats
Methods
•
Processes
•
Work Flow
•
Job design
•
Technology
•
•
•
•
Organisational
culture
Group processes
Interpersonal
interactions
Communication
Leadership
Source: Bredenkamp (2002:16)
Robbins (1983) argues that organisations are viewing change as accidental.
Change in most circumstances can be planned and is a necessity. All
organisations follow the normal lifecycle, which means that through all the
different stages, changes need to be implemented in order for the organisation to
survive and grow. It means that change, if dealt with correctly, can ensure that an
organisation is kept up-to-date and viable. It is well known that, when an
organisation is at its peak, it already needs to consider the changes it will need to
undertake. Most organisations, however, pay little attention to the next step when
they are in the growing phase, and incur problems when they go into decline. For
this reason, leaders and managers need to embrace change and encourage it
throughout the organisation. Change needs to be seen as positive and it is
incumbent upon leaders and managers to show individuals how change is of
value.
Organisations, as described earlier, are very dependent on the external
environment and need to pay particular attention to the elements that can affect
the organisation. Organisations are open systems and are affected by outside
factors that are constantly changing. These changes need to be anticipated.
Ericsson is a good example of this, in that in 2001 Ericsson globally was close to
bankruptcy largely because the company did not anticipate what was going to
happen in the external market and, when it did happen, it was too late. It meant
that Ericsson had to dismiss approximately 60 000 employees and initiate huge
change programmes in order to rescue the company. This required very strong
leadership which necessitated the CEO being replaced by a new CEO who was
able to take the company forward. Today, Ericsson is very profitable but it went
through a painful time which, to some degree, could have been avoided. For this
reason, it is important to be constantly aware of trends in the external
environment.
According to Robbins (1983), the types of change that management seek to
create are varied. This is dependent on what the end target is. The company first
looks at the individual level, where management attempts to change behaviour
by means of training, socialisation and counselling. The people themselves are
the most important element as people are probably most difficult when it comes
to effecting change and internalising it. It is, therefore, necessary that
management put interventions in place to assist employees in internalising the
change.
There is a process that can be used for managing organisational change. As
postulated by Robbins (1983) the different elements are:
•
Determinants
Determinants consider how an organisation knows when change is required.
Change can be identified if and when an opportunity or problem is identified and
the change is necessary to capitalise on the opportunity or problem. These
problems or opportunities can be either internal or external. An example of this
can be seen in Ericsson. About three years ago, Ericsson identified the services
side of the business as being a good business opportunity. A great deal of
internal change, however, was required in that peoples' mindsets needed to
change from thinking in terms of selling boxes to selling services. Change like
this can take a long time to implement and it is, therefore, important to identify it
early on, so that the change process can start in good time.
•
The organisational initiator.
This is commonly referred to as change agents and is made up of individuals
who run the change process. These people tend to be the main stakeholders in
the process. They may be leaders, managers, specialist staff and other
individuals who are in a position of power.
•
Intervention
This is a process that examines the means by which change takes place. In the
intervention stage certain strategies are examined. The strategies can be
classified into four categories:
™ The first one concerns people. The strategies need to be identified when
bringing people into the change process. These strategies could be
training, counselling and socialisation.
™ The second strategy is that of structure and examines whether the
organisation needs to change from a hierarchical structure to a matrix
structure, or if the levels should be reduced. Strategies that can affect this
are identified.
™ The third strategy is technology, in which case technological changes may
happen, such as processes being atomised or functions being
computerised.
™ The last strategy is that of organisational processes, which considers
aspects such as re-engineering processes.
•
Implementation
In this phase, chosen strategies are implemented throughout the organisation. It
requires commitment from all the parties who play a role in the process and it is
critical, as this will ensure the success of the strategy. A key element is the
communication plan. There should always be communication with all parties
concerning the process as such a course of action will ensure that individuals
accept the change that is being proposed.
•
The change process
The change process itself concerns identifying the status quo, “unfreezing” it and
moving towards the new state. The change is then “refrozen” so that it becomes
permanent (Bateman and Snell, 2002). It is not enough merely to introduce
change, as this alone does not change the status quo. The whole process should
be followed so that the change is fully integrated. Follow-up is needed to ensure
that the change has been fully implemented. When looking at changing the
behaviour in an organisation, it is important that the status quo is viewed as a
negative state and that the new state is viewed as positive. Behaviours
associated with the status quo are, in this way, discouraged and behaviour
appropriate to the new state is encouraged.
•
Results
In this, the final phase, it is important that the change being implemented has
resulted in a change within the organisation. One can achieve either positive,
negative, temporary or permanent results, depending on how the previous steps
were followed. Change is an ongoing denominator in an organisation. There
must be a feedback mechanism where change agents are able to assess the
successes and failures of the process. Such a mechanism will assist managers
and other stakeholders to implement change processes more effectively and
efficiently in the future.
The next consideration is to examine how refreezing is accomplished. According
to Robbins (1983), this requires the systematic replacement of the temporary
forces with the new permanent ones. Key factors are established that help to
establish the required change. Such factors can be in the form of reward, or can
be seen in employees who act as champions for the change. Motivation and
commitment can also be identified as factors. Leaders should be seen to be at
the forefront of the change, as leaders show the way by example, and the
leaders' behaviour will dictate the results which the rest of the organisation will
adopt.
The organisation works as a holistic system and it is important that all the
elements in an organisation support the proposed change. An important element
in this is how individuals within the organisations support the change. As argued
by Johnson (1998), change is an inevitable part of life and is something that
every individual needs to deal with. At the end of the day, employees, help the
organisation to adapt to change. The proposed change needs to be aligned with
the external environment, because, as discussed earlier, this has a big impact on
the organisation.
There are certain elements that can help facilitate the change process, and the
focus is on how these elements can add value to this process. An organisation
that wants to be successful and profitable needs be innovative in its organisation.
Innovation is associated with change as it means that new initiatives will be taken
within the organisation. It does not, however, mean that all change is innovative.
Employees tend to feel threatened by innovative change, as it is something
completely new and different.
Organisations, as well as individuals, are usually very resistant to change
according to Flanagan and Finger (1998) and change usually comes about when
organisations are in a stable state. Change is a major issue for organisations for
many reasons and some of the reasons are discussed below.
z
Many individuals are comfortable at work and change disrupts this, which
means that members lose stability. As argued by Mogestad (2000), change
threatens security. Those in power are generally the initiators of change but
are also the ones who have the most to lose.
z
Most organisations are bureaucracies and have built-in mechanisms that are
structured in so that the organisations work against change.
z
Many organisations are able to manage the environments and this allows
organisation to create a buffer against change.
z
Organisational culture resists pressure to change.
As many organisations are becoming more progressive and dynamic, these four
reasons for resisting change are addressed when organisations look at how to
set up the structure. When looking at the concept of wave management,
organisations that are in 5th discipline are at a level where change is a natural
part of the business. The organisation at this stage adopts a holistic approach
which encourages change. Leaders also have the mindset that change needs to
be encouraged and embraced. This is the ultimate stage of organisational
development.
This also links with the importance that culture plays in the change process and
can either enhance or inhibit change.
2.4
Organisational Culture
When examining change and leadership, an important area that comes up is
culture. In this section, attention is paid to the concept of culture.
Organisational culture as postulated by McNamara (1999) defines the personality
of the organisation. It means, as described by Longenecker, Moore and Petty
(1997), that culture is composed of the assumptions, values, norms and tangible
signs (artefacts) of the organisation's members and its behaviours. Culture is
often very difficult to define, but employees are well aware of the culture within an
organisation.
Culture, according to Robbins (1983), is comprised of the dominant set of values
espoused by an organisation, the philosophy that guides an organisation's policy
towards employees and customers, the way matters are expedited in the
organisation and the basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by the
members of the organisation. When looking at the different meanings of culture
there is a central theme amongst the different definitions and that theme shows
culture as a system of shared meaning.
Culture, as stated by Williams (n.d.), is also seen as being natural, which is the
first thing that needs to be taken into account. Every human society has its own
shape, purpose and meanings, and every human society expresses these
through its institutions, arts and learning. These elements make up what is
known as culture. Culture evolves over time and is built up of experiences that
individuals go through. It is something that is very difficult to change, but new
experiences can be created that can lead to new cultures.
Culture plays a very important role in organisations and organisations play an
important role in society.
The importance of organisations for society and humankind as a whole can
hardly be over-estimated. Throughout life, in one way or another, the
organisation plays a role in an individual’s life and has an impact on society,
nations and communities, be it political, religious, cultural, educational, judicial,
economic, industrial or sporting. Organisations are the mechanisms through
which people, teams and groups work towards goals, aims and objectives.
Loosely defined, an organisation is a collective where people work together to
achieve specific goals and objectives within a fairly formalised structure and
processes are often strongly influenced by environmental factors. Culture’s role
in organisations is to govern, guide and shape the organisation and the
relationships between people.
As the discussion has shown, people are centrally situated in social structures
that are driven by goals and objectives. These structures in turn are affected by
the response of the people, or by lack of outside pressures and forces. These
forces influence the activities, relationships and commitment of people and the
ability of people and effectiveness and efficiency within the structures to prosper
and make profit. The goal of course is to survive, and to determine that culture
adds value to the human condition and contributes to developing people and
communities. A consideration of organisational culture aids to the determination
of the goal.
Organisations are continually improving by the use of various programmes but
organisations are finding that this is not enough and organisations ask whether
corporate culture is substantially able to help organisations push forward. A point
to note is that culture is not the only factor, but that it can have a big impact.
There is a trend for organisational culture to feature on the priority list for leaders
and organisations, as there is recognition of the critical role that culture plays. As
Fowler states (in Bredenkamp, 2002), an organisation’s culture, its structures and
procedures, its communications and the relationships between people within the
organisation emerge as the single factor people see as having the greatest
potential either to effect improvements or hold them back. This means, as argued
by Huselid, Becker and Beatty (2005), that culture is derived from the
fundamental assumptions and values concerning what the organisations define
as appropriate behaviours and for this reason it is very important that the culture
is one of high performance and strategy. Such values allow the organisation to
progress and perform efficiently. It is also postulated by Saravanja (2006) and
Hill (2005) that many leading management mentors have identified organisational
culture as a critical factor in improving organisational performance.
A healthy and progressive organisational culture enables organisations to be
competitive, effective and efficient. Such an outlook is important in the context of
modern globalisation as organisations are facing international competition and
have to ensure that companies are able to keep the competitive edge. One way
of doing this is to ensure that the organisation and the people are healthy,
motivated and all striving towards the same goals and objectives. Organisational
culture plays a role in this.
Organisational culture is a critical ingredient for business and the economy, it is
important therefore to look at the history of culture. With Ericsson South Africa,
the company started in 1994 with approximately 10 employees. The organisation
was small and centralised. It had its own entrepreneurial atmosphere and people
accepted responsibility for everything in the organisation. There was little
structure or formal processes and policies. As the company grew, a more defined
structure was needed as well as policies and procedures. Increasing numbers of
people came into the organisation, helping in this way to shape its culture. Two
types of people entered the organisation. The first type consisted of expatriates,
who dominated management levels, and the second type consisted of local
South Africans. This meant that two very distinct cultures were evident within the
organisation, and these two cultures did not always blend, which meant that
there was a cultural mismatch.
In terms of the general formation of culture, as with Ericsson South Africa, a
company usually starts as a one-person business, a family business or a small
group of entrepreneurs who will determine, influence, and fashion the company
and wield the power. This small group can perform these functions owing to the
centralised nature of the business. The business then starts to expand and
control is not as tight as before so that other individuals influence culture. The
competitive nature of the environment requires organisations to have flexible
structures which impact on the culture. A big influence in this is the leadership in
the organisation at its inception and later as the organisation grows. Leaders and
managers are able to have an impact on culture in both a positive and a negative
way and therefore play a critical role in shaping the business and culture
(Bredenkamp 2002).
Organisational culture consists up of various elements as defined by
Bredenkamp (2002) and Robbins (1983). These elements are:
•
Stories
These can be described as what people talk about, what matters and what is
defined as success or failure. An example of this is how stories spread about
the handling of specific individuals in terms of behaviour (e.g. if someone acts
unethically, it results in discipline and dismissal). Stories help to reinforce
particular wanted behaviours and so influence culture.
•
Routines
A part of the routine is seen in the highlights of the organisation. These can
involve recognition for long service, quality performance and innovation. If, for
example, the organisation rewards innovation, it is in this way creating a
culture of innovation. Ericsson has innovation awards that are handed out
every year to individuals who have been creative. The opposite can also
apply in that, if one is punished for trying new ideas, a culture of innovation is
inhibited.
•
Symbols
Office size and type of car are examples of symbols. In some organisations,
this is a very important element. In Ericsson South Africa, to have an office or
to drive an expensive car is a status symbol. The opposite applies in Sweden
where these matters are of less importance.
•
Control system
This is comprised of the formal and informal bureaucratic organisational
structure. It may be defined, for instance, by who reports to whom on a formal
basis, and who has informal relationships. In Ericsson South Africa, the
structure in itself is not very bureaucratic in that there are only four levels, but
individuals have concerns regarding the levels and positions, which creates a
hierarchical structure in itself. This means that people are often more
concerned with job titles than challenges. In Ericsson Sweden the opposite
applies as the organisation is very large, with approximately 31 000
employees. Although there is a complex structure, it is very flexible.
Individuals are concerned with challenges and the scope of the job rather
than the title of the position and the level. People believe that the actual work
and its value to the organisation are more important than status. The culture
is empowering in that people work in teams and are always given
encouragement to do their jobs efficiently.
•
Power structures
People make the decisions and influence these decisions. People determine
how the decisions will be carried out and define power structures. In the
Swedish culture this is escalated downwards in that it is not only leaders and
management who are able to make decisions; employees at all levels are
empowered to make decisions. In the South African context, this decisionmaking function tends to be centralised, and individuals are not always
empowered to make decisions.
When considering culture it is useful to understand how the culture is comprised,
which requires an analysis of the culture. An important element in dissecting
organisational culture is to focus on the details. Details can provide evidence of
the organisational culture. Such a culture has a distinct footprint and one has
literally to follow the trail through all the different pieces of evidence. Analysis is
important because culture influences every area of the organisation.
As postulated by Bredenkamp (2002), when analysing cultural elements, the first
constituent is the external environment, which consists of the political dimension,
encompassing government and laws. It includes the economic environment,
which looks at the business and industrial dimension. Another aspect is the
social dimension, which looks at the culture, art and leisure of the country. Lastly,
there are the religious and educational dimensions and the international
dimensions.
The internal environment is made up of the people itself and can be viewed in
terms of gender, ethnic groups, language, beliefs and composition. Also included
are workplaces and space, labour practices, technology, resources and resource
policies, the history and ownership of the company, values and beliefs and lastly
the management style.
Another important area to look at is the workplace. As argued by Bredenkamp
(2002), the workplace environment reveals much more of the organisation's
culture than most people tend to believe. The workplace is the physical
environment; the space, layout and office design provide silent clues about the
culture of the organisation. The working environment, therefore, is very important
in determining the culture of the organisation.
The concept of workplace environment has evolved through the years. The
organisation today is very different from organisations ten and twenty years ago.
The world has evolved dramatically with the introduction of new technology and
ways of working. Many workplaces have the facility for employees to work
virtually so one has to ask the questions why more people do not work virtually.
As postulated by Bredenkamp (2002), the answer lies in organisational culture.
Human beings naturally gravitate towards working in groups or communities.
People want to be around other people and work towards common goals that
satisfy individuals internally, which also adds value to the community. It means
that organisations encourage the communal concept and the concept of working
towards common goals, and therefore develop cultures that help to satisfy
individuals.
Culture, therefore, has a large influence in the organisation. It enhances the
ability of organisations to attract, retain and motivate employees. If an
organisation has a healthy organisational culture, this will ensure that it can bring
in highly skilled and motivated employees who will enable the organisations to
achieve its goals and objectives and ultimately increase shareholder value.
In understanding the value that culture plays in organisations, it is also important
to realise that culture is one of the most difficult elements in an organisation to
change. It is not easy, first of all, to identify and, secondly, it is not easy to
change. Change does not happen quickly and it takes time to internalise it.
One of the critical aspects of culture lies in the values of the organisation. As
stated earlier, values at an organisation's inception are generally taken from the
owners or a small group of entrepreneurs. Once the organisation grows,
however, the values are influenced by other individuals. Values define what the
company stands for and what is important to the organisation. They help to
define the organisation's character. This is the foundation on which an
organisation's reputation is built. This reputation is so important because it
influences how the organisation is perceived by the external environment and
individuals. A strong reputation enhances business opportunities and enables an
organisation to attract top talent. When put into sequence, behaviour is driven by
character and character is driven by values.
Culture, it is to be remembered, is varied, complex, dynamic and of great value in
the organisation. An organisation’s reputation depends on its performance. If an
organisation states that it is service-driven and is unable to assist its customers,
it will develop a negative reputation which in turn will impact on its ability to
survive. In other words, its values need to be lived and demonstrated throughout
the organisation. If the company states that it values its employees and sees the
employees as the building blocks, this must be reflected in the policies, process
and environment of the organisation.
Organisations need to manage culture effectively and foster an appropriate
culture. A key element in aiding a culture within an organisation is the leadership,
which needs to promote and enhance the required culture.
Leaders play a critical role in people's perception of the product, a company and
even a country’s industry and technological competency depends almost entirely
on the leaders. The leaders of industry need to direct, restructure and mould the
kind of organisational culture that promotes ideals such as excellence,
benchmarking, capacity building and quality development. The organisation
should pay particular attention to the interventions that it applies in the
organisation with regard to the issues stated above, as organisational culture is
the basis on which factors such as operational excellence, efficient and effective
processes and procedures are built. It is important that features such as quality,
customer service and progress are internalised in the hearts and minds of the
workforce. If this is not the case, then all the above-mentioned will never
succeed, regardless of the interventions that the company uses.
Cultural styles of an organisation should now be considered. As suggested by
Bradfield (2006), there are various types of cultural styles. These are:
•
Power Culture
The organisation revolves around, and is dominated by, an individual or small
group, which means that all discussions and interventions are referred back to
the centre, which in turn dominates work styles, beliefs and even practices in the
organisation. The problem with having such centralised control is that it becomes
increasingly difficult for the leaders to keep control and manage the organisation
as it expands. Even if more individuals come into the organisation and form subgroups, it is still heavily influenced by the top management.
•
Role Culture
Role culture is a structured approach that relies on committees, structures, logic
and analysis. In this situation, small groups or leaders still make the final
decisions but rely on procedures, systems and well-defined lines of
communication. The problem with the style is that it is difficult to anticipate and
deal with change effectively.
•
Task Culture
The organisation here is focused on identified projects or tasks. The work is
performed by teams that are flexible and prepared to tackle issues. In this type of
organisation, power rests with the team and decisions are made by experts. This
type of culture, however, does not accommodate large scale work and relies
largely on the efficiency of the team. Top management needs to allow for
autonomy on day-to-day activities.
•
Personal Culture
The culture focuses very much on the individual. The organisation is there purely
to provide the structure and the working environment for the individual but
ultimately the most important element is the individual. An inherent problem in
this culture lies in the difficulty of identifying where the individual’s loyalty lies.
Often this loyalty does not lie with the organisation, which makes the situation
difficult.
Lynch (in Bredenkamp 2002:12) examines different cultures and analyses them
according to various types of strategy. The criteria that Lynch uses are:
•
The ability to fit with prescription or emergent strategic tasks.
•
Delivery of competitive advantage.
•
The ability to cope with strategic change.
Lynch arrives at the following conclusions on the four types of cultures
•
Power Culture
The culture is prescriptive and is enhanced, but individuals within the company
may miss the competitive edge. When it comes to change, this culture is
dependent on the individual or group at the centre. If the centre is inflexible, then
adapting to change will be very difficult.
•
Role Culture
The culture is prescriptive and is unyielding in its approach. It is slow but
substantive, but this, of course, means that it is resistant to change.
•
Task Culture
The type of culture is emergent and has flexibility when required, being able to
accept change. It is a very pragmatic culture in that it can adapt itself to the
environment and organise itself in such a way that it is able to be competitive.
•
Personal Culture
It is a developing culture and all action depends very much on the individuals in
the organisation.
One must remember, however, that over time organisations go through different
phases and for this reason will experience different cultures. When an
organisation, for example, is struggling financially, the culture is usually the
power culture as it is necessary to have power that is centralised and focused in
order to steer the company through the difficult time. However, the culture will be
very different if the organisation is going through rapid growth.
There is also the fact that organisations can have various types of cultures that
exist at one point in time and impact on an organisation in different ways. The
sales department, for instance, may have a different culture from that of the
finance department.
Culture and the different types of culture are, therefore, seen to be very important
to the organisation and a definition of what the functions of culture are in an
organisation is essential.
These functions as described by Kreitner and Knicki (in Bredenkamp 2002) are:
•
A strong organisational culture gives a company a strong corporate identity
and in turn enables the company to attract, retain and develop talented
people. The strong culture and identity acts as a major influence and gives
employees a feeling of belonging. The culture also helps new employees
identify with the organisation and aids individuals in understanding how the
organisation works. From the outset, people can determine whether they are
suited to the organisation by looking at what type of culture exists.
•
It facilitates collective commitment, which means that employees feel that
there is ownership in the company and thus, employees are prepared to
make sacrifices for the organisation.
•
It helps to ensure that there are strict standards and processes in place and
that there is tight control. It also ensures that there is commitment and
passion amongst employees.
•
It helps to shape behaviour by helping employees to make sense of the
surroundings.
There are, of course, many other functions of culture within an organisation.
Organisational culture, it should be noted, needs to be managed and aligned with
the goals of the organisation and the strategy of the leader. An organisation can
have the best strategy but if there is no alignment amongst all the different parts
of the organisation, then the company will not prosper. The financial
remuneration for an individual is a small aspect of what employees are looking
for. Employees, when deciding whether to stay in an organisation, will consider
how that organisation treats its employees, deals with competence development,
and co-ordinates management control, amongst other factors. For example,
Ericsson’s core focus is to develop its staff. A large sum of money is spent
annually on training and training is provided all over the world for individuals. It is
a positive feature for the company and means the company has an attractive
culture.
According to Robbins (1983), culture can be defined by specific characteristics
that are sometimes overlooked. These elements are important as culture has
distinct dimensions that can be defined and measured. The characteristics are:
•
The first characteristic is that of individual initiatives. This characteristic
observes the degree of responsibility, freedom and independence that
individuals have.
•
Then comes risk tolerance; the degree to which employees are
encouraged to be aggressive, innovative and risk seeking, is examined.
•
The next characteristic is that of direction and is to create clear objectives
and performance expectations.
•
Integration is the extent to which units within the organisation are
encouraged to operate in a co-ordinated manner.
•
The fifth characteristic is management support and concerns the degree to
which managers provide clear communication, assistance and support to
subordinates.
•
Control is next, and focuses on the number of rules and regulations and
the degree of direct supervision that is used to oversee and control
employee behaviour.
•
The seventh characteristic is identity, and this is concerned with the way
that individuals identify with the organisation as a whole, rather than on a
particular work group or field of professional expertise.
•
The reward system considers the degree to which reward allocation (i.e.
salary increases, promotions) is based on factors such as employee
performance, criteria in contract, seniority and favouritism.
•
Conflict tolerance is the next issue to be examined. It concerns the degree
to which employees are encouraged to air conflicts and criticise openly.
•
The last consideration is that of communication patterns, or the way in
which organisational communications are restricted to the formal hierarchy
of authority.
These ten characteristics show that culture is made up not just of behavioural
aspects but also structural related variables.
People from different backgrounds and on different levels tend to describe the
culture in a similar way. As postulated by Robbins (1983), organisations will
always have a dominant culture and subcultures. A dominant culture expresses
the core values of the organisation and reflects those values expressed by the
majority of the employees. This is what gives the organisation its distinct
personality. In large organisations, subcultures tend to develop and they reflect
common issues, problems, situations and experiences that members face.
Subcultures can be either vertically or horizontally conformed. When a specific
product division of an organisation has a unique culture different from that of
other divisions of the organisation a vertical subculture exists. When a specific
set of functional experts such as human resource (HR) managers have a set of
common shared understandings, a horizontal subculture is formed. Although any
group is able to develop a subculture, subcultures do tend to be defined by
departmental designation or geographical separation. Subcultures usually consist
of the core values of the organisation plus other values that are unique to the
department.
If an organisation consisted only of subcultures and there is no dominant culture,
the influence of organisational effectiveness would be far more ambiguous. The
reason for this is that, if there is no dominant culture, there are no core values
and shared meaning, which means that there is no consistency of perceptions or
behaviour. The shared meaning element of the culture is what makes culture
such a potent concept but one has to recognise that subcultures are a reality.
A common thread in considering culture is that culture has an impact on
organisational effectiveness, and it is important to understand what type of
impact it has. In order to evaluate this, according to Bradfield (2006), strong and
weak cultures need to be identified. A strong culture is one in which the core
values are upheld by employees and widely shared. The more members who
accept the core values and are committed to the plans, the stronger the culture.
Organisations that are younger and have a higher turnover among members will,
almost by definition, have a weak culture, because employees will not have
shared enough experience to create a common meaning. It does not, however,
mean that more mature organisations always have stable cultures, as the
important factor is that the core values must be intensely held.
If the culture is strong, it will be more aligned with the variables such as strategy,
environment and technology. There will be a good match with the external
environment and it will be structured according to the strategy and environment.
The strategies need to be examined, as these will drive certain behaviours and
values. If strategies are very market-driven, the organisation requires a culture
that emphasises individual initiative, risk-taking, high integration, tolerance of
conflict and high horizontal communication. If the organisation is product-driven,
this requires a more stable environment, which in turn encourages a culture that
looks at high control, low risk and conflict.
An organisation needs to ensure that there is an internal fit with its culture and
that it is properly suited to its technology. An organisation that has routine
technology, such as a manufacturing plant, requires more control and stability
and needs to have security. If the technology is non-routine, the culture requires
that people take initiative and are very flexible. Ericsson is this type of
organisation in that the environment that Ericsson is in is dynamic and changes
rapidly. The culture, therefore, needs to be flexible and dynamic. The individual is
required to be able to take initiative and to handle conflict and deal with the lack
of formal structure. Ericsson promotes this in terms of empowerment and
delegation.
Another consequence of a strong culture is that it increases behavioural
consistency (Reese, 1994). For example, an organisation may encourage risktaking. The organisation may do this by encouraging employees to take risks
even if the idea or initiative does not work. When this happens, employees know
that a value of the organisation is to take risks. The organisation, in this way, will
be encouraging a value that it feels is important and is sending out a signal in
terms of behaviour. This risk-taking may also be encouraged by the leaders in
the organisation, as the leaders will identify what is important. If the leader is a
risk-taker, individuals will be more willing to take risks. If the leader is more
conservative, the organisation will act in that manner.
Culture is a way of being able to control consistency in the organisation and in
this way is a substitute for formalisation. As postulated by Robbins (1983), this is
particularly important in that if the organisation wants to encourage flexibility and
independence, there should not be strong formalisation in place. Formalisation is
created by rigid rules that regulate employee behaviour. Such rules create
predictability, stability and consistency. A resilient culture is able to achieve this
without the need for written documentation. Such a culture can be more effective
than any formal structure, in that culture controls the mind, body and soul. Again,
the type of culture that is being encouraged has to be considered, in that the
decision must be made as to whether putting in formal policies and processes
will achieve what is required, or whether this can be done by the culture.
Culture is not created in an organisation overnight and thus requires consistent
messages, top leadership behaviour and employees buy in. Culture, as
discussed earlier, consists of the customs, traditions and general way of doing
business, which are largely due to what has been done before and the success
that it has had.
The biggest influence on culture is its founders. The founders of an organisation
traditionally have a major impact on establishing the early culture as the founders
have a vision and a mission for the organisation. Organisations normally start off
small and it is easy for the leaders to impose the desired vision. The organisation
develops from the interaction between the founder’s biases and assumptions and
what the original members experienced. In the case of Ericsson, the original
culture has changed over the years. Before its downturn, Ericsson's culture was
linked closely to stability and structure, very similarly to state-run organisations.
When the downturn happened, however, there was a need to change. The
company was large and ineffective and had to become lean, streamlined and
efficient. There was a need to change part of the culture within the organisation.
This was partly done by altering management and then introducing the new
desired values and behaviours. This change needed to be immediate because of
the company’s threatened bankruptcy. Ericsson succeeded worldwide in making
the change, but one can see how the culture needs to be reintroduced
repeatedly.
One of the ways to accentuate culture is to be consistent with the message, and
share with the employees experiences that help to exemplify the behaviours
(Adler, 2002). Another aspect is the selection process, whereby the organisation
will select individuals, mostly based on suitability from a cultural perspective. It is
also an opportunity for a prospective employee to determine whether the
organisational culture is what the individual is seeking. The leaders of an
organisation are also a very important factor because leaders drive the
organisation, and consequently the culture. Employees look up to the leaders in
terms of the leaders’ provide the example and the core values that the leaders
exemplify. It helps the process to define employees’ own behaviour and core
values.
Another aspect is socialisation and induction into the organisation. The very first
step is the induction programme that employees undergo when they first arrive in
the organisation. Such a step is very important in that it will initially let employees
know what is significant to the organisation.
The next aspect is the socialisation process. Interaction with other employees will
let an individual know the organisation’s core values. The socialisation process
also lets employees know what is acceptable and not acceptable.
Cultures collide when there are mergers or acquisitions, which is what happens
when two organisations are joined. It often means that two cultures need to be
combined and usually the cultures are very different. This is often a significant
factor in whether a merger or acquisition will work. These types of situations are
very sensitive and need to be handled with care. Another type of situation is one
in which a company establishes different types of organisations in various
countries. There is often a clash as the management usually has a specific type
of culture and local individuals have a different one. Management, for example,
could have a more autocratic type of style and believe more in centralisation than
decentralisation while the locals might prefer a more empowering culture and
favour having tasks and information delegated down into the organisation. A
clash will occur between the two levels, which will affect employee motivation
and the overall performance of the organisation. Two distinctly different cultures
will emerge and the organisation will not be in balance.
A core issue that needs to be examined is whether culture is manageable or not.
There are many thoughts about this, and some theorists believe that it is
manageable while others do not. Manageability depends on whether leaders
have the ability to affect the culture within the organisation or whether it is
something that evolves on its own. In this section, an analysis is provided
regarding the conditions that facilitate cultural change (Robbins, 1983).
The first one is dramatic crisis, which occurs when the status quo is disrupted
and a shift in the current practices is required. Such a situation calls for a
different set of values that would allow the organisation to deal with the crisis
more effectively. The next condition is leadership turnover. Leaders are key
players in determining the culture within an organisation. Accordingly, when the
leadership changes, there is usually a shift in the culture of the organisation. In
order for the new leader’s change to take hold, the leader needs to have a clear
vision of what the organisation can be. The leader must be respected and have
the power to enact the alternative vision.
As can be seen from the above, culture plays a vital role in the effective running
of an organisation. Culture helps an organisation to align its strategy with its
external market and also to strive for internal fit, so that all the factors are
working together in the same direction. A strong organisational culture helps to
create a strong organisational reputation, which in turn allows the organisation to
attract the right type of employees and be seen as an employer of choice.
Culture will determine how the organisation needs to be structured and the
behaviour that is core to the organisation. The right culture at the end of the day,
adds value to the bottom line, and ultimately to all employees and stakeholders.
For this reason it is essential for organisations to see culture as a priority.
Culture also plays a crucial role in terms of an organisation encouraging or
discouraging change. Every organisation has a specific culture that defines the
behaviours and values by which the organisation lives. The culture also lets
employees know what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate. Employees
then internalise the culture. This process takes a few months before the
employees know how the new status quo works. Culture can become ingrained
and behaviour can become entrenched and highly resistant to change although
some of the culture styles are more resistant to change than others. If one of the
core values of the company is security, this does not lead to employees
embracing change.
As postulated by McNamara (1999), efforts in terms of organisational change are
said to fail most of the time, as a result of culture not being taken into
consideration when attempting to implement the change. For this reason
strategic planners now place as much emphasis on strategic values as they do
on vision and mission. When looking at this the following four types of cultures
have been identified by (McNamara, 1999).
•
Academy culture
Employees in this culture are highly skilled and tend to stay in the organisation
while improving themselves. The organisation provides a stable environment in
which employees can develop and grow as individuals. This culture tends to be
more resistant to change.
•
Baseball team culture
In the organisation, individuals are free agents who have very highly prized skills.
It means that individuals can find other employment very quickly. It usually exists
in a fast-paced environment, one that adapts to change.
•
Club Culture
The organisation requires employees to fit into the group and employees usually
start at the bottom and stay within the organisation, as the organisation promotes
people from within. Values and seniority are important and the organisation does
not adapt to change quickly.
•
Fortress culture
This organisation tends to be unstable, works through a lot of re-organisation and
thus embraces change quickly.
Culture plays a crucial role in the success of a company. A good example of this
can be seen in the case of Lou Gerstener, as described by Harrison (1993). Lou
Gerstener took charge of IBM when it was in crisis and had become one of the
world’s greatest corporate disasters. Lou Gerstener had to deal with an outdated
corporate culture which was inhibiting the organisation, thus the major focus
going forward was changing the culture to one that would facilitate an efficient
organisation. The existing culture did not facilitate the most effective
improvements for the company, but was holding the company back. Eventually
IBM was able to recover and become a success. It has been noted that
organisational factors explain about twice as much variance in profit. This shows
us that corporate culture affects the bottom line.
A cultural makeover is not quickly achieved. Organisations, therefore, need to be
very proactive in terms of culture change because organisations in crisis need to
improve often and do not have a long time to initiate change.
Cultural change is often required when the organisation needs to adapt to a
major change, which can come in the form of restructuring, mergers and
acquisitions, loss of competitive position or a technology shift. In 2001, for
example, the telecoms industry went into recession and the business that had
been forecasted did not happen. Some drastic changes had to be made in
Ericsson if the organisation was going to survive. At this stage, a huge
restructuring programme was initiated and Ericsson had to make a big cultural
shift. People had to adapt very quickly to the circumstances that faced the
organisation and it ultimately resulted in a change in the culture within Ericsson.
It was a difficult and painful period for the organisation and its employees but
Ericsson emerged stronger and more efficient. The culture had to be entrenched
in the organisation as well as accepted by the employees, which is the case for
any organisation going through a major change.
If, therefore, one looks at corporate change programmes, according to
Bredenkamp (2002) the programmes need to have a structured approach and a
paradigm for the new emerging culture to come into being. The programme
needs to ensure that new ways and approaches are developed which recognise
the complexities of corporate culture. A new culture requires commitment from
the very top of the organisation, that is, from the CEO down. Culture also needs
to be communicated through all available channels and for this reason, requires
an effective channel through which it can be communicated.
It is important to remember that people change, and need to make the changes
that allow the culture to evolve. Strong organisational cultures support employees
in accepting company cultures and can help increase productivity and inspire
employees to achieve more. Such cultures ensure that the organisation creates a
nurturing environment for the development of human capital.
Now that culture has been discussed in depth, it is important to identify Swedish
culture and South African culture.
The Swedish culture is predominantly middle-class, with one of the most
extensive social security systems in the world (Anon. n.d.f.). Patriotism is very
important to Swedish people. In terms of organisational culture Swedes take
punctuality for business meetings very seriously and expect this from individuals
too. Swedes expect to be notified if individuals are going to be late for a meeting.
English is commonly used and is the language of business. During business
meetings, Swedes usually start work after very brief cordialities. Agendas are
clearly set for meetings, with a stated purpose. Swedes are factual, practical and
precise, reserved and get to the point quickly. This means that presentations and
reports must be concise, factual and detailed. Swedes are good negotiators and
do not easily compromise. Decisions in the organisation are generally made by
middle and lower level managers. While decision-making is usually a slow
process, once the decision has been made implementation occurs quickly. In
Sweden, women make up 48 percent of the workforce, representing the highest
percentage of working women in the world. The Swedes have a very strong
culture of gender equality.
In Swedish culture, an important factor is the way that Swedes handle inequality
(those in charge and followers). In the Swedish culture leaders tend to be very
participative and include all employees in the decision-making process (Anon.
n.d.f.). Swedes are very empowering and delegate responsibility to employees.
More focus is placed on the challenges of the position than on the hierarchy of an
organisation. Swedes prefer to have fewer levels and prefer to work horizontally,
an attitude which fosters an open culture which allows employees to explore and
have the freedom to take risks and be innovative.
The next focus is the South African culture. South Africa has been democratic
only since 1994 and before that, as a result of apartheid, there was much
inequality and social discrimination. Since 1994, the government has been
working to rectify the inequalities in society and business. This has had an effect
on the South African culture. The corporate culture tends to be very formal with a
focus on positions and titles. The environment also tends to be more formal in
nature.
When examining culture, focus also needs to be paid to the area of wave
management as this has a great impact.
2.5
Wave Management
In discussing culture, leaders and change, it is necessary to understand how the
new organisation should plan its objectives, in order for the organisation to
survive and thrive in the 21st century. The question has created much debate
and speculation which means that organisational design is at a significant
crossroads. It is very apparent that the new organisation will have few
boundaries and in this way, barriers between staff, line, functions and divisions
will be minimised, as well as those between the company and the outside world.
Fewer boundaries allow for more efficiency and better communication, which will
make the company more effective. Many of today’s companies need to be
shaped in order to handle the increase in competition. Since the world has
become a global marketplace, many companies are facing more pressure from
other companies around the world, and, therefore have to make sure that they
are competitive in the industry.
One of the old fallacies is that the bigger a company is, the better it is, as argued
by Tomasko (1993). This belief, which was predominant in many organisations,
is losing credibility. Organisations are realising that they need to be more
streamlined and efficient. It is interesting to see that when an organisation goes
through a restructuring and re-engineering process, it is able to cut down on
employment, which makes the organisation more efficient.
Many of the old organisations also focused on specialised roles with a high
control, which meant that middle managers played the role of co-ordinator and
controller. Organisations were very hierarchical in that information and key
decisions were reserved for the top positions, which led to a top-down approach.
It also meant that the only way to move in an organisation was horizontally. This
approach is of a traditional type and is still practised by some organisations
today.
These ways of thinking help to create barriers within the organisation and restrict
employees to narrowly-defined positions. Such attitudes help to create closed-off
areas, where people do what is expected, with little interaction with other areas.
These organisations are very structured but such structuring impedes the flow of
creativity and commitment to the organisation. These types of barriers are
referred to by Welsh (in Tomasko 1993) as “tollgates” and the emphasis is on the
high cost of getting past the barriers. Welsh argues that, when people need to
pass the “tollgate”, a price is paid, whether it is economical, emotional or one that
is costly in terms of time. These costs ultimately lead to higher prices and
diminished competitiveness which is not ideal for the organisation. Tomasko
(1993) argues that the new organisation will have few such barriers.
When looking at wave management, the last evolution of an organisation is to
become a learning organisation. Hailey and James (2002) see learning and
management as crucial capacities for organisations expecting to survive and
thrive in the unpredictable global environment. Developing the learning
organisation is increasingly being seen as synonymous with capacity building,
organisational development and managing change. Another big factor in the
success of organisations is in part attributable to the organisation’s willingness to
embrace new learning and invest in developing its capacity as a learning
organisation. A learning culture is very dependent on the culture of the
organisation and, of course, the leadership of the company.
The reason for such an emphasis on learning is that the world today is changing
at a rapid rate. In order for organisations to stay competitive, organisation need
to be able to adapt to the changing environment, which means that organisations
need to be able to learn at the same rate as the environment is changing. This
ability is critical for the organisation to survive and be profitable. The 1990s saw
the evolution of the concept of the learning organisation and this is being carried
forward into the 21st century.
There is a close link between change and the learning organisation. A strong
advocate of the learning organisation is Senge (in Hailey and Jones, 2002), who
is one of the early advocates of organisational learning and defines the learning
organisation as one which is constantly expanding its capacity to create its
future, which means that organisations continually need to adapt to that which is
required from the external environment as well as from the internal environment.
Learning is a link between knowledge and effective and sustainable action. It
means that knowledge is a key resource that all organisations need to exploit
and use to enhance their position in industry. Knowledge management and
learning are important in any organisation and play an important role in
development. Knowledge management means creating awareness of what works
and why it works, as well as understanding what does not work. Knowledge
management and learning is so important because it is the key ingredient in
evolving organisations. As stated earlier (see section 2.3 p.35), organisations
need to evolve in order to adapt to the environment which is what knowledge
management and learning allow. Organisations are becoming increasingly aware
that knowledge and the dissemination of knowledge and learning are important to
the effectiveness of the organisation. Success depends on the suitability of the
systems, the ability to embrace error and the willingness to learn from local
communities with which work is done.
Most companies claim to be learning organisations but many small organisations
fail to learn from experiences or mistakes, and commonly fail to adapt their way
of working. Fowler (in Hailey and Jones, 2002) even goes so far as to suggest
that a common weakness of developing organisations is actually the inability to
re-invent, which is why the ability to learn and improve is poor.
Another reason that is very evident as to why learning and knowledge
management is not an integral part of many organisations is the culture of the
organisation. As discussed earlier (see section 2.4 p.44), culture consists of the
values and shared meanings that exist in the organisation. If the organisation
does not value learning and knowledge management, the organisation will
struggle to get employees to practise these values. This also links to whether
change management is accepted or avoided within an organisation. Learning
usually means that individuals need to look at what others are currently doing,
and at what is actually required. Individuals, therefore, have to look at mistakes
and examine what has gone wrong in the organisation but individuals fear to do
this, as there is the fear of the criticism or retribution that may result.
This concept is linked to culture because if a culture promotes risk-taking, that
culture should not criticise employees for taking risks or making mistakes
because individuals learn from the mistakes and move forward. This idea links
back to the learning organisation. Learning is also very intangible and, because
of this, people tend to be more wary of releasing resources to participate in
learning. As seen, learning does not always come naturally to an organisation but
the goal is that eventually it does become second nature, as then it is beyond
doubt a learning organisation.
The next area of focus is the process that organisations go through in order to
learn. As postulated by Hailey and James (2002), there are different methods of
learning. The first one is learning from practice. This is the primary means of
learning and involves the conscious reflection on and analysis of the
implementation of practices, particularly where there have been mistakes. Such
reflection creates the greatest opportunity for learning. It means that individuals
need to do self-reflection. It is vital to create a culture that accepts criticism so
that individuals can critically analyse situations.
The second method is to learn through staff participation. This type of learning
means that organisations need to look at the concept of participative
management that encourages individuals to share ideas and to participate in the
process. Organisations should also use a mix of regular meetings, retreats,
workshops and seminars to promote shared learning and disseminate new ideas.
The third type is learning from external factors. It is the method of bringing in
people from outside the organisation, who can facilitate the learning process.
Such people challenge the status quo and encourage employees to view matters
differently.
The fourth method is learning from formal training, where the organisation invests
in training at institutions, while the fifth is learning through research. Research is
carried out in the environment to gain more knowledge (for example) of the
external market. The last method is monitoring and evaluation. This is where
organisations put in formal processes and systems in order to monitor and
evaluate work and learn from the results of performance.
As stated earlier, successful organisations are intellectually capable of handling
change, and flexible enough to promote this change. Such capabilities result
from the organisation embracing learning and making it part of the culture and in
this way making it a core value. The consequence is that employees
demonstrate willingness to take risks, be innovative and constantly look at new
approaches. Learning, therefore, is not merely to be desired, but is critical to the
success of the organisation and is promoted through the culture and values of
the organisation. A culture of learning can be directly attributed to the personal
views of the leader.
As discussed in leadership and management (see section 2.2 p.23), leaders play
a fundamental role in shaping the culture within an organisation. Learning
organisations have learning leaders. Senge (in Hailey and Jones, 2002)
advocates that leadership is central to organisational learning and that learning
organisations have leaders who are facilitators and educators. Leaders,
especially in the formational stages of the organisation, are the individuals who
determine what type of people are employed and how the organisation is run. In
this way, leaders determine the type of structure and climate the organisation
has. Even when an organisation matures, the leader still has an impact on the
characteristics of the organisation.
2.6
Conclusion
Leadership, management, culture, wave management and change management
are all interlinked. All these concepts should be looked at from a holistic point of
view, as ultimately these factors affect organisational strategies and the
organisation's ability to deliver and improve value. In order to make progress,
organisations need to consider all of these areas in order to direct the
organisation in the new global economy and so satisfy all the stakeholders.
A core component for any organisation in defining strategies and the vision for
the organisation is the leadership. Progressive and visionary leadership has the
ability to lead a company into the future through comprehensive strategies that
provide direction and vision for the organisation. These strategies are flexible and
dynamic and allow for the constant changes that occur in the environment. This
means that profitable organisations today are dynamic and versatile and can
adapt to change.
Change is a crucial concept in any organisation. The ability of any organisation to
change as required by the internal and external environment is a fair indication of
how competitive the organisation will be in the global environment. All sections of
the organisation have to be able to change when required. A key factor is the
culture that exists within the organisation, namely whether the culture facilitates
or inhibits the required change.
The culture of the organisation helps to facilitate many elements, one being the
structure of the organisation. It shapes how the organisation moves and its ability
to react to external and internal forces within its environment. It either
encourages the organisation to grow or allows it to stagnate.
In considering all these elements together, it is evident that the elements
constitute various sections of the organisation, and what makes up that
organisation. All these elements have an impact on how the organisation evolves
in the different phases. The ultimate state for any organisation is the 5th
discipline which requires organisations to evolve in all the different areas. All the
concepts are, therefore, linked to one another and are the core issues that allow
an organisation to develop and reinvent itself to become a leading organisation in
the economy.
In the next chapter, the methodology employed for conducting the research is
explained. The first section looks at the methodology and design for the study,
focusing on the procedure used. After this consideration, the sample and
population is explained and finally, the analysis and findings are discussed.
CHAPTER 3 – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY DESIGN, PROCEDURES AND
FINDINGS
3.1
Introduction
In this chapter the methodology, design and procedure employed for conducting
the research will be described. The chapter will clarify the means by which the
data is obtained and collected. It will also focus on the population and sample
used in the research, with emphasis on the sampling type and size. Furthermore,
it will explain the ethical aspects of the research as well as the importance of the
study. The research findings will be presented according to the key elements
which are leadership and management style, culture and change management.
In each section, the statistical data will be provided as well as an analysis of the
data in relation to the literature review provided.
3.2
Research methodology, design and procedure
3.2.1 Research methodology
This study will be qualitative in nature. This is defined by Zikmund (2003:110) as
“Initial research conducted to clarify and define the nature of a problem.” Such an
approach enables researchers to gain further knowledge and understanding
about the concept. According to Leedy (in Brits 2005), qualitative research
studies normally serve one or more of the following purposes:
•
Description, which can reveal the nature of certain situations, settings,
processes, relationships, systems or people.
•
Interpretation, which enables people to gain new insights about a particular
phenomenon.
•
Verification, which allows a person to test the validity of certain assumptions,
claims, theories, or generalisations within a realistic context.
•
Evaluation, which provides the means by which a person can judge the
effectiveness of particular policies, practices or innovations.
The method that will be used is that of using questionnaires because these can
be administered to a large number of people, are relatively economical and are
confidential, which provides anonymity for individuals. Focus groups will be
conducted in order to identify issues that can be included in the questionnaire.
The questionnaire (see Appendix 1 p.120) will be sent out via e-mail as all the
respondents work for Ericsson either in South Africa or Sweden. The
questionnaire will help to answer the fundamental questions being asked in the
proposed research and will allow certain conclusions to be made about
fundamental behaviours in the organisation.
3.2.2 Research Design
Research design, as defined by Zikmund (2003), is a method that specifies the
methods and procedures used for collecting and analysing the required
information. Exploratory research will be used for this study. The purpose of
exploratory research as postulated by Zikmund (2003) is to understand the
recognised problem more fully. There are three interrelated purposes for
exploratory research: diagnosing a situation, screening alternatives and
discovering new ideas as postulated by Zikmund (2003). The exploratory
research will help to elicit the opinions of employees within both organisations.
The problem that currently exists is that there is conflict between top
management and employees. The management would, therefore, like to conduct
more research into this issue to gain further insight into the dimensions of the
problem.
The method that will be used in this research is secondary data analysis. This,
according to Zikmund (2003), is an economical and quick method of sourcing
background information in relation to trade literature. The method will help to
obtain information and uncover previous research to lend credibility to the
proposed research.
3.2.3 Population and Sample
The population or universe is described by Zikmund (2003:369) as “any complete
group of people, companies, hospitals, stores, college students, or the like that
share some set of characteristics. When a distinction is made between
population and universe it is on the basis of whether the group is finite
(population) or infinite (universe).” A sample is used in the research and this is
done by “sampling” which, as defined by Kerlinger (1992), is taking a portion of
the population or universe as a representative of the population or universe. In
the organisation, the population is the entire South African organisation and the
entire Swedish organisation. Random sampling will be used and is defined by
Kerlinger (1992) as the method of ensuring that the part of the population that is
drawn has an equal chance of being selected.
3.2.3.1 Sampling type and size
For the purpose of this study, probability sampling will be used. Probability
sampling, as defined by Zikmund (2003:379), is "… a technique in which every
member of the population has a known nonzero chance of selection.” An
important subset of probability sampling that is often used in research is
systematic sampling. This investigates increasing the preciseness of a particular
sample by ensuring that certain groups are represented sufficiently as explained
by (Bowditch and Buono, 2001).
Stratified sampling will be used in this proposal. Ericsson South Africa and
Ericsson Sweden will be divided into different strata according to job levels.
There will be two different strata, which will consist of managers and employees.
Random sampling is used within the strata to select sampling units.
The size of the sample to be used is 150 in South Africa of which 30 are
managers and the rest employees, and 150 in Sweden of which 30 are
managers and the rest employees.
3.2.4 Data Collection
In this research, the method that will be used is the survey method. As argued by
Zikmund (2003), surveys are a means of gathering primary data that use some
form of communication with a selection or representative sample of the
population. The advantages, as described by Zikmund (2003), are that surveys
are quick, inexpensive, efficient and an accurate way of evaluating information
about the population. In the research, the method that will be used is a
questionnaire (seen in Appendix 1 p.120). The questionnaire contains several
fixed-alternative questions that help to answer the critical questions proposed in
the research regarding leadership and management styles, culture and change
management.
The data will be analysed to determine the responses from employees and
managers in the Swedish and South African organisation. The data is analysed
by making use of available computer software in order to present the information
in various statistical formats and this is prepared by the STATCON department at
the University of Johannesburg. The information will be used to make certain
inferences about Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden. In addition,
personal interviews will be conducted with employees and managers after the
analysis in order to get a more in-depth understanding of the main perceptions
and problem areas.
3.2.5 Ethical Aspect
The following aspects are taken into consideration when conducting the study as
postulated by De Vos (in Brits 2006):
•
Consent. The respondents are given all the relevant information in the e-mail
and are given the choice to fill in the questionnaire.
•
Deception. All information is given openly.
•
Confidentiality. All the information that has been received is dealt with in a
confidential manner.
•
Publication of findings. A written report is compiled and is completed as
accurately and objectively as possible.
3.2.6 Importance of the study
Management in Ericsson South Africa wishes to understand what the current
situation is in terms of leadership and management styles, culture and ability to
change in order to know how to make the necessary improvements for the
organisation. Such knowledge is crucial as it affects the ability of the organisation
to compete in a global economy and to be a market player. The study allows
management to understand the difference between the two companies and
comprehend what makes one company more progressive than the other. It then
allows management to establish strategies and interventions to help improve the
organisation.
3.3
Research Findings and Analysis
3.3.1 The Research
In this research, employees were approached in Ericsson South Africa and
Ericsson Sweden and a questionnaire (see in Appendix 1, p.120) was sent out.
Altogether, 239 employees responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire
(see in Appendix 1, p.120) is divided into several sections, the first one looking at
biographical information. In this section, the questionnaire asks respondents
firstly to state their length of service. One criterion in selection of respondents for
the questionnaire is that the individuals should have worked for Ericsson for
longer than two years. The average length of service is 10 years. This average
results because Ericsson in Sweden has been in existence for 131 years and
therefore has longer potential years of service while Ericsson South Africa has
only been in existence for 13 years. Employees were asked to state which
department they worked in, and whether they were an employee or manager. In
South Africa, 95 employees and 40 managers responded. In Sweden 86
employees and 18 managers responded.
Currently there are 400 employees in South Africa, out of which 135 employees
answered the questionnaire. Out of the 31 000 employees in Sweden, 104
answered. The questionnaire was sent out to all the different units that exist
within Ericsson and is representative of the different areas that currently make up
the organisation.
In terms of the manager and employee split, 181 employees and 58 managers
answered the questionnaire. The questionnaire is, therefore, made up of 75.7
percent employees and 24.3 percent managers.
The rest of the questionnaire itself consists of four sections. The first section
focuses on the leadership elements in the organisation. It asks questions
regarding leadership as well as questions regarding the overall management of
the organisation. The next section considers the management of the different
sections for employees. This focuses, for example, on empowerment and
delegation. The next category concerns the culture of the organisation. This
section investigates two elements, the first one being innovation. In this section,
questions examine the ways in which the organisation allows for creativity. It links
these questions to the overall culture of the organisation. The questions are
structured to determine how employees see the culture within the organisation.
The last section concerns change management. It focuses on how an
organisation adapts and deals with change.
When looking into the analysis of the results, it is important to reflect upon
different elements in each of the different sections. These elements include
reliability, factor analysis and the t-tests. Reliability is an important factor in that,
as discussed by Kerlinger (2002:415), “Reliability, while not the most important
facet of measurement is still extremely important. High reliability is no guarantee
of good scientific results but there can be no good scientific results without
reliability. In brief, reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition of value of
research results and their interpretation.” In each section this will be discussed.
When looking at factor analysis, it is defined by Darlington (2002:1) as “the study
of the patterns of relationship among many dependent variables, with the goal of
discovering something about the nature of the independent variables that affect
them, even though those independent variables were not measured directly.
Thus, answers obtained by factor analysis are necessarily more hypothetical and
tentative than is true when independent variables are observed directly. The
inferred independent variables are called factors”. Darlington (2002) considers
that factor analysis puts forward answers to four important questions:
•
How many different factors are required to explain the pattern of relationships
among these variables?
•
What is the nature of those factors?
•
How well do the hypothesized factors explain the observed data?
•
How much purely random or unique variance does each observed variable
include?
This analysis will be studied further in each section. The focus is on t-tests and
significance levels. As proposed by Darlington (2002), when looking at two data
sets, each characterised by its own mean, standard deviation and a number of
data points, some kind of t-test is used to determine whether the means are
distinctive, provided that the underlying distributions can be assumed to be
normal. If the t that has been calculated is above the threshold chosen for
statistical significance, usually the 0.05 level, the null hypothesis that the two
groups do not differ is rejected in favour of an alternative hypothesis which
typically states that the groups do differ.
In the next sections, the statistical data will be examined in relation to the
different findings and concepts.
3.3.2 Findings: Leadership
When examining leadership in terms of reliability it can be seen that the data is
reliable, in that the Cranbach Alpha is 0.884 and thus is greater than 0.7. It
means that the results are consistent and trustworthy. With regard to factor
analysis, the data show that in terms of this section all the questions fit and are a
full compliment. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy is
0.849 which is greater than or equal to 0.7. (see Appendix 2, p.124-141).
When examining the t-test, it can be seen that the leadership results for the two
different entities are very different from each other. There is a significant
difference between the two results. The Sig (2-tailed) is .000 which is less than
.005 and thus shows a difference (see Appendix 2 p.124-141).
This, overall, indicates that there is a difference between the leadership in
Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden. When analysing the information, it
is clear that there is less confidence in the leadership in Ericsson South Africa
than in Ericsson Sweden. These results are indicated in table 3.3.1 which looks
at the split frequencies, where the responses for Ericsson Sweden are more
positive than for Ericsson South Africa.
Table 3.3.1 Split Frequencies for leadership in the organisation
South
Africa
Sweden
Never
How often is participative
leadership practised in your
organisation?
Count
%
How often are employees in your
organisation included in the
decision-making process?
Sometimes
Total
80
104
21
92
20
133
76.90%
100.00%
15.80%
69.20%
15.00%
100.00%
21
82
103
15
97
22
134
20.40%
79.60%
100.00%
11.20%
72.40%
16.40%
100.00%
Count
Count
%
Often
21
Count
Count
Sometimes
20.20%
19
85
104
16
100
18
134
18.30%
81.70%
100.00%
11.90%
74.60%
13.40%
100.00%
70
34
104
56
55
23
134
67.30%
32.70%
100.00%
41.80%
41.00%
17.20%
100.00%
2
58
44
104
59
67
8
134
1.90%
55.80%
42.30%
100.00%
44.00%
50.00%
6.00%
100.00%
%
How often do leaders in the
organisation share their power?
Never
3
%
How often does the leadership of
Ericsson show that they are
visionary?
Total
2.90%
%
How often does management
engage employees in the
organisation?
Often
In figures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2, it is clearly shown that in Ericsson Sweden, 62.64
percent of the individuals on average answered often, which indicates that
individuals feel positive about the leadership in the organisation. On average
36.4 percent answered sometimes and only 0.96 percent answered never. By
comparison, in Ericsson South Africa, on average, only 13.6 percent answered
often which is significantly lower than in the case of Sweden. It indicates lower
confidence in the leadership in Ericsson South Africa. On average 61.44 percent
answered sometimes and 24.94 percent answered never.
Figure 3.3.1 Summary of findings on Leadership in Sweden
Leadership
70%
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
Leadership
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
Often
Sweden
Figure 3.3.2 Summary of findings on Leadership in South Africa
Leadership
70%
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
Leadership
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
Often
South Africa
As stated in Chapter 2 (see section 2.2 p.27), leadership is different in
organisations that are in different phases in their evolution. Leadership drives the
direction of the organisation. In the results for Ericsson Sweden there is more
faith in the leadership. Employees, therefore, appear to feel that the Swedish
leaders are more empowering, and that individuals are given more autonomy to
carry out duties and are empowered to make decisions.
Employees also feel that the leaders are visionary and are able to create a
picture of where the organisation is headed. The leaders are able to motivate
employees and get employees to identify with the vision and mission of the
organisation. The employee feels part of the overall process and that, as
employees, add value to the organisation as a whole.
Telephonic interviews have been conducted with employees to get a better
understanding of the reasons for the results. The feedback in Ericsson Sweden is
that employees feel that leadership promotes an open and transparent
environment where employees understand the role and nature of employees’
contributions. The leaders include employees in the overall process when it
comes to decisions that are made, and consider that employees have an impact
on the direction of the organisation. Employees also think that leaders are able to
allow other individuals to play leadership roles and that the organisation is not
very hierarchical.
When it comes to the results for Ericsson South Africa, it can be seen that the
results are significantly different from the ones for Ericsson Sweden. These
results reflect that employees and managers believe that the leaders in the
organisation are not visionary and empowering. In one-on-one consultations and
group discussions, the feedback given is that individuals consider that leadership
in the organisation is not very strong and employees feel that not enough
direction is being provided for the company. Employees think that the leaders are
not very visible and do not bring employees along in terms of vision and mission.
The general opinion is that leaders are more focused on results than on the
employees. This generates the perception that leaders do not involve all
stakeholders when it comes to decision-making and setting direction for the
organisation.
Employees consider that goals and targets come from the management, with
very little involvement from employees. The same feedback comes out of the exit
interviews. The leadership is seen to be quite autocratic, and decisions are made
without consultation with those lower down in the organisation. This reveals the
interesting phenomenon that 80 percent of the leadership of the organisation are
expatriates who come from the Nordic countries. Leadership in the Nordic
countries tend to be more visionary, empowering and democratic in the
management of organisations. Most of the leaders have had management roles
in various organisations, but leaders are operating very differently in the South
African context. This trend can be attributed to various causes, one of which is
that individuals adapt to the external environment. Many of the leaders have
been in South Africa for a couple of years and have adapted to the South African
culture. The trend can also contribute to the maturity of the organisation, which
results in this type of behaviour and the way in which employees act and behave.
If this is examined in terms of the research objectives discussed in Chapter 1
(see section 1.4 p.2), the primary objective of the research is to do a comparative
study between Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden in terms of
leadership and other elements. The questionnaire (see Appendix 1 p.124-141)
focuses on different elements, one of them being leadership in Ericsson South
Africa and Ericsson Sweden. This enquiry also relates to the secondary
objectives of the research (Chapter 1, see section 1.4.2 p.3) and links back to the
research proposition introduced in Chapter 1 (see section 1.5 p.3) in that the
analysis shows that there is a difference in leadership between the two
organisations.
The research links into the literature review provided in Chapter 2 (see section
2.2 p.22) which discusses leadership in terms of 2nd wave and 4th wave
organisations. It advocates that in the 2nd wave organisation the leadership is
not as visionary and empowering (Chapter 1, see section 1.8.2. p.9). The
leadership tends to be more autocratic and hierarchical in style. This result is
clear in the analysis of Ericsson South Africa and is supported by the findings
and personal interviews. When examining 4th wave organisations as discussed
in Chapter 1 (see section 1.8.4 p.14), the general characteristics are that the
leadership tends to be more visionary and dynamic. The structures tend to be
flatter and more democratic. These are characteristics that are evident within
Ericsson Sweden.
This leads into the second section which looks more specifically at the
management of the organisation, a combination of leadership as well as line
management.
3.3.3 Findings: My Manager
The statistics (see Appendix 2 p.124-141) show that this section, in terms of
reliability, is dependable in that the Cranbach Alpha is 0.886 and therefore is
greater than 0.7. This figure means the results are reliable and trustworthy. With
regard to the factor analysis, it can be seen that two of the questions do not fit
into this section. The first one is question 3.6, owing to a low MSA (Measure of
Sampling Adequacy) of only 0.583, and then question 3.3 owing to low
communality of only 0.099. Once these two questions have been taken out, the
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is 0.849 which is greater
than 0.7.
Management and leadership are interlinked concepts that affect one another. In
terms of the management element, the results are very similar to the results of
leadership. These results refer to the leadership of the organisation as well as to
the line management of the organisation. The t-tests show there is a significant
difference between Ericsson Sweden where the results are more positive and
Ericsson South Africa where the Sig (2-tailed) is 0.000 and is less than 0.005
(see Appendix 2 p.124-141).
The feedback is very similar in that the different elements that make up “My
Manager” look at various components that make up the management role. It
examines the elements of a manager being an example for employees and
considers how empowering managers are. It also focuses on how managers
engage employees in terms of team orientation and how they act as mentors and
coaches. The task under consideration is to assess how managers facilitate the
team and whether managers are willing to let other individuals adopt the
leadership role in the team. The results for Ericsson Sweden show that
employees in Ericsson Sweden have much more faith in the management of the
Swedish organisation. This is shown in the split frequency table 3.3.2.
Table 3.3.2 Split Frequency table for my Manager
South
Africa
Sweden
Never
1. How often does your manager lead by example?
Sometimes
Count
%
2. How often does your manager coach the team
(members) on new tasks?
Count
%
3. How often does your manager retain the final
decision making authority?
Count
%
4. How often does your manager play a facilitation role
in the team?
7. How often does your manager encourage you to be
innovative?
%
36
68
104
17
89
28
134
34.60%
65.40%
100.00%
12.70%
66.40%
20.90%
100.00%
73
104
12
107
16
135
100.00%
8.90%
79.30%
11.90%
100.00%
13
80
11
104
3
81
51
135
12.50%
76.90%
10.60%
100.00%
2.20%
60.00%
37.80%
100.00%
29
75
104
7
102
26
135
27.90%
72.10%
100.00%
5.20%
75.60%
19.30%
100.00%
21
83
104
10
93
32
135
20.20%
79.80%
100.00%
7.40%
68.90%
23.70%
100.00%
22
73
9
104
20
84
31
135
21.20%
70.20%
8.70%
100.00%
14.80%
62.20%
23.00%
100.00%
Count
Count
Total
70.20%
%
8. How often does your manager allow you to take the
leadership role?
Often
30
Count
%
Sometimes
28.80%
Count
Count
Never
1
%
6. How often does your manager tell you what has to
be done?
Total
1.00%
%
5. How often does your manager encourage you to
participate in decision making?
Often
32
72
104
31
67
37
135
30.80%
69.20%
100.00%
23.00%
49.60%
27.40%
100.00%
1
70
33
104
29
72
32
133
1.00%
67.30%
31.70%
100.00%
21.80%
54.10%
24.10%
100.00%
When analyzing figures 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6 with regard to Ericsson
Sweden and the “My Manager" element, on average 64.73 percent
responded often to six of the questions on the questionnaire, which
excludes questions 3 and 6. This means that employees feel that
managers play a strong role in the team in terms of exemplifying the core
behaviours, facilitating, mentoring, coaching and leading. With regards to
questions 3 and 6, if the percentage is low the result is positive and, in the
case of Ericsson Sweden, the average is 9.65 percent. This is because
questions 3 and 6 look at a more autocratic type of behaviour. On average
34.93 percent responded sometimes to the questions, excluding question
3 and 6, and, in questions 3 and 6, 73.55 percent responded sometimes.
In the last section for the six questions, excluding 3 and 6, 0.33 percent
responded never and to questions 3 and 6, 16.85 percent responded
sometimes. However, on average 21.21 percent in Ericsson South Africa
responded often, excluding questions 3 and 6. This indicates that
employees in the company have less confidence in the managers. With
questions 3 and 6, on average 30.4 percent responded often, indicating a
higher exhibition of autocratic behaviour. On average 65.65 percent
responded sometimes, excluding questions 3 and 6, and for questions 3
and 6, 61.10 percent responded sometimes. In the last section, on
average 13.16 percent responded never, excluding questions 3 and 6. 8.5
percent responded never to questions 3 and 6.
Figure 3.3.3 Summary of findings on my Manager (excluding Questions 3 and 6)
in Sweden
My Manager (excluding 3 & 6)
70%
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
My Manager (excluding 3 & 6)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
Often
Sweden
Figure 3.3.4 Summary of findings on my Manager (Questions 3 and 6) in Sweden
My Manager (questions 3 & 6)
80%
Percentage of Respondents
70%
60%
50%
My Manager (questions 3 & 6)
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
Often
Sweden
Figure 3.3.5 Summary of findings on my Manager (excluding Questions 3 and 6)
in South Africa
My Manager (excluding questions 3 & 6)
70%
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
My Manager (excluding questions 3 & 6)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
Often
South Africa
Figure 3.3.6 Summary of findings on my Manager (Questions 3 and 6) in South
Africa
My Manager (questions 3 & 6)
70%
Percentage of Respondents
60%
50%
40%
My Manager (questions 3 & 6)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never
Sometimes
South Africa
Often
In Ericsson Sweden, after conducting telephonic interviews, the information
collected shows that employees feel that management upholds the values of the
organisation, which is why employees consider that management leads by
example. Employees think that behaviour can be modelled against that of
management. This finding means that management leads by example and it also
links to empowerment. In general employees feel that management acts very
much in a team fashion and employees are involved in the decision-making
process. Employees are given the opportunity to give feedback and because of
this decisions are made in a democratic fashion.
Employees also feel that managers play a strong facilitation role in the team and
coach employees as part of the team. Managers assist employees when it
comes to new tasks and roles that need to be performed. Managers play a strong
mentorship role and assist employees in all the different areas of the department
and help employees to develop as individuals. A very important aspect is that
managers play the leadership role when necessary in the team, but also realise
this can be delegated to other employees. It means that other employees in the
team might take on the leadership role at certain times when the need dictates it
for a particular project. This result links to 4th wave management, where the
organisation has progressed through the different stages and is at a point where
leadership is not practised by only a few individuals, but is something that is
evident throughout the organisation. Power is not centralised but decentralised.
The organisation flows very smoothly and lines of communication are open.
Leadership is also practised openly and all individuals are considered as
stakeholders in the organisation. Balanced work-life is important in the
organisation and working in teams is critical. These types of organisations are
very progressive and are learning organisations, as discussed in Chapter 2 (see
section 2.5 p.65).
When looking at the analysis of Ericsson South Africa the results are different.
Here, individuals feel that management does not always lead by example.
Individuals find that management is not transparent and does not always act as a
role model for the rest of the organisation. Discussions were held with employees
to try and understand what employees were thinking regarding management. It
transpired that employees consider that management is not consistent in terms
of behaviour and, therefore, this does not generate confidence. The feedback is:
•
Employees feel that currently the priority within the organisation is results.
•
Employees lack management involvement which leads to the conclusion by
individuals that employees are not involved enough in the decision-making
process.
•
Employees feel there is a lack of empowerment in the organisation.
The findings of the questionnaire clearly indicate these opinions. There is also an
indication in the statistics (see Appendix 2 p.124-141) that individuals feel that
managers do not coach and mentor employees sufficiently. These are some of
the characteristics of 2nd wave organisations.
These findings link to Chapter 1 (see section 1.4 p.2) in that it relate firstly to the
research objectives, which look at a comparative study between Ericsson
Sweden and Ericsson South Africa in terms of different elements, of which
management is one. The purpose is to understand whether there is a difference
between the two companies when considering elements such as management,
and how this relates to wave management. The results also link into the research
proposition as stated in Chapter 1 (see section 1.5 p.3) in terms of the analysis
and findings, as there is clearly a difference between the two organisations with
regard to management. The research also relates to wave management as
discussed in Chapter 1 (see section 1.8.2 p.9 and section 1.8.4 p.14) in that
Ericsson South Africa exhibits characteristics of a 2nd wave organisation in terms
of management, and Ericsson Sweden exhibits characteristic of a 4th wave
organisation in that managers are team orientated and play a strong leadership
and mentorship role within the team.
3.3.4 Findings: Culture
In this section the questionnaire examines the type of culture that exists within
the organisation. It is divided into two parts, one that focuses on culture in
general and the other one on innovation.
On examination of the overall culture of the organisation, the questions (see
Appendix 1 p. 122) in this section look at different elements that make up the
culture. The first element is trust and this relates to question 4.8 (see Appendix 1
p.122). The questions ask whether the organisation has an atmosphere of trust in
the organisation, as well as amongst the employees. This element is very
important as it looks at the maturity of the organisation. In evolved organisations
there tends to be a high degree of trust in the organisation whereas in less
evolved organisations the degree of trust is much lower.
The second element looks at the way that policies and processes are set up in
the organisation and this relates to questions 4.9 and 4.10 (see Appendix 1
p.122). It questions how transparent the organisation is in terms of its practices
and the way business is done. When relating this back to a stage that an
organisation is experiencing, it is evident that more evolved organisations have
cultures that are more transparent and open than other organisations and
employees feel involved in the company. In less evolved organisations,
employees tend to be more critical of the practices in the organisation. Such
criticism
contributes
to
the
transparency
of
the
organisation.
Certain
organisations tend to be very transparent. This is typical of organisations that are
more mature and evolved.
The third element considers how political an organisation is and relates to
questions 4.11, 4.12, 4.13 (see Appendix 1 p.122). This section questions the
basis for the methods of working in the organisation. A very political organisation
relies more on contacts than information. The questions are designed to show
how individuals manipulate situations within the organisation. If individuals are
able to manipulate situations, it means that the environment is more
individualistically-driven than team-driven. The last element reflects on whether
individuals take responsibility and authority for their roles, which relates to
performance management.
In the first section of culture, this is questions 4.3, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13,
4.14 and 4.15 (see Appendix 1 p.122), the data is dependable in terms of
reliability, in that the Cranbach Alpha is 0.951 and thus is greater than 0.7. This
means that the results are reliable and trustworthy. Two questions in terms of
factor analysis do not fit into this section. Questions 4.6 and 4.2 do not fit due to
low communality of only 0.082 and 0.202. Once these two questions have been
taken out the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy is 0.849, which
is greater than or equal to 0.7. This means that it then fits as part of the
questionnaire (see Appendix 2 p.124-141).
In general there is a significant difference between Ericsson Sweden and
Ericsson South Africa, which is confirmed from the information that has been
collected. In terms of the t-tests we can see that the Sig (2-tailed) is 0.000, which
is less than 0.005 and shows a significant difference (see Appendix p.124-141).
Next is the split frequency table 3.3.3 for culture which shows a difference in the
two results and shows that the culture in Ericsson Sweden is viewed more
positively than in Ericsson South Africa.
Table 3.3.3 Split frequency table for culture
Sweden
Strongly
Disagree
1.I work in an environment
where I can use creativity and
ingenuity to solve
organisational problems
Count
%
2. There is a visible culture of
strong work ethics within the
organisation
Disagree
%
4. Novel ideas are welcomed
in the organisation
Count
%
5. Innovative people are
valued in the organisation
%
7. Good ideas are readily
adopted by the organisation
Count
%
8. There is an atmosphere of
trust in the organisation
%
10. Employees in the
organisation are critical of the
practices of the organisation
Count
%
11. Employees manipulate
situations for their own
personal advantage
Count
%
12. Managers manipulate
situations for their own
advantage
Count
%
13. Politics is a way of life for
many people in this
organisation
Count
%
14. Advancement depends
more on who you know than
on what you know
Count
%
15. Employees in the
organisation take ownership of
their duties
Count
%
Total
7
36
44
26
22
135
1.00%
13.50%
76.90%
8.70%
100.00%
5.20%
26.70%
32.60%
19.30%
16.30%
100.00%
14
86
4
104
2
10
35
71
15
133
13.50%
82.70%
3.80%
100.00%
1.50%
7.50%
26.30%
53.40%
11.30%
100.00%
4
47
30
20
101
1
15
18
75
22
131
4.00%
46.50%
29.70%
19.80%
100.00%
0.80%
11.50%
13.70%
57.30%
16.80%
100.00%
1
4
19
74
6
104
4
38
45
39
9
135
1.00%
3.80%
18.30%
71.20%
5.80%
100.00%
3.00%
28.10%
33.30%
28.90%
6.70%
100.00%
12
19
60
13
104
5
48
41
30
11
135
11.50%
18.30%
57.70%
12.50%
100.00%
3.70%
35.60%
30.40%
22.20%
8.10%
100.00%
4
48
32
19
1
104
10
83
33
7
1
134
3.80%
46.20%
30.80%
18.30%
1.00%
100.00%
7.50%
61.90%
24.60%
5.20%
0.70%
100.00%
1
1
21
77
4
104
4
41
57
29
4
135
1.00%
1.00%
20.20%
74.00%
3.80%
100.00%
3.00%
30.40%
42.20%
21.50%
3.00%
100.00%
Count
Count
Strongly
Agree
Agree
104
2
12
83
7
104
19
67
22
18
9
135
1.90%
11.50%
79.80%
6.70%
100.00%
14.10%
49.60%
16.30%
13.30%
6.70%
100.00%
12
50
34
6
1
103
1
14
12
69
35
131
11.70%
48.50%
33.00%
5.80%
1.00%
100.00%
0.80%
10.70%
9.20%
52.70%
26.70%
100.00%
%
9. Employees in the
organisation are critical of
policies
Neutral
9
Count
Count
Disagre
e
80
%
6. People who lack creativity
are not tolerated in the
organisation
Total
14
Count
Count
Strongly
Agree
Agree
1
%
3. Leaders have a different
type of culture o employees
Neutral
South
Africa
Strongly
Disagree
13
57
27
5
102
4
9
19
67
36
135
12.70%
55.90%
26.50%
4.90%
100.00%
3.00%
6.70%
14.10%
49.60%
26.70%
100.00%
18
65
20
1
104
2
19
21
59
34
135
17.30%
62.50%
19.20%
1.00%
100.00%
1.50%
14.10%
15.60%
43.70%
25.20%
100.00%
15
63
24
2
104
3
11
22
64
35
135
14.40%
60.60%
23.10%
1.90%
100.00%
2.20%
8.10%
16.30%
47.40%
25.90%
100.00%
9
66
26
3
104
13
13
59
50
135
8.70%
63.50%
25.00%
2.90%
100.00%
9.60%
9.60%
43.70%
37.00%
100.00%
12
62
24
5
1
104
3
11
17
52
52
135
11.50%
59.60%
23.10%
4.80%
1.00%
100.00%
2.20%
8.10%
12.60%
38.50%
38.50%
100.00%
27
70
7
104
2
44
40
46
3
135
26.00%
67.30%
6.70%
100.00%
1.50%
32.60%
29.60%
34.10%
2.20%
100.00%
In the graphs below an analysis will be provided of the split frequency table.
Figure 3.3.7 Summary of findings on culture (Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and15)
in Sweden
Culture – Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15
(Sweden)
6% 1%
8%
19%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
66%
In terms of the culture in Sweden specifically relating to questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8 and 15, employees responded very positively, with 66 percent and 6 percent
answering agreed and strongly agreed. It indicates, as stated earlier, that there is
a great deal of faith in the culture and that the culture reinforces positive
behaviour and a trusting atmosphere as well as allowing people to explore new
opportunities and ideas. Only a small percentage, that is 8 percent and 1
percent, disagreed and strongly disagreed with the particular questions.
Figure 3.3.8 Summary of findings on culture (questions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and14) in Sweden
Culture - Questions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
(Sweden)
6% 0%
11%
26%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
57%
When focusing on questions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 these questions look at
more negative behaviours exhibited in the organisation. When examining the
figures it shows that 6 percent and 0 percent of employees agreed and strongly
agreed that these types of behaviours and cultural aspects are exhibited within
the organisation. It is very positive as 57 percent and 11 percent disagreed and
strongly disagreed that behaviours and cultural aspects are evident within the
organisation.
Figure 3.3.9 Summary of findings on culture (questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and15)
in South Africa
Culture - Questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15
(South Africa)
7%
5%
25%
1
34%
2
3
4
5
29%
This analysis shows that in terms of questions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 15, Ericsson
South Africa has 25 percent and 7 percent that agreed and strongly agreed. In
comparison with Ericsson Sweden this is a significantly lower result. It shows that
employees are less positive about certain behaviours and cultural issues and it
shows up in that 34 percent and 5 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed. In
addition, these results relate to the fact that employees feel that the organisation
is not as innovative and accepting of new ideas as the Swedish one.
Figure 3.3.10 Summary of findings on culture (questions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and14) in South Africa
Culture - Questions 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
(South Africa)
2%
10%
28%
13%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
47%
This graph shows that 47 percent and 28 percent agreed and strongly agreed. It
shows that employees feel that negative behaviours in terms of the culture are
exhibited in the organisation and there is less trust and faith within the
organisation than in Sweden. Employees feel the culture is very weak and
exhibits weak behaviour. This assessment also shows up clearly in that only 10
percent and 2 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed.
In discussion with employees in Ericsson Sweden, the feedback received is that
the culture within the organisation is well-established and is felt very strongly.
Overall, people consider that there is an atmosphere of trust in the leadership as
well as within the company in general. Employees think that there is
transparency and openness in the organisation, which leads to a strong and
healthy culture. Employees in general feel that the organisation has in place
sound policies and practices that help make the organisation efficient and
effective and that these policies and practices are applied fairly across the
organisation and that people are treated equally. These are very important
elements in a 4th wave organisation, as discussed in Chapter 1 (see section
1.8.4 p.14), where employees feel that they are valued members within the
organisation and are treated as stakeholders. Employees see their value within
the organisation and have an environment where there is no manipulation.
In Ericsson South Africa there is a different sense of the culture within the
organisation. When speaking to employees there is a stronger atmosphere of
distrust. In general, employees consider that the leadership is not transparent
and open in terms of behaviours and actions within the organisation. This feeling
creates an atmosphere of mistrust within the organisation. There is a sense of
victimisation and intimidation in the organisation, where employees believe that it
is not possible to be open and honest about issues and this belief leads to
distrust. Employees also suspect that there is a great deal of politics and
manipulation within the company. Many of the respondents feel that the company
works very much on the “old boys club” attitude, where contacts are more
important than skills and information. Situations are manipulated to suit
individuals rather than the organisation as a whole. It is the perception that
information is being withheld, and the power is perceived to be held only by top
management and, sometimes, middle management. There is also a sense that
individuals do not take responsibility for actions and there is a lack of
consequence management. These are issues within the organisation that place
the company in the 2nd wave.
In the second section in culture, the focus is very much on innovation. This
section looks at questions 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 (see Appendix 1 p.122).
When analysing innovation in terms of reliability the data is reliable in that the
Cranbach Alpha is 0.882 and thus is greater than 0.7 (see Appendix 2 p.124141). This means that the results are reliable and trustworthy. The section
focuses on how innovative the organisation is in terms of allowing creativity to be
part of the culture and then rewarding such behaviour. In this section, the t-tests
show there is a difference between Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa.
This is demonstrated by the t-tests where the Sig (2-tailed) is 0.000 which is less
than 0.005 (see Appendix 2 p.125-142).
In Ericsson Sweden, the feedback that was received from group interviews is that
employees believe that, as a leader in technology, Ericsson allows for new ideas
and concepts. However, some employees feel that Ericsson needs to become
even more innovative if it wants to keep its advantage in the industry. Employees
consider that there need to be even more incentives for innovation and creativity.
Feedback received from Ericsson South Africa is that the organisation is not
innovative enough and that the culture does not facilitate creativity and
innovation. Employees feel that the environment is restrictive. Employees think
that this is not facilitated by incentives or by the top management. The focus is
on results and the financials and this is apparent in the target setting process as
well as in the strategies of the company. There is not enough encouragement
from the organisation and leadership for employees to think innovatively.
These observations link to Chapter 1 (see section 1.3 p.2) in which the purpose
of the study is to compare Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa on
different elements, one of them being culture. The primary research objective in
Chapter 1 (see section 1.4.1 p.2) is to do a comparative study between the two
companies. One of the secondary objectives in Chapter 1 (see section 1.4.2 p.3)
is to determine the drivers needed to develop the culture to enable Ericsson
South Africa to move with the changing times. This also relates to the research
proposition in Chapter 1 (see section 1.5 p.3).
3.3.5 Findings: Change management
In this section the focus is on how quick and flexible the organisation is in
adapting to change. The section questions whether there are the right tools in
place to allow the organisation to move as and when required. It considers
whether the right structure and right culture exist to facilitate change
management.
Looking at the reliability of this section, the results are reliable and trustworthy. It
is shown with the Cronbach’s alpha, which is greater than or equal to 0.7. With
the factor analysis it can be seen that in this section all the questions are relevant
and fit into the overall questionnaire. This is indicated by the Kaiser-Meyer Oklin
Measure of Sampling Adequacy which is 0.856. The split t-tests show that there
is a significant difference between Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa.
This is shown by the Sig (2-tailed) which is 0.000 and is thus less than 0.005
which shows the significant difference (see Appendix 2 p.124-141).
The analysis of the results clearly shows that employees rate Ericsson Sweden
higher than Ericsson South Africa in terms of its ability to adapt and move with
change. This can be seen in the slit frequency table 3.3.4 for change
management.
3.3.4 Split frequency table for change management
South
Africa
Strongly
Disagre
e
Sweden
Strongly
Disagree
The
organisational
structure
facilitates
speed and
efficiency
Neutral
15
46
42
1
104
14.40%
44.20%
40.40%
1.00%
1
7
44
50
1.00%
6.70%
42.30%
48.10%
Count
%
The structure
of your
organisation
allows for the
implementatio
n of change
Count
%
The
organisation
readily adapts
to change
Count
Count
%
The systems in
the
organisation
are flexible
enough to
adapt to
change
Count
%
Total
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Neutral
12
66
31
22
4
100.00%
8.90%
48.90%
23.00%
16.30%
3.00%
2
104
10
48
45
29
3
1.90%
100.00%
7.40%
35.60%
33.30%
21.50%
2.20%
4
20
78
2
104
13
56
36
26
4
3.80%
19.20%
75.00%
1.90%
100.00%
9.60%
41.50%
26.70%
19.30%
3.00%
1
3
25
74
1
104
17
64
40
12
2
1.00%
2.90%
24.00%
71.20%
1.00%
100.00%
12.60%
47.40%
29.60%
8.90%
1.50%
2
8
47
46
1
104
3
72
37
21
2
1.90%
7.70%
45.20%
44.20%
1.00%
100.00%
2.20%
53.30%
27.40%
15.60%
1.50%
%
Change
management
is handled
effectively in
the
organisation
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Figure 3.3.11 Summary of findings on change management in Sweden
Change Management Sweden
1% 1%
7%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
35%
Neutral
Agree
56%
Strongly Agree
In terms of the graph 3.3.11, employees in Ericsson Sweden responded
positively to the organisation's ability to adapt to change, namely 56 percent and
1 percent agreed and strongly agreed and 35 percent responded neutral. Only 7
percent and 1 percent disagreed and strongly disagreed. This indicates that more
than half of the organisation feels that the company deals with change effectively,
and therefore is able to move with the changing times.
Figure 3.3.12 Summary findings on change management in South Africa
Change Management South Africa
2%
8%
16%
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
46%
28%
Strongly Agree
In terms of Ericsson South Africa, it can be seen that employees feel that the
organisation does not handle change as effectively, as only 2 percent and 16
percent agreed and strongly agreed that the company can handle change. It
shows that employees are not as positive about the organisation's ability to adapt
to change. This conclusion is evident in that 46 percent and 8 percent disagree
and strongly disagree with the organisation's ability to facilitate change.
There may be various reasons for these differences. Ericsson Sweden has been
in existence for 131 years and, through that time, has experienced many
changes, such as restructuring, downsizing and re-organising. The latest change
was in 2001 where Ericsson Sweden cut its organisation by more than half its
staff compliment, that is by over 31 000 employees. This was a huge change
management exercise for the organisation as Ericsson realised that the structure
and ways of operation needed to change if the company was to survive in the
global economy. It effectively means that, before 2001, Ericsson Sweden was a
complicated organisation that could not adapt and change quickly.
Ericsson Sweden has learnt much from that painful experience since it was the
worst affected and now has built an organisation that is far more flexible,
adaptable and ready for changes in the economy. When interviewing employees,
the feedback received is that the company has transformed itself into an
efficiently run company that can more easily see the need for change and adapt
accordingly. Employees feel that management and leadership embrace the
change and run the organisation appropriately. This ability is also reflected in the
structure, which is more flexible and team-based than Ericsson South Africa, and
allows for change of direction to happen more easily and quickly.
Ericsson South Africa has only been in existence for 13 years and grew up in the
GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication) era. This is the era in which the
mobile phone was introduced and allowed for mobile communication. During this
time the company has been allowed to grow without many interruptions or
changes. When the downturn hit in 2001, Ericsson South Africa was relatively
untouched by this recession in the Telecoms/IT industry, and so did not really
feel the impact of it. Ericsson South Africa is a hierarchical organisation which
has a fair amount of bureaucracy and red tape. This in itself does not always
allow for the organisation to adapt very quickly to the environment and the
market. The organisation has grown tremendously in the last four years and
more focus has been placed on gaining market share and results. The effect has
been that the organisation has grown in a manner which does not facilitate
change and flexibility. It means that there has not been enough focus on how the
organisation is structured and other internal issues. This finding links into the fact
that change management is not handled effectively within the organisation.
When analysing the results, interviews were conducted with employees in South
Africa to obtain more feedback. In general the feedback is that the organisation
does not manage change effectively, which hampers its ability in the external
environment. The feedback reveals that the structure is not defined clearly, which
in essence means that there is a lack of speed and efficiency. Employees feel
that the structure is still too hierarchical and bureaucratic. Employees also
consider that there is still too much individualistic behaviour and not enough team
orientation. The culture is not geared enough towards change management and
is also not handled effectively. The result is that leadership does not
communicate enough and is not transparent, which does not lead to good
change management processes.
These results are relevant to the proposed research in that the primary research
objective in Chapter 1 (see section 1.4.1 p.2) is to conduct a comparative study
between Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa in terms of different
elements, one of which is change management. It also relates to the secondary
objectives in Chapter 1 (see section 1.4.2 p.3). In terms of the research
proposition, one of the areas of focus is on the difference between 2nd wave and
4th wave organisation in terms of the organisation’s ability to change, as
discussed in Chapter 1 (see section 1.5 p.3) which is looked at in this section of
the questionnaire.
3.3.6 Conclusion
The first section of this chapter examined how the information was designed and
collected. It was made clear the importance of the information being obtained
and treated in an objective and confidential manner in order to obtain the best
results
This section also looked at the research results and showed that there is a
significant difference between Ericsson Sweden and Ericsson South Africa. This
was highlighted in all the different elements.
In general it can be seen from the results that Ericsson Sweden is perceived to
be far more developed when it comes to leadership, management, culture,
innovation and change management. This is reinforced by personal interviews
that were conducted with employees. Employees feel that Ericsson Sweden is a
progressive company which allows employees to develop in an environment
where there is trust, openness and flexibility, and employees are considered as
stakeholders of the company.
Ericsson South Africa is perceived as a good company but the company is slow,
inflexible and there is a culture of mistrust. This was clearly stated in the one-onone interviews conducted with employees where the feeling is that Ericsson
overall is a good company to work in, but that Ericsson South Africa still has not
matured, which means that it is not innovative and progressive enough.
Employees feel that the company still has the mindset of shareholder value
rather than understanding that every element is a stakeholder in the business.
In the next chapter recommendations will be made to management based on the
findings
and
literature
review.
CHAPTER 4 - SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
Summary
The primary objective of the research is to conduct a comparative study between
Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden with regard to wave management,
leadership and management style, culture and ability to adapt to change. In this
chapter a summary of the findings will be provided, which will be linked back to
Chapter 3 (see section 3.3 p.76), in which the questionnaire (see Appendix 1
p.120) is analysed and the findings provided. Recommendations will be provided
to assist the management team of Ericsson South Africa to resolve some of the
fundamental issues raised in the problem statement, as provided in Chapter 1
(see section 1.2 p.2).
In Chapter 3 (see section 3.3 p.76) an analysis is provided of the statistical data
acquired from the questionnaire (see Appendix 1 p.120) that was sent out to
employees in Ericsson South Africa and Ericsson Sweden. The findings clearly
show that there is a significant difference, in terms of the data, between Ericsson
Sweden and Ericsson South Africa. The questionnaire is structured so as to
determine what the employees feel about fundamental issues like leadership,
management, culture and change management. With regard to Ericsson
Sweden, it clearly emerged that there is more faith in the leadership and
management as shown in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.2 p.81 and .3.3.3 p.88), and
that there is a very strong culture present within the organisation that promotes
the right behaviours and environment as seen in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.4
p.96). Employees also feel that the organisation is geared to handle change and
deal with it effectively as shown in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.5 p.101).
In comparison, employees in Ericsson South Africa hold the opposite viewpoint.
There is not as much faith in the leadership and management of the organisation
as shown in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.2 p.82 and .3.3.3 p.89). Employees feel
that there is no transparency, openness and vision. Employees also consider that
the culture is not strong enough and the values and norms are not upheld, as
seen in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.4 p.96). Employees also think that the
organisation does not deal with change effectively and does not provide for
individuals to be innovative and creative as shown in Chapter 3 (see section
3.3.5 p.101). These findings clearly show that in terms of wave management
Ericsson Sweden is far more advanced than Ericsson South Africa. The next
question is: how does Ericsson South Africa change in order to become more
mature and so be more productive as an organisation and compete in the global
market?
4.2
Conclusion
The study indicates that there is a clear difference between 2nd wave
organisations compared to organisations in the 4th wave. In Ericsson South
Africa, which is currently a 2nd wave organisation, it can be seen that it is not
functioning as effectively as Ericsson Sweden, which is a 4th wave organisation.
Ericsson South Africa has managed to sustain itself over the last couple of years
simply because there has been a boom in the telecommunications market in
Africa. However, it can be seen that owing to the fact that the organisation has
not developed in the different areas, such as leadership and management style,
culture and change management, it is beginning to inhibit the organisation's
ability to deal with its internal and external environment. The management team
in Ericsson South Africa has identified a problem between management and
employees, and the initial thought is that this is because of the difference in
culture. The management has a more progressive way of working compared with
employees who work more rigidly and in a bureaucratic fashion. The analysis,
however, reveals that the conflict is not as a result of different mindsets but
because both leadership and management are actually working along the
guidelines that are visible in 2nd wave organisations, as discussed in Chapter 3
(see section 3.3.2 p.84). As a result, Ericsson South Africa is now beginning to
see that it is suffering as a company with many internal and external issues.
Employee dissatisfaction with the leadership is rife, the culture is not acting as an
enabler and the organisation is very slow in dealing with change. There are,
however, ways that this situation can be improved. Recommendations will be
provided to the management team that will help in dealing with the current gaps
that exist.
4.3
Recommendations
4.3.1 Leadership
In the first element, which is leadership, it can be clearly seen that the leadership
in Ericsson Sweden is effective because the leaders are visionary and empower
the organisation. Employees feel that they are valued stakeholders and have an
impact on the direction and decisions made within the organisation. These are
the traits that need to be exhibited within Ericsson South Africa. In Ericsson
South Africa the management team is predominantly made up of foreign
nationals, and most of whom come from north European countries and where
managers in these countries. The expectation is, therefore, that the leadership
would exhibit the behaviours closely linked to 4th wave organisations. However,
this is not the case in Ericsson South Africa.
It is important that the management address these issues but in order to do this
management needs to acknowledge that, in terms of the leadership style, some
fundamental changes have to be made, so recognition of the problem is
important. Once this is done, management should come to understand what
behaviour must change. Leadership, it must be remembered, sets the tone of the
organisation.
Once management understands what needs to change, a plan must be made to
address the proposed change. It can be done in several ways. Firstly,
management needs to look into the concept of visionary management. Visionary
management, as discussed by Kruger (2002), is the ability to manage an
organisation in such a way that the dreams are realised. The vision is created by
top management but is a team effort which involves employees within the
organisation. The management thus needs to develop a vision in cooperation
with employees, which then needs to be communicated throughout the
organisation.
The next concept that management needs to look at is participative
management. As postulated by Kruger (2003) this concept of management
demands that the setting of goals, objectives, policy, strategies and plans meet
two basic requirements in order to ensure effective delegation of authority and
responsibility. These two requirements are:
•
Individuals in top, middle and lower management levels have, as far as
possible, to participate in setting goals, strategies and policies.
•
Policies and plans must always be flexible. This is essential in order to adapt
to the changing environment.
This organisational framework should be set up with the following principles, as
described by Kruger (2003):
•
Clear and concise responsibilities must be delegated to all executives.
•
Responsibilities must be attached, with the relevant authority.
•
The principle of unity of command must always be followed
•
Performance goals and required behaviour must always be agreed upon
beforehand for all executives on every level.
•
In order to compare actual and planned results, a measuring system must be
implemented at all levels.
•
Consequence management must be practised in the organisation.
•
Control must be practised at each level to ensure that there is speedy and
efficient reaction with minimum delay.
These principles, therefore, make up the basic principles of participative
management, and are the precondition to management by objectives and
strategic management as argued by Kruger (2003). The belief behind this is that
all employees must take part in the overall management process. Part of this
requires flexibility, open communication, recognition and allowing individuals to
fulfil goals and potential as postulated by Kruger (2003). This is what is currently
missing in Ericsson South Africa. If management implements these basic
concepts, the situation that currently exists will be improved.
A key concept in this situation is a concept of managing by walking around. The
purpose of this, as described by Kruger (2003), is for management to be more
visible within the organisation by moving around and talking to employees from
all levels. Such contact helps management to gain critical information about
trends in the organisation, as well as to gain strategic information. This allows for
open communication and for employees to relate to the management. It is a
principle that management in Ericsson South Africa need to practise as this will
give more understanding of what is happening in the organisation as well as
allowing employees to relate more effectively to management.
The next concept is management by objectives. The basic principle of
management by objectives, as argued by Kruger (2003), is that it is a process
that requires participation of managers and subordinates in setting goals,
measuring goals and determining final performance. This principle relates to
participative management in that it requires participation of all and self control.
Management by objectives is important in that it creates involvement for all the
employees within the organisation, and employees are part of the decisionmaking process and can have an impact. This helps to create the direction of the
organisation and ensures that everyone moves in the same direction. Provided
below is a diagram that looks at the process of setting objectives.
Figure 4.1 Participation in setting objectives
Manager
+
Jointly do planning
Set objectives and standards
Choose actions
Act individually
Subordinate performs tasks and
applies self control
Manager applies support
Subordinate
Jointly apply approval
Evaluate results
Source: Kroon (in Kruger, 2003:78)
If the leaders within Ericsson South Africa look into the principles described
above, the leaders will be able to address many of the issues raised by
employees. These principles will be enablers for leadership and allow the leaders
to implement important concepts such as visionary leadership. This has been
specifically highlighted by employees as an area for improvement. Participative
management will also allow the leadership to involve all levels of employees and
thus be seen as empowering and participative. It will allow individuals to feel
involved in the process of goal-setting and also allow them to be part of the
decision-making process. Such management will help improve leadership skills
and abilities and also allow the organisation to mature.
4.3.2 My Manager
In the next element, management, it can be seen that Ericsson Sweden is seen
to have effective managers who play a strong facilitation role. The managers
coach employees in the team and assist employees when faced with new tasks
and roles. Managers play a strong mentorship role and assist employees in the
different areas of the department and help employees to develop as individuals
and grow in the jobs. This, of course, is what needs to be exhibited in the
management in Ericsson South Africa. Leadership and management can be
seen as the same concept, as discussed in Chapter 2 (see section 2.2 p.21) and,
in management, the focus is on both leadership and management. The section
has discussed how improvements can be made with regard to leadership and the
focus is now more on middle management.
If the recommendations are implemented as discussed above, this will, of course,
automatically have an impact on middle management who will involve employees
more in the process of setting goals and the running of the department.
Managers will thus play more of a facilitation role and empower staff more.
Managers also need to look at playing more of a mentorship and coaching role.
This can be done by means of specific training programmes that teach
individuals how to be mentors. These are specific skills that can be learned.
These types of skills can be part of broader management programmes that are
provided for managers. It is important that when identifying future managers,
programmes are designed that can provide these skills to individuals, so that
when individuals take on a management role the individuals have the necessary
skills. In Ericsson South Africa good engineers tend to be promoted to managers
because the engineers are good in the technical role. However the individuals
are not given the right training to be good managers. Improvement in this area is
necessary and more effective management programmes need to be put in place
to address areas such as performance management, competence development,
and management of employees. If these types of interventions are put into place,
it will address many of the issues raised by employees, such as mentorship,
career planning and the overall lack of management skills.
4.3.1 Culture
Culture is an important element within an organisation and is influenced by many
different elements. Leadership is one area that has an impact on the culture. The
leadership of the organisation often dictates the culture and the environment
within the organisation. As discussed in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.4 p.96),
employees in Ericsson Sweden feel that the culture is very strong in that there is
a great deal of trust and transparency within the organisation, as well as for the
leadership and management as discussed in Chapter 3 (see section 3.3.2 p.81
and 3.3.3 p.88). Employees are of the opinion that there is fairness in terms of
how policies are applied across the board.
In Ericsson South Africa however the feeling is different. There is a lack of trust
and openness, and employees feel that the culture is not made up of the right
behaviours. When it comes to culture, leaders need to exhibit the right
behaviours as well as reinforcing the culture. A culture audit is the first action to
be taken. It needs to be done for the entire organisation and will allow the
management team to see what the critical areas are. Already, as discussed
above, employees have highlighted some areas that need to be considered and
one of these is leadership. If the leadership implements the recommendations
provided above, this will already assist in making changes within the culture.
Employees will then feel that there is transparency and openness and that there
is involvement and participation within the organisation. All policies and
procedures should also be implemented and applied consistently across the
organisation. A further important area is innovation. Management needs to start
to support an innovative culture and this can be done in different ways. One way
is to reinforce the behaviour. When employees try new and innovative ideas this
should not be discouraged but supported, even if employees make mistakes.
Encouragement indicates to the organisation that it supports employees being
innovative. Management can also have incentive schemes in place to reward
innovative behaviour and foster it within the organisation. In all of this the
organisation should be flexible in order to manage the shift of culture, as well as
to allow for innovation. The communication channels within the organisation need
to be effective and there must be open communication. This helps to create
transparency and trust.
Culture is about the behaviours, ethical standards, attitudes, perceptions and
stories that exist within the organisation. Culture emanates from top management
and is filtered downwards. This means that top management should give the
example to the rest of the organisation. This example is passed down to the
middle management who takes it through to the rest of the company. Culture, it
must be remembered, takes a long time to change. The management team in
South Africa needs to put much effort into this area, because if the culture is not
healthy it will always defeat the strategies that management put in place.
4.3.2 Change Management
This is the last element that is examined, and the analysis shows that, in
Ericsson Sweden, employees feel that that the company can manage change but
still feel that it can be done more efficiently. In Ericsson South Africa, employees
feel that change is not handled effectively at all, and the organisation is not
structured to handle change.
When looking at change there must be an understanding of what needs to
change and how the change will happen. The other areas discussed in this
research need to be examined as all the areas have an impact on change. The
first area is leadership and it is important that leadership is visionary, participative
and manages by objectives. This already brings in the change element. If the
leadership is flexible in managing the organisation, this will allow change to
become an integral part of the organisation. Kruger (2003) argues the importance
of commitment and supporting the culture of change within the organisation, as
this will filter down into the rest of the organisation. The same principle applies to
the management who need to exhibit the behaviours that facilitate change.
Management need to promote this in the different sections in the organisation,
and act as the example for the rest of the organisation. Culture should promote
change management within the organisation. If the culture is flexible and
adaptable, it will allow for changes to be accepted and implemented within the
organisation.
Management needs to implement a change management process. The
management can look at the six-step model as proposed by Kruger (2003). This
model looks at the entire process and how change should be managed. The
steps, as found in Kruger (2003), are:
•
Step 1: Recognising the need for change
The need arises from some sort of space within the organisation and would come
out of the culture audit.
•
Step 2: Diagnosis of the problem and setting of change objectives
This step looks at analysing the space, defining exactly what it is, and relating
objectives back to it.
•
Step 3: Choosing the change technique
In this step there are various change techniques that can be implemented within
the organisation. The different techniques look at strategic, structural,
technological and people-centred change. When looking at Ericsson South Africa
some change techniques need to be applied. There must be structural change, in
that Ericsson South Africa needs to look at whether the current structure
facilitates the desired position of being an innovative and empowering company.
The organisation also should examine people-centred change. This is in line with
the changes that need to occur from a cultural perspective and looks at attitudes,
behaviours, skills and/or performance of employees.
•
Step 4: Recognising the limiting factors
It is important when looking at the situation to identify areas that can inhibit the
change management process. The leadership culture may be the inhibiting factor
if the leadership is not supportive of the change. The formal organisation looks at
the policies, practices, standards and rules and these must be compatible with
the proposed change. Lastly the organisational culture can either facilitate or
inhibit the change process.
•
Step 5: Planning the change program
This step looks at the removal of barriers or resistance to change, and what is
required to gain acceptance, and at the steps needed to be set in place for the
change. In this step it is very important that a project plan is established that
looks at all the stakeholders involved and what needs to be done. A
communication plan that details how the proposed change will be handled and
communicated to the organisation is essential. Open communication is vital for
any proposed change as this can dictate whether the change will be accepted or
not.
•
Step 6: Implementing, evaluating and stabilising change
In this step the proposed change is implemented within the organisation. It is
important to determine how the change will be implemented and whether it is a
process that needs to happen quickly, or take a longer period of time. Lastly
follow up and evaluation must take place.
Implementing change in any organisation is a sensitive process, and needs to be
planned very carefully before going ahead with the implementation. In Ericsson
South Africa management should first create the right environment for change
and then manage the change very carefully.
When the proposed recommendations are implemented, the management team
will see a significant difference in the various elements of the organisation and
will create an organisation and climate that will increase productivity and
employee satisfaction and a flexible structure that will be able to compete in the
global economy.
List of References
Adler N. 2002. International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. Canada,
South-Western Thomson Learning.
Anon. n.d.a. Leadership and change. [Online] Available from:
http://www.nwlink.com/-donclark/leader/leadchg.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
Anon. n.d.b. Leadership and followership. [Online] Available from:
http://users.dickason.edu/~jin/leadership.htm [Accessed: 2007-03-16].
Anon. n.d.c. Leadership and Human Behaviour. [Online] Available from:
http://www.nlink.com/-donclark/leader/leadhb.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
Anon. n.d.d. Leadership styles. [Online] Available from: http://www.nlink.com/donclark/leader/leadstl.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
Anon. n.d.e. Path-Goal Theory of Leadership. [Online] Available from:
http://changingminds.org/discipline/leadership/styles/path_goal_leadership.htm
[Accessed: 2007-03-16].
Anon. n.d.f. Sweden. [Online] Available from:
http://www.ediplomat.com/np/cultural_etiquette/ce_se.htm [Accessed: 2006-0811].
Antsey M. 1999. Managing change. 2nd ed. Cape Town, Juta & Co Ltd.
Bateman TS and Snell SA. 2002. Management: Competing in the New Era. New
York, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Bennis W.1996. Rethinking the future. London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Binney G and Williams C. 1995. Changing the way people change organisations.
London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.
Blair GM.1997. The Human factor. [Online] Available at:
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/-gerard/Managment/art6.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
Boje DM, Gephart RP and Thatchenkery TJ. 1996. Postmodern Management
and Organization Theory. California, Sage Publications.
Bowditch JL & Buono AF. 2001. A Primer on Organizational Behaviour. New
York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bradfield J. 2006. Why a healthy organisational culture matters. [Online]
Available from: http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/11/9802.html
[Accessed: 2007-01-13].
Bredenkamp IM. 2002. Organisational culture and organisational change: An
integrated dynamic. Paper presented at Calcutta, February: 1-23.
Brits J. Nov 2006. Planned change in a financial organisation: A case study.
Unpublished M Com thesis. University of Johannesburg, Business Management.
Christensen R. 2006. Roadmap to strategic HR: Turning a great idea into a
business reality. New York, American Management Association.
Cooper DR & Schindler PS. 1998. Business Research Methods. California, Irwin
McGraw-Hill.
Cooper CL & Rousseau DM. 1997. Trends in Organizational Behaviour. London,
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Coulson-Thomas C. 1997. The Future of the Organisation: Achieving Excellence
through Business Transformation. London, Kogan Page Limited.
Darlington RB. n.d. Factor Analysis. [Online] Available at:
http://www.psych.cornell.edu/Darlington/factor.htm [Accessed: 2007-08-15].
Donaldson L. 1995. American Anti-Management theories of Organization: A
critique of paradigm proliferation. Great Britain, Cambridge University Press.
Donaldson L. 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organisations. London, Sage
Publications.
Flanagan N & Finger J. 1998. Just about everything a manager needs to know in
South Africa. Johannesburg, Plum Press.
Goleman D. 2006. Emotional Intelligence and working with emotional
intelligence. London, Bloomsbury Publishing.
Goleman D. 2002. The New Leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into the
science of results. London, Little Brown Published.
Gordon T. 1977. Leader effectiveness training: The foundations for participative
management and employee involvement. New York, G.P Putman’s Sons.
Hailey J & James R. 2002. Learning leaders: the key to learning organisations.
Development in Practice, 12(3):398-407.
Hammer M & Champy J. 1994. Reengineering the Corporation: A manifesto for
Business Revolution. London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing Limited.
Harrison R.1993. Human Resource Management: Issues and Strategies.
London, Addison-Wesley Publishers Ltd.
Hill CWL. 2005. International Business: Competing in the global marketplace. 5th
ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Huselid MA, Becker BE & Beatty RW. 2005. The Workforce Scorecard:
Managing Human Capital to Execute Strategy. Boston, Harvard Business School
Press
Johnson S. 1998. Who moved my cheese? London, Cox&Wyman Ltd.
Kerlinger FN. 1986. Foundations of Behavioural Research. 3rd ed. Florida, Holt,
Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Kreitner R & Kinicki A. 2001. Organizational Behaviour. 5th ed. New York,
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Kruger S. 2002. Liberation Management Philosophy with reference to Strategic
Leadership Development. Johannesburg, Department of Business Management,
University of Johannesburg.
Lassey P. 1998. Developing a learning organisation. London, Kogan Page
Limited.
Longenecker JG, Moore CW & Petty JW. 1997. Small Business Management: An
Entrepreneurial Emphasis. 10th ed. Ohio, South-Western Publishing.
Manning AD. 1987. Communicating for change: a guide to managing the future
of South African organisations. Johannesburg, Juta.
Manning T. 1997. Radical Strategy: How South African companies can win
against global competition. Sandton, Zebra Press.
Mckinney M. n.d. The focus of leadership. [Online] Available from:
http://www.leadershipnow.com/service.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
McNamara C. 1999. Organizational Culture. [Online] Available from:
http://www.managementhelp.org/org_thry/culture/culture.htm [Accessed: 200608-11]
McNamara C. 1998. Overview of leadership in the organisation. [Online]
Available from: http://www.managementhelp.org/Idrship/Idrship.htm [Accessed:
2006-08-11]
Mogestad U. 2000. Make change work: A practical guide for communicating
change. Sweden, Telefonaktiebolaget.
Peck MS. 1993. A world waiting to be born: The search for civility. Kent, Mackays
of Chatham.
Peters G. 1996. Beyond the Next Wave: imagining the next generation of
customers. Glasgow, Pitman Publishing.
Peters T. 1987. Thriving on chaos. London, Macmillan London Limited
Reese K. 1994. Managing the Corporate Future. Halfway House, Southern Book
Publishers.
Robbins SP. 1990. Organizational Theory: Structure, Design and Application. 3rd
ed. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc.
Saravanja M. 2006. Secrets of success: 52 secrets of success for business and
personal leadership. Johannesburg, Regenesys.
Sugarman K. 2000. Leadership Characteristics. [Online] Available from:
http://www.leadershipnow.com/sears.html [Accessed: 2006-08-11].
Sunter C. 1992. The New Century: Quest for the High Road. Cape Town, Human
& Rousseau Ltd & Tafelberg Publishers Ltd.
Sunter C. 1999. Never mind the Millennium: What about the next 24 hours?.
Cape Town, Human & Rousseau Ltd & Tafelberg Publishers Ltd.
Toffler A. 1980. The Third Wave. London, Pan Books.
Tomasko RM. 1993. Rethinking the corporation: the architecture of change.
United states of America, AMACOM
Welch J. 2001. Jack: What I have learned leading a great company and great
people. Great Britain, Headline Book Publishing.
Wikipedia. n.d.a. Leadership. [Online] Available from:
http://en.wilipedia.org/wiki/Leadership [Accessed: 2006-08-11]
Wikipedia. n.d.b. Management. [Online] Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management [Accessed: 2006-08-11]
Wikipedia. n.d.c. Situational Leadership. [Online] Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/situational_leadership_theories [Accessed: 2006-0811]
Williams R. n.d. Moving from High Culture to Ordinary Culture. [Online] Available
from http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vcwsu/commons/topics/culture/culturedefinitions/raymond [Accessed: 2006-08-11]
Zikmund WG. 2003. Business Research Methods. 7th ed. Ohio, South-Western.
APPENDIX 1
Questionnaire
1. Biographical Information
Please answer the following questions by either entering your answer or crossing the
option that applies to you
1.1 How long (complete years) have you been working for Ericsson?
No of years
1.2 In which department do you work?
1.3 Are you a manager or an employee?
Employee
1
Manager
2
2. Leadership in the organisation
Please answer the following questions by crossing the alternative that applies to you
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
2.1 How often is participative leadership practiced
in your organisation?
2.2 How often are employees in your
organisation included in the decision-making
process?
2.3 How often does management engage
employees in the organisation?
2.4 How often does the leadership of Ericsson show that
they are visionary?
2.5 How often do leaders in the organisation
share their power?
3. My manager
Please answer the following questions by crossing the alternative that applies to you
How often does your manager
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
Never
Sometimes
Often
3.1 Lead by example?
3.2 Coach the team (members) on new tasks?
3.3 Retain the final decision making authority?
3.4 Play a facilitation role in the team?
3.5 Encourage you to participate in decision making?
3.6 Tell you what has to be done?
3.7 Encourage you to be innovative?
3.8 Allow you to take the leadership role?
4. Culture in the organisation
Please answer each of the following questions using the following scale
SD = Strongly disagree
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
A=Agree
SA=Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
4.1 I work in an environment where I can use creativity
and ingenuity to solve organisational problems
4.2 There is a visible culture of strong work ethics within
your organisation
4.3 Leaders have a different type of culture to employees
4.4 Novel ideas are welcomed in the organisation
4.5 Innovative people are valued in the organisation
4.6 People who lack creativity are not tolerated in the
organisation
4.7 Good ideas are readily adopted by the
organisation
4.8 There is an atmosphere of trust in the organisation
4.9 Employees in the organisation are critical of policies
4.10 Employees in the organisation are critical of the
practices of the organisation
4.11 Employees manipulate situations for their
own personal advantage
4.12 Managers manipulate situations for their own
Advantage
4.13 Politics is a way of life for many people in this
organisation
SD
D
N
A
SA
4.14 Advancement depends more on who you know
than what you know
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
4.15 Employees in the organisation take ownership of their
duties
5. Change in the organisation
Please answer each of the following questions using the following scale
SD = Strongly disagree
D=Disagree
N=Neutral
A=Agree
SA=Strongly agree
To what extent do you agree with each of the following statements?
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
SD
D
N
A
SA
5.1 The organisational structure facilitates speed
and efficiency
5.2 The structure of your organisation allows for the
implementation of change
5.3 The organisation readily adapts to change
5.4 Change management is handled effectively in
the organisation
5.5 The systems in the organisation are flexible
enough to adapt to change
APPENDIX 2
STATISTICS
Factor Analysis
Factor Analysis : Leadership in the organisation
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
.849
704.774
10
df
.000
Sig.
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Factor
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1
3.454
69.078
69.078 3.112
2
.665
13.291
82.368
3
.418
8.370
90.738
4
.290
5.793
96.531
5
.173
3.469
100.000
62.239
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Factor Matrix(a)
Factor
1
q2.1
.874
q2.2
.894
q2.3
.817
q2.4
.595
q2.5
.726
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
a 1 factors extracted. 5 iterations required.
62.239
Factor Analysis : My Manager
Dropped q3.6 due to a low MSA of only 0.583
Dropped q3.3 due to a low Communality of only 0.099
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
.852
665.809
15
df
.000
Sig.
Communalities
Initial
Extraction
q3.1
.504
.580
q3.2
.535
.485
q3.4
.553
.574
q3.5
.622
.722
q3.7
.452
.496
q3.8
.413
.335
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Factor
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1
3.638
60.627
60.627 3.191
2
.864
14.398
75.025
3
.469
7.823
82.848
4
.430
7.168
90.016
5
.311
5.187
95.203
6
.288
4.797
100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Factor Matrix(a)
Factor
53.191
53.191
1
q3.1
.762
q3.2
.696
q3.4
.757
q3.5
.850
q3.7
.705
q3.8
.578
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
a 1 factors extracted. 6 iterations required.
Factor Analysis : Culture in the organisation
Dropped q4.6 due to a low Communality of only 0.087
Dropped q4.2 due to a low Communality of only 0.202
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
3001.044
78
df
.000
Sig.
Communalities
Initial
.920
Extraction
q4.1
.612
.622
q4.3
.428
.410
q4.4
.722
.760
q4.5
.541
.546
q4.7
.779
.800
q4.8
.742
.729
q4.9
.843
.687
q4.10
.865
.776
q4.11
.852
.830
q4.12
.878
.855
q4.13
.890
.846
q4.14
.848
.776
q4.15
.441
.413
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Total Variance Explained
Extraction Sums of Squared
Loadings
Initial Eigenvalues
Factor
Total
% of
Variance
Cumulative
Total
%
% of
Variance
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Cumulative
% of
Total
%
Variance
Cumulative
%
64.700 8.137
62.589
62.589 5.387
41.439
41.439
.913
7.020
69.609 3.662
28.170
69.609
1
8.411
64.700
2
1.199
9.223
73.923
3
.683
5.255
79.177
4
.572
4.402
83.579
5
.491
3.774
87.353
6
.432
3.326
90.679
7
.331
2.548
93.227
8
.266
2.048
95.274
9
.214
1.649
96.924
10
.155
1.191
98.115
11
.106
.816
98.931
12
.071
.549
99.480
13
.068
.520
100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotated Factor Matrix(a)
Factor
1
2
q4.12
.842
-.381
q4.13
.834
-.387
q4.11
.832
-.372
q4.10
.814
-.336
q4.14
.790
-.391
q4.9
.786
-.264
q4.8
-.655
.547
q4.3
.514
-.382
q4.15
-.492
.413
q4.4
-.309
.815
q4.7
-.406
.797
q4.1
-.324
.719
q4.5
-.292
.679
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Factor Transformation Matrix
Factor
1
2
1
.787
-.617
2
.617
.787
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Factor Analysis : Change in the organisation
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
858.671
10
df
.000
Sig.
Communalities
Initial
.856
Extraction
q5.1
.635
.661
q5.2
.663
.707
q5.3
.682
.700
q5.4
.634
.641
q5.5
.703
.760
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues
Factor
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
75.477 3.470
1
3.774
75.477
2
.470
9.398
84.875
3
.337
6.738
91.613
4
.227
4.535
96.148
5
.193
3.852
100.000
69.393
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
Factor Matrix(a)
Factor
1
q5.1
.813
q5.2
.841
q5.3
.837
q5.4
.801
q5.5
.872
Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.
a 1 factors extracted. 5 iterations required.
Reliabilities
Reliability : Leadership in the organisation
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.884
5
69.393
Item Statistics
Mean
Std.
Deviation
N
How often is participative leadership practiced in your organisation?
2.33
.645 236
How often are employees in you organisation included in the decision-making
process?
2.38
.597 236
How often does management engage employees in the organisation?
2.36
.607 236
How often does the leadership of Ericsson show that they are visionary?
2.00
.690 236
How often do leaders in the organisation share their power?
1.97
.690 236
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
Scale Variance Corrected Itemif Item Deleted Total Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
How often is participative
leadership practiced in your
organisation?
8.71
4.538
.799
.841
How often are employees in you
organisation included in the
decision-making process?
8.66
4.703
.809
.841
How often does management
engage employees in the
organisation?
8.67
4.782
.753
.853
How often does the leadership of
Ericsson show that they are
visionary?
9.04
4.905
.579
.894
How often do leaders in the
organisation share their power?
9.07
4.620
.694
.866
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
11.04
7.152
2.674
5
Reliability : My Manager
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.866
6
Item Statistics
Mean
Std.
Deviation
N
How often does your manager lead by example?
2.33
.605 236
How often does your manager coach the team (members) on new tasks?
2.31
.572 236
How often does your manager play a facilitation role in the team?
2.39
.545 236
How often does your manager encourage you to participate in decision
making?
2.44
.569 236
How often does your manager encourage you to be innovative?
2.32
.694 236
How often does your manager allow you to take the leadership role?
2.14
.616 236
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance
Item Deleted if Item Deleted
Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
How often does your manager
lead by example?
11.60
5.466
.701
.836
How often does your manager
coach the team (members) on
new tasks?
11.61
5.778
.621
.850
How often does your manager
play a facilitation role in the
team?
11.54
5.713
.691
.839
How often does your manager
encourage you to participate in
decision making?
11.49
5.383
.797
.820
How often does your manager
11.61
5.243
.657
.846
encourage you to be innovative?
How often does your manager
allow you to take the leadership
role?
11.78
5.838
.536
.866
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.93
7.812
2.795
6
Reliability : Culture in the organisation
Reliability : Factor 1
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.951
9
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation
N
Leaders have a different type of culture to employees
3.28
1.038 227
There is an atmosphere of trust in the organisation
2.88
1.134 227
NEW Employees in the organisation are critical of policies
3.25
1.184 227
Employees in the organisation are critical of the practices of the organisation
3.19
1.209 227
Employees manipulate situations for their own personal advantage
3.01
1.228 227
Managers manipulate situations for their own advantage
3.12
1.208 227
Politics is a way of life for many people in this organisation
3.27
1.253 227
Advancement depends more on who you know than on what you know
3.23
1.284 227
NEW Employees in the organisation take ownership of their duties
2.63
.839 227
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance
Item Deleted if Item Deleted
Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
Leaders have a different type of
culture to employees
24.57
66.883
.619
.954
There is an atmosphere of trust
in the organisation
24.97
62.610
.812
.945
NEW Employees in the
organisation are critical of
policies
24.60
62.250
.793
.946
Employees in the organisation
are critical of the practices of the
organisation
24.67
60.932
.852
.943
Employees manipulate situations
for their own personal advantage
24.84
60.084
.886
.941
Managers manipulate situations
for their own advantage
24.73
60.109
.903
.940
Politics is a way of life for many
people in this organisation
24.58
59.598
.895
.941
Advancement depends more on
who you know than on what you
know
24.62
59.768
.859
.943
NEW Employees in the
organisation take ownership of
their duties
25.22
69.193
.614
.954
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
27.85
78.473
8.859
9
Reliability : Factor 2
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.882
4
Item Statistics
Mean
Std.
Deviation
N
I work in an environment where I can use creativity and ingenuity to solve
organisational problems
3.49
1.008 239
Novel ideas are welcomed in the organisation
3.38
.918 239
Innovative people are valued in the organisation
3.28
1.018 239
Good ideas are readily adopted by the organisation
3.29
.868 239
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
I work in an environment where I
can use creativity and ingenuity to
solve organisational problems
Scale
Variance if
Item Deleted
Corrected ItemTotal Correlation
Cronbach's
Alpha if Item
Deleted
9.96
6.250
.695
.868
Novel ideas are welcomed in the
organisation
10.06
6.278
.794
.829
Innovative people are valued in the
organisation
10.16
6.277
.677
.876
Good ideas are readily adopted by
the organisation
10.15
6.381
.828
.820
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
13.44
10.769
3.282
4
Reliability : Change in the organisation
Scale: ALL VARIABLES
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha N of Items
.917
5
Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation
N
The organisational structure facilitates speed and efficiency
2.87
.937 239
The structure of your organisation allows for the implementation of change
3.05
.911 239
The organisation readily adapts to change
3.13
.996 239
Change management is handled effectively in the organisation
2.95
.997 239
The systems in the organisation are flexible enough to adapt to change
2.93
.864 239
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean
if Item
Deleted
The organisational structure
facilitates speed and efficiency
12.06
Scale Variance Corrected Item- Cronbach's Alpha
if Item Deleted Total Correlation
if Item Deleted
11.030
.768
.903
The structure of your
organisation allows for the
implementation of change
11.88
11.048
.795
.898
The organisation readily adapts
to change
11.80
10.537
.798
.897
Change management is handled
effectively in the organisation
11.97
10.705
.765
.904
The systems in the organisation
are flexible enough to adapt to
change
12.00
11.185
.823
.893
Scale Statistics
Mean Variance Std. Deviation N of Items
14.93
16.688
4.085
5
Split Frequencies
Biographical Information
Group
In whicih country do
you work?
Sweden
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Ericsson Sweden
Employees
86
82.7
82.7
82.7
Valid Ericsson Sweden
Managers
18
17.3
17.3
100.0
104
100.0
100.0
Ericsson South Africa
Employees
95
70.4
70.4
70.4
Valid Ericsson South Africa
Managers
40
29.6
29.6
100.0
135
100.0
100.0
Total
South Africa
Valid
Percent
Total
Descriptive Statistics
In
N
Range
Minimum Maximum
Mean
Std.
Skewness Kurtosis
whicih
country
do you
work?
Sweden
South
Africa
Deviation
Statistic Statistic
How long
(complete
years) have
you been
working
for
Ericsson?
103
Valid N
(listwise)
103
How long
(complete
years) have
you been
working
for
Ericsson?
134
Valid N
(listwise)
134
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
Statistic
30
2
32
15.34
7.937
.310
-.881
10
1
11
6.02
2.341
.115
-.589
Are you a manager or employee?
In which country do you
work?
Frequency Percent
Employee
Sweden
Valid Manager
Total
Employee
South Africa
Valid Manager
Total
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
86
82.7
82.7
82.7
18
17.3
17.3
100.0
104
100.0
100.0
95
70.4
70.4
70.4
40
29.6
29.6
100.0
135
100.0
100.0
Leadership in the organisation
In which country do you work?
Sweden
South Africa
Never Sometimes Often
How often is participative Count
leadership practiced in
%
your organisation?
How often are employees
in you organisation
included in the decisionmaking process?
Count
How often does
Count
%
3
2.9%
21
80
Total
104
Never Sometimes Often
21
20.2% 76.9% 100.0% 15.8%
21
82
103
15
20.4% 79.6% 100.0% 11.2%
19
85
104
16
92
20
Total
133
69.2% 15.0% 100.0%
97
22
134
72.4% 16.4% 100.0%
100
18
134
management engage
employees in the
organisation?
18.3% 81.7% 100.0% 11.9%
%
How often does the
leadership of Ericsson
show that they are
visionary?
Count
How often do leaders in
the organisation share
their power?
Count
70
104
56
67.3% 32.7% 100.0% 41.8%
%
%
34
2
1.9%
58
44
104
74.6% 13.4% 100.0%
55
23
134
41.0% 17.2% 100.0%
59
67
55.8% 42.3% 100.0% 44.0%
50.0%
8
134
6.0% 100.0%
My Manager
In which country do you work?
Sweden
South Africa
Never Sometimes Often
How often does your
manager lead by
example?
Count
How often does your
manager coach the team
(members) on new tasks?
Count
How often does your
manager retain the final
decision making
authority?
Count
How often does your
manager play a
facilitation role in the
team?
Count
How often does your
manager encourage you
to participate in decision
making?
Count
36
%
1
1.0%
13
12.5%
22
How often does your
Count
manager tell you what has
21.2%
%
to be done?
How often does your
manager allow you to
take the leadership role?
Count
12
28.8% 70.2% 100.0%
8.9%
80
73
104
3
76.9% 10.6% 100.0%
2.2%
11
104
7
27.9% 72.1% 100.0%
5.2%
75
104
10
20.2% 79.8% 100.0%
7.4%
73
70.2%
32
83
9
104
20
8.7% 100.0% 14.8%
72
104
31
30.8% 69.2% 100.0% 23.0%
%
%
17
104
21
%
Count
30
29
%
How often does your
manager encourage you
to be innovative?
104
Never Sometimes Often
34.6% 65.4% 100.0% 12.7%
%
%
68
Total
1
1.0%
70
33
104
29
67.3% 31.7% 100.0% 21.8%
89
28
Total
134
66.4% 20.9% 100.0%
107
16
135
79.3% 11.9% 100.0%
81
51
135
60.0% 37.8% 100.0%
102
26
135
75.6% 19.3% 100.0%
93
32
135
68.9% 23.7% 100.0%
84
31
135
62.2% 23.0% 100.0%
67
37
135
49.6% 27.4% 100.0%
72
32
133
54.1% 24.1% 100.0%
Culture in the organisation
In which country do you work?
Sweden
Stron
gly
Disag
ree
I work in Cou
an
nt
environme
nt where I
can use
creativity
and
ingenuity %
to solve
organisati
onal
problems
Disag
ree
1
1.0%
There is a Cou
visible
nt
culture of
strong
work
ethics
%
within the
organisati
on
Leaders
Cou
have a
nt
different
type of
culture to %
employees
Novel
Cou
ideas are nt
welcomed
in the
organisati %
on
4.0% 46.5%
1
4
1.0%
3.8%
Innovative Cou
people are nt
valued in
the
organisati %
on
People
who lack
creativity
are not
tolerated
Cou
nt
%
47
12
11.5%
4
48
3.8% 46.2%
Stron
Stron
gly
gly Total
Disag
Agree
ree
Neut
ral
Agr
ee
14
80
9
104
13.5 76.9
%
%
8.7%
100.0
%
86
4
104
2
10
13.5 82.7
%
%
3.8%
100.0
%
1.5%
7.5%
20
101
1
15
29.7 19.8
%
%
100.0
%
14
4
South Africa
30
19
74
6
104
18.3 71.2
%
%
5.8%
100.0
%
13
104
19
60
18.3 57.7
100.0
12.5%
%
%
%
32
19
1
104
30.8 18.3
%
%
1.0%
100.0
%
7
Disag
ree
Neut
ral
Agr
ee
36
44
26
5.2% 26.7%
.8% 11.5%
4
38
3.0% 28.1%
5
48
3.7% 35.6%
10
Stron
gly Total
Agree
22
135
32.6 19.3
100.0
16.3%
%
%
%
35
71
15
133
26.3 53.4
100.0
11.3%
%
%
%
18
75
22
131
13.7 57.3
100.0
16.8%
%
%
%
45
39
9
135
33.3 28.9
%
%
6.7%
100.0
%
30
11
135
30.4 22.2
%
%
8.1%
100.0
%
41
83
33
7
1
134
7.5% 61.9%
24.6
%
5.2
%
.7%
100.0
%
in the
organisati
on
Good
Cou
ideas are nt
readily
adopted
by the
%
organisati
on
1
1
1.0%
1.0%
There is
Cou
an
nt
atmospher
e of trust
in the
%
organisati
on
NEW
Cou
Employees nt
in the
organisati
on are
%
critical of
policies
Employees Cou
in the
nt
organisati
on are
critical of
the
practices %
of the
organisati
on
Employees Cou
manipulat nt
e
situations
for their
%
own
personal
advantage
Managers Cou
manipulat nt
e
situations
for their
%
own
advantage
Politics is
a way of
life for
many
people in
Cou
nt
%
2
1.9%
12
21
77
4
104
20.2 74.0
%
%
3.8%
100.0
%
83
7
104
11.5 79.8
%
%
6.7%
12
4
41
3.0% 30.4%
19
67
100.0
14.1% 49.6%
%
29
4
135
42.2 21.5
%
%
3.0%
100.0
%
18
9
135
16.3 13.3
%
%
6.7%
100.0
%
35
131
22
50
34
6
1
103
11.7% 48.5%
33.0
%
5.8
%
1.0%
100.0
%
57
27
5
102
4
9
12.7% 55.9%
26.5
%
4.9
%
100.0
%
3.0%
6.7%
65
20
1
104
2
19
17.3% 62.5%
19.2
%
1.0
%
100.0
%
63
24
2
104
3
11
14.4% 60.6%
23.1
%
1.9
%
100.0
%
2.2%
8.1%
66
26
3
104
13
13
8.7% 63.5%
25.0
%
2.9
%
100.0
%
9.6%
9.6%
13
18
15
9
1
57
14
12
.8% 10.7%
9.2%
1.5% 14.1%
19
69
52.7
100.0
26.7%
%
%
67
36
135
14.1 49.6
100.0
26.7%
%
%
%
21
59
34
135
15.6 43.7
100.0
25.2%
%
%
%
22
64
35
135
16.3 47.4
100.0
25.9%
%
%
%
59
50
135
43.7
100.0
37.0%
%
%
this
organisati
on
Advancem Cou
ent
nt
depends
more on
who you
know than %
on what
you know
12
62
24
5
1
104
3
11
11.5% 59.6%
23.1
%
4.8
%
1.0%
100.0
%
2.2%
8.1%
27
70
7
104
2
44
26.0 67.3
%
%
6.7%
100.0
%
Employees Cou
in the
nt
organisati
on take
ownership %
of their
duties
17
52
52
135
12.6 38.5
100.0
38.5%
%
%
%
40
1.5% 32.6%
46
3
135
29.6 34.1
%
%
2.2%
100.0
%
Change in the organisation
In which country do you work?
Sweden
Stron
gly
Disag
ree
The
Cou
organisatio nt
nal
structure
facilitates
%
speed and
efficiency
The
Cou
structure of nt
your
organisatio
n allows for
the
%
implement
ation of
change
15
14.4%
1
7
1.0%
6.7%
The
Cou
organisatio nt
n readily
adapts to
%
change
Change
manageme
Cou
nt
Disag
ree
4
3.8%
1
3
South Africa
Neut Agr
ral
ee
46
Stron
Stron
gly
gly Total
Disag
Agree
ree
42
1
104
44.2 40.4
%
%
1.0%
100.0
%
50
2
104
42.3 48.1
%
%
1.9%
100.0
%
78
2
104
19.2 75.0
%
%
1.9%
100.0
%
1
104
44
20
25
74
12
Disag
ree
66
8.9% 48.9%
10
48
7.4% 35.6%
13
56
9.6% 41.5%
17
64
Neut Agr
ral
ee
31
Stron
gly Total
Agree
22
4
135
23.0 16.3
%
%
3.0%
100.0
%
29
3
135
33.3 21.5
%
%
2.2%
100.0
%
26
4
135
26.7 19.3
%
%
3.0%
100.0
%
2
135
45
36
40
12
nt is
handled
effectively
%
in the
organisatio
n
The
Cou
systems in nt
the
organisatio
n are
flexible
%
enough to
adapt to
change
1.0%
2.9%
2
8
1.9%
7.7%
24.0 71.2
%
%
47
1.0%
100.0
12.6% 47.4%
%
46
1
104
45.2 44.2
%
%
1.0%
100.0
%
3
72
2.2% 53.3%
29.6
%
8.9
%
1.5%
100.0
%
37
21
2
135
27.4 15.6
%
%
1.5%
100.0
%
Split T-Tests on All Factors
Group Statistics
In which country
do you work?
Are you a manager
or employee?
N Mean
Employee
86 2.6000
.35908
.03872
Manager
17 2.7176
.25553
.06197
Employee
86 2.6492
.31522
.03399
Manager
18 2.6204
.25441
.05996
Culture in the
organisation Factor 1
Employee
85 2.6092
.36716
.03982
Manager
15 2.6667
.53452
.13801
Culture in the
organisation Factor 2
Employee
86 3.8110
.48497
.05230
Manager
18 3.7361
.60920
.14359
Change in the
organisation Factor
Employee
86 3.5581
.44786
.04829
Manager
18 3.2111
.91644
.21601
Leadership in the
organisation Factor
Employee
93 1.8280
.36426
.03777
Manager
40 2.0300
.52340
.08276
Employee
93 2.0251
.35521
.03683
Manager
39 2.1667
.51013
.08169
Culture in the
organisation Factor 1
Employee
90 3.6951
.37746
.03979
Manager
37 3.6006
.58470
.09612
Culture in the
organisation Factor 2
Employee
95 2.9132
.78616
.08066
Manager
40 3.2875
.96833
.15311
Change in the
organisation Factor
Employee
95 2.4716
.71156
.07300
Manager
40 2.8750
.80471
.12724
Leadership in the
organisation Factor
My Manager Factor
Sweden
My Manager Factor
South Africa
Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Independent Samples Test
Levene's
Test for
Equality of
Variances
In
which
countr
y do
you
work?
F
Leadership
in the
organisatio
n Factor
My
Manager
Factor
Swede
n
Culture in
the
organisatio
n Factor 1
Culture in
the
organisatio
n Factor 2
Change in
the
organisatio
n Factor
Equal
variance
s
assumed
2.762
Sig.
1.676
7.190
1.192
Equal
variance
19.01
6
Uppe
r
-.11765
.09151
.2991
7
.0638
8
1.61
0
30.06
7
.118
-.11765
.07308
.2668
7
.0315
8
.364
102
.717
.02885
.07930
.1284
3
.1861
4
.419
29.08
0
.679
.02885
.06893
.1121
0
.1698
1
.00
-.519
9
98
.605
-.05752
.11074
.2772
8
.1622
5
-.400
16.40
9
.694
-.05752
.14364
.3614
1
.2463
8
.569
102
.570
.07494
.13162
.1861
3
.3360
0
.490
21.73
3
.629
.07494
.15282
.2422
1
.3920
8
2.41
6
102
.017
.34703
.14365
.0621
1
.6319
5
1.56
8
18.73
3
.134
.34703
.22134
.1166
.8107
5
.19
8
.27
8
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
Lowe
r
.202
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
df
101
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
t
Sig.
Std.
Mean
(2Error
Differenc
tailed
Differenc
e
)
e
95%
Confidence
Interval of
the
Difference
1.28
6
.10
0
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
t-test for Equality of Means
.00
0
9
s not
assumed
Leadership
in the
organisatio
n Factor
My
Manager
Factor
South
Africa
Culture in
the
organisatio
n Factor 1
Culture in
the
organisatio
n Factor 2
Change in
the
organisatio
n Factor
Equal
variance
s
assumed
10.84
7
.00
1
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
11.86
2
.00
1
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
12.99
4
.00
0
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
6.378
.01
3
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
Equal
variance
s
assumed
Equal
variance
s not
assumed
1.592
.20
9
2.55
6
131
.012
-.20204
.07904
.3584
1
.0456
8
2.22
1
55.91
3
.030
-.20204
.09097
.3842
8
.0198
0
1.82
5
130
.070
-.14158
.07758
.2950
5
.0119
0
1.58
0
54.10
0
.120
-.14158
.08961
.3212
2
.0380
7
1.08
2
125
.281
.09446
.08732
.0783
5
.2672
7
.908
48.81
3
.368
.09446
.10403
.1146
2
.3035
5
2.35
4
133
.020
-.37434
.15902
.6888
7
.0598
1
2.16
3
61.68
0
.034
-.37434
.17305
.7203
1
.0283
8
2.89
2
133
.004
-.40342
.13950
.6793
4
.1275
1
2.75
0
65.94
0
.008
-.40342
.14669
.6963
1
.1105
4