Building Organisational Resilience

LEADING AND MANAGING PEOPLE IN CHAOS AND COMPLEXITY

Building Organisational
Resilience
A model for building change readiness
through appropriate organisational culture
Atul Kuver
th
25 February 2011

1
© Atul Kuver 2011

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to develop a ’fit-for-purpose’ model (Figure I) to build
change readiness through organisational culture. The model was established through
a resource-based view of the organisational culture and practices that assist change
readiness, sustainable people management practices, and the capacity to implement
change to deal with business sustainability challenges.

Figure I. Model to build change readiness through organisational culture.

A Defence Business (ADB) is one of the world’s largest defence contractors. Its
customers include armed forces of countries around the world, government agencies
and defence and aerospace prime contractors and the business has strong presence
in the UK, USA and Australia. This report concerns one of ADB’s smaller operations
(referred to as ‘Div A’) located in South Australia. ADB needs to address several
issues affecting Div A in delivering more sustainable business practices. Div A’s issues
2
© Atul Kuver 2011

concern commercial and social sustainability. These issues require changes at ADB
and Div A will be affected. The change readiness model developed and described in
this report is aimed at building Div A’s readiness for change through its culture. The
model explores the gap between the preparation and action stages of the change
process to provide a framework with which to reduce this gap to a level where
continuous change is accepted.

The report examines the concept of change readiness to establish links between
change readiness and organisational culture. The model treats the organisation, its
culture and the individual employees as an integrated and interconnected system. It
uses the concept of organisational resilience, and focuses on building change
readiness and organisational resilience through cultural resilience.

3
© Atul Kuver 2011

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 2
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5
2 THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE READINESS .............................................................. 7
3 CHANGE CHALLENGES AT ADB ........................................................................... 8
3.1 Business Overview ...................................................................................... 8
3.2 Change Challenges to Deliver More Sustainable Business Practices ............. 8
3.3 The Issues.................................................................................................. 10
4 THE MODEL: BUILDING CHANGE READINESS THROUGH APPROPRIATE
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE .................................................................................... 11
4.1 Structure, Components and Elements of the Model. ................................. 12
4.1.1 ‘Means – Ends’ Structure.................................................................... 13
4.2 Individual .................................................................................................. 14
4.2.1 Perception.......................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 Personal Valence ................................................................................ 15
4.2.3 Motivation ......................................................................................... 15
4.2.4 Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................ 16
4.2.5 Uncertainty ........................................................................................ 16
4.3 Culture ...................................................................................................... 17
4.3.1 Innovation, Risk-Taking, Learning Opportunities and Flexibility .......... 17
4.3.2 Resilience ........................................................................................... 18
4.3.3 Momentum ........................................................................................ 19
4.3.4 Change Valence and Change Efficacy.................................................. 19
4.4 Organisation .............................................................................................. 20
4.4.1 Information ........................................................................................ 21
4.4.2 Responsible Leadership ...................................................................... 21
5 FITNESS OF THE MODEL FOR USE BY ADB CHANGE AGENTS ............................ 24
6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 25
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 27

4
© Atul Kuver 2011

1 INTRODUCTION
Social, economic, political, or competitive factors are usually the initiators of
organisational change. Champoux (2011) suggests that modern organisations are
challenged with concurrent demands for change and stability. Organisations do not
appear to have the option of reacting to the forces of change that originate
externally or from within. Linear models of cause and effect no longer seem to apply.
Change management is also probably one of the most challenging issues for
managers in modern organisations. In most cases, there are usually two distinct
groups — those that want to proceed with change and those who feel they will be
worse off after the change.

This study has developed a model for building change readiness through appropriate
organisational culture. The notion of change readiness can be considered to be the
extent to which individuals in an organisation hold a positive outlook about the
necessity for organisational change as well as the extent to which the change will
benefit themselves and the organisation (Jones et al. 2005).

The model is established through a resource-based view of the organisational culture
and practices that assist change readiness, sustainable people management
practices and the capacity to implement change to deal with business sustainability
challenges. The resource-based view of an organisation sees the organisation as
having a unique set of resources and capabilities that gives rise to the concept of
competitive advantage.

Organisational culture includes ‘values, norms, rites, rituals, ceremonies, heroes,
and scoundrels in the organization’s history’ (Champoux 2011, p. 73). This
description is an expansion of Schein’s (cited in Jones et al. 2005, p. 363) three
dimensional view of organisational culture consisting of:
 assumptions — the taken-for-granted beliefs about human nature and the
organisational environment;

5
© Atul Kuver 2011

 values — the shared beliefs and rules that regulate the attitudes and
behaviours of employees;
 artefacts — the visible language, behaviours and material symbols within the
organisation.

These three dimensions provide a framework to examine an organisation’s change
readiness impediments and assist in identifying areas where improvements may be
made. In particular, values are seen to be central to understanding organisational
culture (Ott, cited in Jones et al. 2005, p. 363) and values can therefore be
considered to be a reliable depiction of organisational culture (Howard, cited in
Jones et al. 2005, p. 363).

Resilience has been discussed in terms of the individual (Bolton 2004; Coutu 2002).
Bolton (2004, p. 60) describes resilience as ‘the capability of people to withstand
hardship and, in facing adversity, to continue leading functional and healthy lives’. In
addition to individual or employee resilience, Bolton (2004) points out that resilience
can also exist at the organisational level and makes reference to ‘resilient
organisations’ (p. 61). Organisational resilience as discussed by Bolton (2004) seems
to be the result of resilient individuals.

The model presented here uses the concept of organisational resilience and focuses
on building change readiness through cultural resilience. In other words, a culture of
resilience should exist if an organisation is to be change ready.

The following framework will be used to discuss the significance of this model in
building organisational resilience.

Section 2 examines the concept of change readiness to establish links between
change readiness and organisational culture. The change challenges at the company
‘A Defence Business (ADB)’ is discussed in Section 3, to learn about the types of
change events the model may be required to address. The model —‘Building change

6
© Atul Kuver 2011

readiness through appropriate organisational culture’ is presented in Section 4.
Section 5 illustrates the fitness of the model for ADB’s change agents followed by the
conclusion to this report in Section 6.

2 THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE READINESS
Armenakis and Harris (2007, p. 132) define readiness as the ‘cognitive precursor of
the behaviors of resistance to or support for organizational change’. They prefer the
term readiness instead of resistance because in their view the term readiness ‘fits
better with a positive approach to framing change’ (Armenakis & Harris 2007, p.
132). They found that individuals who were in the ready for change (contemplation)
stage and the actively changing (action) stage were more open to the introduction of
a new leadership development program and there was an increased likelihood that
the participants would positively evaluate its content and delivery (Harris & Cole
2007, cited in Armenakis & Harris 2007, p. 132).

Armenakis and Harris (2007, p. 129) identified five key change beliefs that appear to
provide reasons for the change recipient to support change initiatives. The beliefs
are:
1. discrepancy — the belief that change is needed and this is reflected in the
gap between the organisation’s present state and the state it wants to adopt;
2. appropriateness — the belief that a specific change designed to address the
discrepancy is the correct action;
3. efficacy — the belief that the change recipient and organisation will
successfully implement the change;
4. principal support — that leaders and managers within the organisation are
committed to the success of the change; and
5. valence — the belief that the change is beneficial to the change recipient.

Research suggests that readiness improves when change recipients can recognise
the need for change, sense their ability to successfully implement change (self-

7
© Atul Kuver 2011

efficacy) and they are given the opportunity to participate in the change process
(Cunningham et al. 2002, p. 377). Reshaping capabilities then become an important
feature of an organisation’s ability to change and hence complements change
readiness. According to Beckard and Harris (cited in Jones et al. 2005, p. 367),
change readiness concerns the motivation and willingness of participants and
reshaping capabilities include the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the entire
organisation for successful change implementation.

3 CHANGE CHALLENGES AT ADB

3.1 Business Overview
A Defence Business (ADB) is one of the world’s largest defence contractors. Its
customers include armed forces of countries around the world, government agencies
and defence and aerospace prime contractors. The business operates several
countries including the UK, USA and Australia. The business has well established
customer relationships by offering product through-life capability and long-term
partnerships with its customers. Project management and engineering are ADB’s
core competencies.

3.2 Change Challenges to Deliver More Sustainable Business
Practices
Over the past two decades, the defence industry has consolidated. This has resulted
in fewer, larger defence organisations. The fifty largest defence businesses of the
early 1980s had now become the country’s top five defence contractors (Guay
2007).

In Australia, defence businesses focus on one customer — the Commonwealth of
Australia. Major defence contractors with operations in Australia include Boeing,
Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin, BAE Systems, Thales, and Australian Submarine
Corporation. Generally, the Australian operations are significantly smaller than those
8
© Atul Kuver 2011

in the US or the UK. Smaller Australian defence subcontractors are often closely
aligned with the larger organisations to maintain sustainable businesses.

While ADB is a major defence prime contractor, this report concerns one of its
smaller operations located in South Australia. This division of ADB (to be referred to
as Div A) has approximately 200 employees at one of its South Australian sites.
Building change readiness through appropriate culture will be focussed on this site.

Div A is the result of an acquisition by ADB over a decade ago. Some cultural
remnants from the previous business still exist but overall ADB has been very
successful in integrating Div A after acquisition.

Smaller divisions within large corporations can be particularly vulnerable to change.
These divisions are at risk of being labelled ‘out-posts’. The core competencies of
such a division need to be visible and highlighted. A small division sometimes needs
to be run as an entirely different business to keep the division competitive. Div A,
while allowed significant autonomy, is still bound by processes, procedures and
policies of the global business. Many of these requirements were originally designed
with larger sections of the business in mind.

The consolidation of business divisions has had a significant impact on Div A. In
recent years, the division has undergone changes due to further acquisitions. The
small size of Div A means that it has had to cope with integration into other divisions.
While Div A has seemed to cope well through these changes, there are signs that the
on-going changes have had some negative effects on the division. Several managers
have been transferred or their positions made redundant. Uncertainty due to the
constant changes seems to be on the rise. The diversion of the Commonwealth’s
defence budgets to the on-going operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
perceived lack of work have made many employees nervous. The processes and
policies that worked well for larger projects now seem rigid when applied to smaller
ones. This adds another level of cost to bids. Competitors who do not have the

9
© Atul Kuver 2011

additional cost burden —mostly smaller more agile organisations — are able to out-
bid ADB.

ADB has responded. Project management procedures have been revised to allow
‘tailoring’ of project processes. However, a major problem is that these changes are
not universal. While project procedures may have changed, other systems remain
rigid — for example Configuration Management (CM) and Quality Assurance (QA).
Both CM and QA are essential in maintaining product integrity and traceability so the
reluctance in making any changes to these seems justifiable.

3.3 The Issues
ADB needs to address several issues towards delivering more sustainable business
practices. Sustainability in this context is defined as the achievement of long term
and integrated commercial, environmental and social outcomes. Div A’s issues are
primarily commercial and social. For,
 commercial sustainability:
o change procedures to allow Div A to become more competitive;
o develop project agility;
o maintain and recruit talent;
 social sustainability:
o improve employee morale;
o maintain talent;
o address uncertainty;

These issues require changes at ADB. Div A in particular will be affected. The change
readiness model developed and described in this report is aimed at building Div A’s
readiness for change through its culture. The culture at Div A seems resilient and
able to cope well with change. This model provides a framework to improve this
capability and as a result improve the Div A’s readiness for change.

10
© Atul Kuver 2011

4 THE MODEL: BUILDING CHANGE READINESS
THROUGH APPROPRIATE ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Coolican and Jackson (cited in Igo & Skitmore 2005, p. 123) believe that
organisational culture today provides a framework that can be used to ‘implement
and operationalize business strategies’. At the same time, organisational culture is
acknowledged as being difficult to change (Bresnen & Marshall, cited in Igo &
Skitmore 2005, p. 123).

The change readiness model proposed by Armenakis and Harris (2007) intended to
offer change agents with the perspective of actions required to plan a programme to
shape the five key beliefs which would then encourage change recipients to
positively accept the change. This intention distinguishes their model from the
model presented here.

The change readiness model described here explores the gap between the
preparation and action stages of the change process to provide a framework with
which to reduce this gap to a level where continuous change is possible. This model
should not be too dependent on external trigger and it should include continuously
improving change readiness within the organisation’s culture. This is done by
emphasising that effective organisational change can be driven through appropriate
organisational culture and that the fundamental source of culture is the individuals
who make up the organisation.

In this model, low change readiness means the organisational culture permits or
responds to change with difficulty. High change readiness means the culture copes
well with change with minimum disruption to everyday operations. The aim of the
model shown in Figure 1 is to illustrate the development of change readiness
through its culture. The structure, components and elements of the model will now
be discussed.

11
© Atul Kuver 2011

Figure 1. Illustration of the model to build change readiness through appropriate organisational
culture.

4.1 Structure, Components and Elements of the Model.
The model treats the organisation, its culture and the individual employees as an
integrated and interconnected system. It is difficult to view these three components
as independent and unconnected. In this model, the Organisation is shown as the
structure within which Culture and Individuals are embedded. While it may be
possible to argue that the three components can be separated while keeping firm
links between them, the separated model may not clearly represent the inter-
dependent nature of the three parts. The assertion in this model is that
organisational change is fundamentally supported from an individual level. Culture
then provides the momentum and resilience needed for heightened change
readiness.

12
© Atul Kuver 2011

The following terms will be used to describe the model:
 elements —the basic building blocks and desired outcomes. Elements are
embedded within the models components;
 components — the model has three components: Organisation, Culture and
Individual; and
 structure — represents the overall model framework and refers to the
arrangement of the components, elements and their associated inter-
dependencies.

4.1.1 ‘Means – Ends’ Structure
The illustrated model shown in Figure 1 is based on a ‘means – ends’ structure. The
‘means’ are the concepts and frameworks that should be considered as ways of
building change readiness. Means are shown on the left half of the illustration. The
‘ends’ are the expected outcomes. Ends are shown on the right half of the
illustration. All means and ends are elements within the model. The individual or
employee is located in the centre of the illustration. This is in line with the
philosophy used to develop this model – that the individual is at the crux of the
organisation.

13
© Atul Kuver 2011

4.2 Individual
In this model, five key elements for change readiness development in individuals are
considered. The key elements are:

 Perception
 Motivation
 Personal Valence
 Uncertainty
 Self-efficacy

Although Figure 1 shows these as separate elements within the structure of the
Individual, in reality these elements may be interconnected and stimulating one
element may affect others. In order to make sense of the impact of the elements, it
is simpler to view each in isolation. This method provides a framework that can then
be used to create associations and linkages based on the organisation’s unique
circumstances.

4.2.1 Perception
According to Eby (2000, p. 420), the perceptions of employees about whether the
organisation is ready for change is an important aspect in recognising sources of
resistance to change. Perception then becomes an important element in two ways —
first, as a driver of change readiness and secondly as a predictor of change readiness.
While perception may be improved through information and leadership to improve
change readiness, using it as a predictor of change readiness is more difficult. Eby
(2000, p. 422) proposes that perceptions of change readiness are dependent on an
‘individual’s unique interpretation of the organisation’s context’. This makes
perception a subjective concept as there is no standard against which it can be
measured.

14
© Atul Kuver 2011

In this model, the primary purpose of the perception element is its use as a driver to
increase the individual’s change readiness.

4.2.2 Personal Valence
Personal valence is the belief that the change is beneficial to the employee. When
the individual goes through the process of establishing personal valence, he or she
encounters decisional balance. Decisional balance refers to the expected risks of
change versus the likely benefits of change (Cunningham et al. 2002). The
individual’s perceptions of the benefits of change compared to the risks of failing to
change start the process of readiness for change (Cunningham et al. 2002).

Armenakis and Harris (2007) emphasised the impact of change recipient involvement
and participation on enhancing personal valence. Participation allows individual to
seek solutions to difficulties they face and improves efficacy by allowing them to
select those changes they feel they can accomplish (Armenakis & Harris 2007, p.
130). While participation seems simple in concept, it may in fact prove to be difficult
in practice. Leaders must also take into account the inter-dependent and complex
nature of an individual employee. Individual-to-individual, individual-to-culture, and
individual-to-organisation relationships and dependencies are not always clear in
today’s complex business environment.

4.2.3 Motivation
Gottschalg and Zollo (2007, p. 420) suggest that individuals’ motivation to behave in
certain ways are determined by the extent to which the behaviour assists them in
meeting their goals and the relevance of each goal to the individual. They use a
three-category taxonomy to capture the primary differences between the means
through which organisations can encourage motivation. The three categories are:
 extrinsic motivation —is driven by the objective of achieving extrinsic work
related rewards such as money, power and recognition;

15
© Atul Kuver 2011

 hedonic intrinsic motivation — is driven through engagement in ‘enjoyable,
self-determined and performance competence-enhancing behaviour’; and
 normative intrinsic motivation — is driven through engagement in behaviour
compliant with organisation norms and values.
(Gottschalg & Zollo 2007, p. 420)

The model illustrates that while extrinsic and hedonic intrinsic motivation may be
encouraged from an organisational level, normative intrinsic motivation is more
closely related to organisational culture.

4.2.4 Self-Efficacy

An individual’s perceived ability to successfully manage the change —self-efficacy —
has the effect of mediating individual readiness (Prochaska et al. 1997, cited in
Cunningham et al. 2002, p. 378) and organisational change (Armenakis et al. 1993,
cited in Cunningham et al. 2002, p. 378). Confidence in one’s ability to cope with
change is more likely to contribute positively to organisational change. Change may
be resisted if individuals perceive that the process exceeds their ability to cope
(Armenakis et al. 1993, cited in Cunningham et al. 2002, p. 379). In Cunningham et
al.’s (2002) study, workers with an active approach to work issues were more
confident in their coping ability regarding job change and demonstrated a higher
readiness for organisational change.

4.2.5 Uncertainty
Milliken (cited in Bordia et al. 2004, p. 508) defines uncertainty as ‘an individual’s
inability to predict something accurately’. Uncertainty evolves due to lack of or
ambiguous and contradictory information (Berger & Calabrese, Putnam & Sorenson
cited in Bordia et al. 2004, p. 508). Bordia et al. (2005, p. 508) characterises
uncertainty as an ‘aversive state’ that encourages responses which try and manage
or reduce it. During organisational change, uncertainty is also one of the most

16
© Atul Kuver 2011

commonly reported psychological states (Bordia et al 2005, p. 509). Perceived
resistance to change may just be an individual’s efforts to try and minimise
uncertainty.

4.3 Culture
Champoux (2011, p. 74) outlines seven key elements that describe organisational
culture. These elements are:
 levels — culture has different degrees of visibility with core values being the
least visible;
 pervasiveness — culture is widely dispersed;
 implicitness — veteran employees will often take core cultural values for
granted;
 imprinting — culture is deeply rooted in the organisations history;
 political — culture is connected to systems of power;
 plurality — subcultures also exist;
 interdependency — culture is interconnected with other parts of the
organisation;

One of the characteristics of this model is that Culture is represented as a ‘buffer’
between the Organisation and the Individual. The resilience element is embedded
within this buffer region. While it could be argued that an organisation exerts direct
and uninterrupted influence over the individual, the ‘culture as a buffer’ stance
seems reasonable as a general representation of modern organisations.

4.3.1 Innovation, Risk-Taking, Learning Opportunities and Flexibility
Weiner (2009, p. 4) recognised the broader contextual conditions that affect change
readiness. Four elements — innovation, risk-taking, learning opportunities and
flexibility make up the means through which organisational culture can heighten its
change readiness. These elements have been chosen as the primary means of
building change readiness because different levels of each element normally exist

17
© Atul Kuver 2011

within many organisations. It is usually difficult to find a hard boundary separating
each of these elements and in many cases dependencies will exist between
elements.

Jones et al. (2005, p. 365) identified that:
1. Employee perceptions that their organisation is dominant in human relations
values and open systems values are more likely to possess positive views
about organisational change — Flexibility;
2. Innovation and dynamic nature of open systems culture suggests that
employees who perceive their organisational culture to be an open system
are likely to hold positive views on change — Innovation/Flexibility;
3. Training and development of human resources may relate to an individual’s
confidence and improve their ability to take on new challenges — Learning
Opportunities;

Studies that investigate the direct relationship between risk-taking and change
readiness seemed to be lacking. Nonetheless, risk-taking seems to be an important
element when considered together with innovation, flexibility and learning. Pursuing
new ideas is usually closely associate with risk (in many cases significant risk). At the
same time it is important to differentiate risk-taking from recklessness. The model
proposes that managed risk-taking could result in an innovative and dynamic culture.

4.3.2 Resilience
Coutu (2002, p. 48) observed that resilience theories overlap in three ways.
Individuals who are resilient possess a firm acceptance of reality, a profound belief
that life is meaningful and are able to improvise. Coutu suggests that people may
recover from hardship with just one or two of these characteristics, but true
resilience is only possible when all three characteristics exist and that these qualities
hold true for organisations (Coutu 2002, p. 48).

18
© Atul Kuver 2011

This model embeds the resilience element within organisational culture. This has
been done for three reasons:
1. Individual resilience in a large group is not always obvious.
2. Resilience is a subjective concept. It is not possible to create a measure of
resilience and then compare individuals because there is no set standard
against which resilience can be measured.
3. Culture can be treated as a single entity. While sub-cultures still exist, it is
easier to gauge the aggregate resilience then to attempt qualification of
individual resistance.

4.3.3 Momentum
Jansen (2000, p. 54) presents three conceptualisations of momentum. The three
views are:
1. strategic persistence —the ability to maintain a prior course of action;
2. the ability of a leader to create or control momentum; and
3. momentum as a dynamic force, the presence or absence of which determines
the outcome of a change effort.

In this model, concepts (1) and (3) are of greater significance. Persistence and
momentum are good indicators of resilience.

4.3.4 Change Valence and Change Efficacy
Cultural change valence and change efficacy are extensions of personal valence and
self-efficacy discussed for the individual. The concepts are the same as that for the
individual, except that valence and efficacy now apply at the organisation culture
level. Cultural change valence is the cultural or aggregate belief that the change is
beneficial. Change efficacy at the cultural level means that the organisation’s culture
is at a point where it considers that it has the ability to successfully manage the
change.

19
© Atul Kuver 2011

It could be argued that valence and efficacy are concepts that can only apply to
individuals rather than aggregates. This argument is sound. However, this model
sees organisational culture as a single entity (although there may be sub-cultures).
Therefore, while the two concepts may seem abstract when compared with the
concepts of reliance and momentum, they can still assist in understanding the
complex nature of organisational change readiness.

To increase or heighten change readiness, the organisation’s culture should aim to
be more resilient, and increase momentum, change valence and change efficacy. The
model suggests that these results may be achieved by developing or sustaining the
culture in the areas of innovation, risk-taking and learning opportunities. In addition,
the organisation must also demonstrate flexibility. These can be considered to be
the input parameters needed to develop the appropriate culture.

4.4 Organisation
The resource-based view sees the organisation as having a unique set of resources
and capabilities that gives rise to the concept of competitive advantage. According to
Teese and Pisano (cited in Jones et al. 2005), leading organisations in global markets
will need to show timely responsiveness to efficiently manage and re-deploy these
capabilities. Turner and Crawford (cited in Jones et al. 2005) further distinguish
between operational capabilities and reshaping capabilities. Operational capabilities
are those required to sustain everyday performance and these capabilities do not
typically help in managing change effectively. On the other hand, reshaping
capability consists of three key elements. These are (Jones et al. 2005, p. 367):
 engagement — involves employees participation to encourage motivation
and dedication to the goals and plans of the organisation;
 development — improving resources and business systems to achieve the
organisation’s goals; and
 performance management — proactive management of factors that drive
organisational performance to ensure that it achieves the intended change.

20
© Atul Kuver 2011

4.4.1 Information
According to Jimmieson et al. (2004), minimising feelings of uncertainty and
associated threats is a significant challenge faced by managers during organisational
change. During periods of change, individuals within the organisation need
information to help them develop a sense of situational awareness and
understanding (Sutton & Kahn, cited in Jimmieson et al. 2004, p.12). Jimmieson et al.
(2004) asserts that timely and accurate information about the changes and change
process may reduce uncertainty and that information may be made available
through either formal or informal channels (p.12).

The model considers uncertainty as a characteristic of the individual and places the
uncertainty element at its core. The information made available therefore must
permeate the organisational culture and reach the individual with minimum
filtration. It then becomes important that the culture is such that it maximises the
free flow of information to the individual. Uncertainty has already been discussed in
Section 4.2.5.

4.4.2 Responsible Leadership
Higgs and Rowland (2010) assert that the role of leaders in the change process has a
significant impact on the success of change. In this model, leadership is viewed as a
distributed function — a process that exists at many levels of the organisation and
not a function of position alone (Higgs & Rowland 2005). Higgs and Rowland (2005)
classified leadership behaviour and mindsets during organisational change into three
broad categories, namely, shaping, framing change, and creating capacity.

Shaping

This is a leader-centric approach to change implementation.

Framing Change

Here the leader creates a framework that lets others contribute to the change
process and displays a high level of trust in those who contribute to the change.

21
© Atul Kuver 2011

Creating Capacity

The leader focuses on building individual and organisational capability and
encourages growth and learning.

The leadership characteristics for each leadership category and the impact of the
leader’s behaviour are shown in Table 1.

The behaviour of leaders can also influence the perception of organisational culture
(Block, cited in Igo & Skitmore 2005, p. 123). The different practices develop from
the basic assumptions leaders make when implementing changes needed for the
organisation’s long-term survival (Igo & Skitmore 2005, p. 123). Once adopted, these
assumptions are embedded into the organisation’s culture (Gordon, cited in Igo &
Skitmore 2005, p.123).

Leadership
Key Leadership Characteristics Impact
Category
 negative impact
 is eager to be the ‘mover and shaker’;
on change
 sets the pace which others follow; and
success;
 expects others to follow the leader’s
Shaping  ‘heroic’ models
actions.
mitigate against
(Higgs and Rowland 2010)
sustainable
performance.
 creates a framework that lets other
contribute to the change process;
 displays a high level of trust in those who
contribute to the change;  positively related
Framing
 works with others to build vision and to change success;
Change direction;
 promotes the reasons for change and
explains why it is not desirable to return
to older practices;
 focuses on building individual and
organisational capability;
 positively related
Creating  encourages growth and learning;
to change success;
Capacity  develops the necessary change
implementation skills in people;
 provides feedback; and
22
© Atul Kuver 2011

 provides training;
Table 1. Leadership characteristics for each leadership category and the impact of the leader’s
behaviour.

23
© Atul Kuver 2011

5 FITNESS OF THE MODEL FOR USE BY ADB CHANGE
AGENTS
Possible Change
Issue Attention
Event
Allow Div A to Changes to  Information
become more procedures results in Organisation  Responsible
competitive new or unfamiliar leadership
practices.  Innovation
Culture  Risk-taking
 Flexibility
 Perception
Individual  Self-efficacy
 Uncertainty
Develop project Retraining of project Organisation  Information
agility managers and  Learning
engineers. opportunities
Culture
 Innovation
 Flexibility
 Motivation
Individual  Personal valance
 Self-efficacy
Maintain and Re-deploy  Recognition of
recruit talent employees to other excellence
Organisation
sites.  Responsible
leadership
 Learning
opportunities
Culture
 Risk-taking
 Flexibility
 Motivation
 Personal valance
Individual
 Uncertainty
 Self-efficacy
Improve Additional training  Information
employee and implementation  Responsible
morale and of processes that Organisation leadership
address allow greater  Recognition of
uncertainty transparency excellence
 Learning
Culture opportunities
 Innovation
 Perception
Individual
 Motivation

24
© Atul Kuver 2011

 Personal valance
 Uncertainty
 Self Efficacy
Table 2. Application of the model to the issues faced by ADB in relation to Div A.

Table 2 shows several issues that need to be addressed at Div A. Dealing with these
issues would require change. Possible change events corresponding to each issue are
also given in Table 2. Column 3 shows the elements that would require the change
agent’s attention. The use of the word ‘attention’ is a deliberate attempt to avoid
the word ‘application’. Application implies that the model may be normative, which
it is not. Its purpose is to allow the change agent to use the organisational culture to
build or improve change readiness. The arrow traversing the Culture component in
Figure 1 should be taken as building change readiness through organisational
culture.

6 CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to develop a ’fit-for-purpose’ model to build change
readiness through organisational culture. The model has been developed through a
resource-based view of the organisational culture and practices that facilitate change
readiness, sustainable people management practices and the capacity to implement
change to deal with business sustainability challenges. The report has examined the
concept of change readiness to establish links between change readiness and
organisational culture. The change challenges at ADB were presented to learn about
the types of change events the model may be required to address.

This model provides a framework to improve Div A’s change readiness through its
culture and to build organisational resilience. It is important to note that the model
is not intended to be applied as a process for changing organisational culture. The
model does not actively seek to change the fundamentals of the established culture;
change readiness is developed through positive utilisation of organisational culture.

25
© Atul Kuver 2011

REFERENCES

Armenakis, A, & Harris, S 2009, 'Reflections: our Journey in Organizational Change
Research and Practice', Journal of Change Management, 9, 2, pp. 127-142.

Bolton, D 2004, ‘Change, coping and context in the resilient organisation’, Mt Eliza
Business Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 57-66.

Bordia, P, Hobman, E, Jones, E, Gallois, C & Callan, VJ 2004a, ‘Uncertainty During
Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies’, Journal
of Business and Psychology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.507-532

Champoux, JE 2011, Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Individuals, Groups and
Organizations, 4th Edn, Routledge, London and New York

Coutu, DL 2002, ‘How Resilience Works’, Harvard Business Review, May, pp.46-55

Cunningham, C, Woodward, C, Shannon, H, MacIntosh, J, Lendrum, B, Rosenbloom,
D, & Brown, J 2002, 'Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of
workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates', Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, 75, 4, p. 377.

Eby, LT, Adams, DM, Russell, JT & Gaby, SH 2000, ‘Perceptions of Organisational
Readiness for Change: Factors related to Employees’ Reactions to the
Implementation of Team Base Selling’, Human Relations, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.419-442.

Gottschalg, O & Zollo, M 2007, ‘Interest Alignment and Competitive Advantage’,
Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 418-437.

Guay, T. R. 2007, ‘Globalization and its Implications for the Defense Industrial Base’,
www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB756.pdf [accessed 20 February
2011]

27
© Atul Kuver 2011

Higgs, M, & Rowland, D 2005, 'All Changes Great and Small: Exploring Approaches to
Change and its Leadership', Journal of Change Management, 5, 2, pp. 121-151.

Higgs, M, & Rowland, D 2010, 'Emperors with clothes on: The role of self-awareness
in developing effective change leadership', Journal of Change Management, 10, 4,
pp. 369-385.

Igo, T, & Skitmore, M 2006, 'Diagnosing the organizational culture of an Australian
engineering consultancy using the competing values framework', Construction
Innovation (Sage Publications, Ltd. ), 6, 2, pp. 121-139.

Jansen, KJ 2000, ‘The Emerging Dynamics of Change: Resistance, Readiness, and
Momentum’, Human Resource Planning, vol. 23, no. 2, pp53-55.

Jimmieson, NL, Terry, DJ & Callan, VJ 2004, ‘A Longitudinal Study of Employee
Adaptation to Organizational Change: The Role of Change-Related Information and
Change-Related Self-Efficacy’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 9,
no.1, pp.11-27

Jones, Renae A., Nerina L. Jimmieson, and Andrew Griffiths. "The Impact of
Organizational Culture and Reshaping Capabilities on Change Implementation
Success: The Mediating Role of Readiness for Change." Journal of Management
Studies 42, no. 2 (March 2005): 361-386.

Weiner, B 2009, 'A theory of organizational readiness for change', Implementation
Science, 4, 1, p. 67.

28
© Atul Kuver 2011

Building Organisational Resilience

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Building Organisational Resilience (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Building Organisational Resilience