3 c organizational behavior, development, culture paper final

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR & CULTURE: CREATING A CULTURE SHIFT
Andrews University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Competency
3C Organizational Behavior, Development, Culture
By
Brenda L. Pfeiffer
May 2012
1

Introduction
What is organizational behavior? How does organizational behavior start? How
does an organization develop a culture? How come it seems, at times, that an
organization’s culture has a life of its own? Can an organization’s culture shift? How
should the process of changing a culture be orchestrated? What does it take to influence
an organization’s behavior and culture? Can a leader pick a culture to have, and then
create it?
Through a review of the top theories of organizational behavior and culture, I will
explore these questions, with the goal of determining how to plan out a strategy for
intentionally creating a culture in the Loma Linda University Medical Radiography
Program with a drive for learning, creating safe learning experience, excellence, and
service. I will then describe how I plan to use this research to direct an initiative to review
and re-create this culture.
Defining Organizational Behavior, Development, and Culture
Do we really understand what goes on in an organization? For me, I find it
difficult to understand why behavior is the way it is at Loma Linda University, not just at
the university level, but also at the school, department, and program levels.
Schein (2010) says this about the quandary of understanding organizations,
2

groups, or large professions:
“Too much seems to be ‘bureaucratic,’ “political,’ or just plain ‘irrational.’ People
in positions of authority, especially our immediate bosses, often frustrate us or act
incomprehensibly, and those we consider the ‘leaders’ of our organizations often
disappoint us. When we get into arguments or negotiations with others, we often
cannot understand how our opponents could take such ‘ridiculous’ positions.
When we observe other organizations, we often fit it incomprehensible that ‘smart
people could do such dumb things.’ We recognize cultural differences at the
ethnic or national level but find them puzzling at the group, organizational, or
occupational level.” (Schein, 2010, p. 7).
Organizational behavior is a field of study that looks at the impact that structures,
groups, and individual people have on the behavior that exists within an organization,
whether it is a public or private business, a small or large volunteer organization, or even
in a school or department.
Organizational development, on the other hand, is a deliberately planned initiative
to increase the sustainability of an organization. The way I understand it, organizational
behavior contributes to the development of an organization. When the relevance and
viability of an organization is investigated so an organization can develop and grow, such
topics as readiness to meet change, a strategy for changing the basics of beliefs, attitudes,
and values, and a structure to address challenges and disruptions, are looked at. The key
to organizational development is creating a framework for a change process that leads to
a desirable impact for all of the key stakeholders.
Organizational culture is the collective behavior of people who are part of an
organization. Organizational behaviors make up organizational culture. Organizational
behavior and organizational culture contribute to organizational development. Values,
visions, norms, internal language, systems and processes, beliefs and habits, assumptions
on how to think and feel, definitions of acceptable behavior, communication patterns,
3

communication style, metaphors, and symbols and celebrations influence an
organization’s culture.
It wasn’t until I started to understand this topic of organizational behavior that I
started to understand why “things were the way they were” in the Medical Radiography
Program at Loma Linda University. I also started to understand that before I can actually
“change” the culture, I needed to understand and define it. As a result, I set out to survey
the students and faculty regarding the current “culture” of the Program. Once I knew how
faculty and students were describing our culture, I took the results to the new
administrative team for the Program: me, the new Program Director, with six years post-
radiography degree; Jerone, the new Clinical Coordinator, with seven years post-
radiography degree; and Will, the new Assistant Program Director, with five years post-
radiography degree. For me, I am replacing a Program Director who has been in the same
position for 30 years. For Jerone, he is replacing the Clinical Coordinator who has been
in the same position for 18 years. For Will, he is coming into a new position that has been
created to help me in my position, because of the enlargement of the scope of practice
that I have brought to the Program Director role.
To summarize this section, when you look at an organization, it is important to
understand how organizational behavior, organizational development, and organizational
culture work together within an organization. As I said earlier, organizational behavior
and organizational culture play a major role in organizational development. Likewise,
organizational behavior plays a major role in organizational culture. As I moved forward
in this paper, when I refer to organizational culture, I will be using this term as it
generally applies to organizational culture, behavior, and development.
4

A Deeper Understanding of Organizational Behavior and Culture
Culture “is the glue, the hope, and the faith that holds people together,” according
to Del and Peterson (2009, p. 5). The “glue” of culture is tangible in some circumstances,
and intangible in others. The tangible elements of culture could include mission, vision,
and values statements. Tangible elements of culture could also include systems and
processes, written policies and procedures that define acceptable behavior, artifacts and
symbols, celebrations, and working metaphors. Intangible elements of culture could
include internal language that may be different between subgroups, beliefs and habits
within subgroups, assumptions on how to think and feel that vary from person to person,
and assumed communication patterns and styles that take on a life of their own.
Figure 1: Summary of Attributes That Define an Organization
ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTES
(Del and Peterson, 2009; Schein, 2010; Schein, 1985)
Artifacts, Symbols, Metaphors, and Celebrations
Mission, Vision, Beliefs and Values
Patterns of Behavior or Habits
(Policies, procedures, systems, processes)
Communication Patterns, Styles, and Language
Underlying Assumptions
(Expected Competencies, Unconscious Beliefs and Values)
Rationalizations
(Incongruent with behavior and artifacts)
Del and Peterson (2009) reference Geertz (1973) as defining this topic of
organizational culture as the web of significance in which we are all suspended. Del and
Peterson (2009) reference Deal & Kennedy (1982) as saying that organizational culture is
the values and beliefs that are shared within a community, causing the community to be
closely knit together. Del and Peterson (2009) refer to a quote by Bower (1966) as saying
that culture is “the way we do things around here.”
5

Schein (2010) reports: “Every new group or organization must develop a shared
concept of its ultimate survival problem, from which usually is derived its most basic
sense of core mission, primary task, or ‘reason to be’” (p. 75). For a university, according
to Schein, “The mission of a university must balance the learning needs of the students
(which includes housing, feeding, and often acting as in loco parentis), the needs of the
faculty to do research and further knowledge, the needs of the community to have a
repository for knowledge and skill, the needs of the financial investors to have a viable
institution, and ultimately, even the needs of society to have an institution to facilitate the
transition of late adolescents into the labor market and to sort them into skill groups,” (p.
75).
Schein (1985), according to Del and Peterson (2009), provides a comprehensive
definition: “A pattern of basic assumptions—invented, discovered, or developed by a
given group as it learns to cope with problems…that has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (Schein, 1985, p. 9).
Organizational cultures can be negative and positive; additionally, conflicting
cultures and sub-cultures can co-exist within the same organization. Organizational
culture theory does provide for the fact that culture can be manipulated and altered, but
usually only when there is complete buy-in from both the organization’s leadership and
members. Generally, culture is viewed as one of the most difficult organizational
attributes to change (Schein, 1992).
At Loma Linda University I see conflicting cultures and sub-cultures. From my
experience, conflicting cultures do not always mean conflict…but it can. I have seen sub-
6

cultures coexist, some have conflict, and some get along fine. In the Medical
Radiography Program, I have seen a sub-culture revolve around one person. Now that I
am the Program Director, I am observing how the culture and sub-cultures are presenting
themselves. I am also observing that some cohorts of students have a culture that
develops, and even within those cohort sub-cultures, there are cultures within a class that
even conflict.
Schein (2010) further defines culture on four levels: macro-cultures,
organizational cultures, subcultures, and micro-cultures. Schein states that macro-cultures
are nations, ethnic and religious groups, and occupations that exist globally.
Organizational cultures can be public, private, nonprofit, government organizations.
Subcultures can be occupational groups within organizations. And micro-cultures are
microsystems within or outside organizations.
Schein (2010) comments that “Cultures is constantly reenacted and created by our
interactions with others and shaped by our own behavior” (p. 3), so no matter the size or
dynamics of an organization, culture is evident. Whether an organization’s culture is
stable, fluid, ordered, structured, or rigid, according to Schein (2010), culture is defined
by what the members of the organization “perceive, feel, and act in a given society,
organization, or occupation,” as well as what is “taught to us by our various socialization
experiences,” (p. 3). Only the “rules” of the social order “make it possible to predict
social behavior, get along with each other, and find meaning in what we do,” (p.3).
An intentionally-defined culture is an organizational culture that chooses to be a
certain way, by design. Schein (2010) proposes the following about culture and
leadership:
7

“Culture is ultimately created, embedded, evolved, and ultimately manipulated by
leaders. At the same time, with group maturity, culture comes to constrain,
stabilize, and provide structure and meaning to the group members even to the
point of ultimately specifying what kind of leadership will be acceptable in the
future. If elements of a given culture become dysfunctional, leaders have to
surmount their own culture and speed up the normal evaluation processes with
forced managed culture change programs. These dynamic processes of culture
creation and management are the essence of leadership and make you realize that
leadership and culture are two sides of the same coin.” (Schein, 2010, p. 3)
One such culture in the hospital organization is the culture of safety. Sammer et
al., (2010) has reviewed the literature on the process of creating a patient safety culture,
and their findings are enlightening, and could be applicable to other types of cultures.
Sammer et al. (2010) report that the Institute of Medicine has begun an initiative to have
healthcare organizations improve on the widespread deficits in patient safety; as a result,
a focus has been put on creating organizational safety cultures.
What Sammer et al. (2010) discovered was a broad range of safety culture
properties that could be organized into seven categories: leadership, teamwork, evidence-
based, communication, learning, just, and patient-centered.
Leadership,
Teamwork,
Evidence-based,
Communication,
Learning,
Just, and
Patient-centered.
Figure 2: Synthesis of Concepts in Organizational Theory
8

SYNTHESIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY KEY CONCEPTS
(Snow, 2012; Schein, 2010; Schein, 1992; Del and Peterson, 2009; Lewin, 1951;
Fields, 2007; Butler and Caldwell, 2009; Cameron & Quinn, 1999)
Every organization or group has a culture and a set of unique behaviors.
Cultures are shaped by tangible artifacts, behaviors, attitudes, and assumptions.
Cultures are constantly being reenacted and are undergoing change.
Diagnosing an organization’s culture and planning for organizational change is required
for organizational survival because of the rapid changes in external environments.
Cultures exist at many levels: micro, macro, sub, organizational.
Conflicting sub-cultures can exist within a culture.
Large professions (occupations) can take on a culture of its own.
Organizational cultures can be positive or negative.
Organizational culture can be intentionally shifted and changed.
The leader is the key point-person for defining culture.
How an organization relates to change, policy, research, human development,
communication, etc., is impacted by organizational culture.
Working within, developing, and changing an organizational culture takes leadership
skills, such as finesse and deliberate intention toward a vision.
Organizational culture has a direct impact on organizational performance.
9

Further Understanding of Change in Organizational Culture
Hand-in-hand with the concepts of organizational behavior is the theory of
change. As there are basic theories of organizational culture, with adaptations as time
goes on, there are many theories of change. Kurt Lewin’s work in change theory is also
paramount in organizational culture and behavior theory. Lewin first introduced his three-
step model for change in 1951.
The basis of Lewin’s three-step change theory is founded on the belief that
behavior is a dynamic balance of opposing forces; meaning, driving forces move people
in a desired direction, yet, restraining forces push people in opposite directions, thus,
hindering change. According to Lewin, the first step in the process of changing behavior
is to unfreeze the status quo. Change cannot take place until individual and group
resistance move out of the equilibrium of conformity.
The second step, in Lewin’s three-step model, is to reduce the pull of the negative
forces that are keeping the status quo. The step focuses on moving the focus of resistance
for keeping the current equilibrium to a new level of equilibrium. The key word is
movement. The author of this article discusses that Lewin’s second step in his theory
involves persuading people to agree that the current status quo is not benefiting the
group.
The third step in Lewin’s theory involves refreezing to a new status quo once the
change has taken place. To be successful in this step, Lewin suggests that leaders engage
in activities that support the first two steps, such as creating situations for building trust
with individuals or the group, and involving the individuals or group in identifying
10

problems and solutions that could be addressed if the change were to occur. The purpose
of this step is to freeze at the new equilibrium. Lewin warns that if the group does not
successfully move through this step, the group will likely gain comfort in the old
equilibrium. When the group or individuals can recognize, on their own, the need for
change, and they trust in the leadership that is moving toward change, resistance is
mostly likely going to subside.
As a new leader coming into the organizational culture of the Medical
Radiography Program in 2006, I experienced a lot of resistance. Now I understand why,
after studying the competency on change and the competency on organizational culture.
According to Schein (2010), “when we try to change the behavior of subordinates, we
often encounter ‘resistance to change’ at a level that seems beyond reason” (p. 8).
In my experience as a the new, up-and-coming Program Director for the A.S. in
Medical Radiography Program at Loma Linda University, I can see that, as the leader, I
not only needed to be able to understand the theory and dynamics of change, and also be
able to successfully navigate through it, but I also needed to understand the culture of the
program. The road that I have been on was not been easy when I was naïve about change
and culture. Now that I have been exposed to both theoretical constructs, I am better
equipped to chart a course that will be my mark as leader.
As I have moved through my growth as a new faculty since 2006, I have learned
that not all change is the same. Bennis et al., (1976) identifies five types of change:
haphazard change, developmental change, spontaneous change, coercive change, and
planned change. Haphazard change is random with no advance planning. Developmental
change occurs because of natural growth. Spontaneous change occurs because of the
11

natural occurrence of uncontrollable events. Coercive change is a result of unbalanced
power. Planned change is intentional.
My intention at Loma Linda University is that the change I want to initiate is
intentional. Part of the problem that I see at LLU, at least in some areas, is that change is
avoided. Instinctually, I am the type of person who goes looking for improvement, and
with improvement comes change.
Anticipating change, as referenced by Bennis (1976), is consistent with the views
of Butler and Caldwell (2009). Change, as stated by the Butler and Caldwell, is a
constant. It is neither good nor bad. It just is. Change permeates every aspect of our daily
lives. One of the resistors to the change process that I have encountered is the belief that
if something needs to be changed, someone must have been wrong. A central challenge
with change, according to Butler and Caldwell (2009) is the acceptance of the need to
change as an admission of guilt. In my opinion, this is not the case at LLU, even though
some individuals respond that way. My opinion is that times change, and we need to be
nimble to change with them.
Another challenge I have faced at LLU is that change is viewed as a failure before
it even happens. Butler and Caldwell (2009) comment on this by saying the fear of failure
and rejection trumps the desire for change, and my experience has been exactly that.
Other issues impacting change are: comfort with the familiar that leads to the avoidance
of change; complicated projects that create the “Mt. Everest” syndrome; and discomfort
with ambiguity, which leads to avoidance.
These issues have reared their head in my pursuit of bringing the Medical
Radiography program into the 21st
Century. Butler and Caldwell also point out the
12

organizational barriers to change: competing priorities and lack of clear organizational
focus; misaligned incentives; benchmarking that leads to paralysis; ineffective external
standards and best practices; overreliance on monitoring systems; and inadequate
accountability. These things are clearly activities that I am trying to avoid at LLU.
One of the things that I have tried to do in the past five years is instill a culture of
creating a safe learning environment. At every meeting with faculty, I talk about the
student feedback that is coming in, and how we can change some things to improve the
feedback and satisfaction of students.
Butler and Caldwell (2009) stress that in order for change to be successful, the
leader needs to create an environment for change. They state that an environment of
change is not magical. It is very deliberate. It doesn’t just materialize. Butler and
Caldwell say, “Creating an environment of change is the equivalent of tilling the soil in
preparation for planting. The soil, or environment, must contain the right ingredients if
seeds are to germinate and develop into a harvestable crop” (2009, page 67). My desire is
to create a culture where students are safe to learn; likewise, my desire as a leader is to
create a culture where it is safe to change.
The first thing that I did at LLU when I became the Assistant Program Director
was update the mission and vision of the program, and create value statements. And now,
for the past several years, I have talked about our mission, vision, and values in faculty
meetings, one-on-one faculty and student consultations, clinical instructor meetings, and
student and prospective student meetings. The mission, vision, and values are also printed
in the University Handbook and the program’s brochure. This is consistent with what
Butler and Caldwell (2009) say about establishing a change environment. This is also
13

consistent with what Schein (2010) states is apart of a culture, and that is the
establishment of a vision and values that make an organization unique.
The elements that go into creating a safe environment for change and a safe
environment for learning include: clarity of vision and focus; effective communication
about vision and focus; and cultural characteristics that promote and reward change. Lack
of clarity of vision produces confusion concerning priorities. Lack of effective
communication produces resistance. Lack of understanding the culture promotes inaction,
insecurity, and pushback. Understanding the cultural barriers in an organization helps to
define the implicit and inexplicit barriers that are protecting the status quo.
Beer (2000), in 1980, introduced another theory for change, and it comes in the
form of an equation. Understanding Beer’s equation for understanding change will help
the leader has he or she is navigating through organizational behavior and culture issues.
Key to Beer’s equation is the concept of resistance. Understanding the what, the where,
the why, and the how of resistance within an organizational culture is very important.
Beer's model for change is summarized as follows:
C = D x M x P > R.
The C stands for "amount of change" that is possible. The amount of change
possible is equal to resistance being less than the amount of dissatisfaction times the
model times the process. The D stands for "dissatisfaction or discomfort with the current
situation." The M stands for "a new model for managing or organizing." The P stands for
"planned process for managing change." The R stands for "resistance." The
“dissatisfaction” is anything that is not desired. The "model" for change includes setting a
vision, setting new goals, and developing systems to reinforce the vision and goals. The
14

"process" is the living out of the above goals...it is the tangible and actionable items that
come with executing the change plan.
In the past 10 years or more, in the Radiation Technology Department at LLU, the
subculture from some of the faculty (not all) has been about "the status quo" and “the
black hold.” This is the culture that I entered when I joined the faculty in 2006. I’ve
stated this earlier. The organizational change I am working on is to develop a subculture
of "excellence,” “open communication,” “change,” “easy, open, and professional
communication between students, faculty, and clinical instructors,” and “having a safe
learning environment." The change that is also moving throughout the department is the
idea of changing the Lazaire-Faire attitudes toward accepting substandard performance
by students. Finally, a change that is needed is how faculty view students...instead of
thinking that students are "complainers," I want to communicate to students that they are
adults and they have a right to be heard and respected.
Learning Beer’s equation for change came at an ideal time. The following is my
application of the C = D x M x P > R equation. The "model" for change includes setting a
vision, setting new goals, and developing systems to reinforce the vision and goals. The
new vision at LLU is "excellence" and "openness" and "responsiveness" and
"professionalism." The goals are monthly program update meetings, monthly department
meetings, frequent status meetings, and focus groups and surveys with students, as well
as regular (1-2 times a month) "chats" with students so they know that they are
heard...this will increase student satisfaction.
The "process" is the living out of the above goals...it is the tangible and actionable
items that come with executing the change plan. The "resistance", in my case, is really
15

only coming from one person. Unfortunately, the "problem" and the reason for the
dissatisfaction is a result of this one person. What I have determined is that the person
who is resisting is resisting for two reasons: they don't want to move from the status quo,
it is too much work (or they think it is), and they don't want to work any harder than they
are. They are comfortable with their life, and they want the peace and quiet that existed
before I was hired, so that they can cruise for the next four years to retirement.
Beer’s equation for change has been very helpful to me. Kotter’s steps for
transforming an organization have also been helpful. Although not a formal theory,
Kotter outlines the steps for transforming an organization in his book called Leading
Change (1996). Kotter’s steps for transforming an organization include: establishing a
sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating
the vision, empowering others to act, planning for and creating short-term wins,
consolidating improvements and producing more change, and institutionalizing new
approaches to ensure succession.
“The most central issue for leaders is to understand the deeper levels of culture, to
assess the functionality of the assumptions made at that level, and to deal with the anxiety
that is unleashed when these assumptions are challenged,” says Schein (2010, p. 33).
When I first started to address some issues of change within the culture of the
Medical Radiography Program, I did not really understand that when I challenged some
previously-help assumptions, I was creating anxiety. I thought I was doing something
good. I thought I was trying to address issues that I knew were causing a crisis; but what I
was doing, at the cultural level, was creating another crisis.
Leadership skills, according to Bridges (2002) involve the ability to foresee and
16

anticipate a potential crisis, respond to the crisis, help others deal with the crisis, and
develop systems to accommodate the crisis. For the wise leader, I have learned, you have
to not only know the potential crises in the field of work, but also the potential crises at
the organizational cultural level.
Leading through change and cultural challenges also requires finesse (Fields, 2007),
and finesse requires three things:
(1) Leadership Must Communicate: Communicating a change takes time for people
to really get it. Followers need to roll it over in their minds, talk about it with
others, and get clear about what the change means. When an employee hears
about change the first time, they hear it through the filters of fear, worry, doubt,
and confusion. To manage this stage effectively, communicate verbally, not in
writing…and keep repeating it.
(2) Leadership Must Gain Commitment from Everyone: During an initiative of
change, it is crucial for leadership to gain the buy-in from everyone in the
organization. Invite the employees or group members to collaborate during the
change so they are a part of the process. The “town meeting” format is a good
way to accomplish this. During the town meeting it is very important for everyone
to be heard.
(3) Leadership Must Coach the Entire Organization: Coaching is a requirement,
according to the author. Managing people’s emotions during change is a
completely different matter than managing people. Coaching during change
supports the organization and builds teamwork, support, and trust.
One skill that Malloch and Porter-O’Grady (2009) suggest for the leader is the ability
17

to determine probability. The leader who has the ability to determine probably is able to
anticipate. To do this, a leader must be able to analyze the “veracity and accuracy of the
data and the intensity of its relationship” (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2009, page 70).
Linked with the ability to determine probability is the ability to read signals and
identify the triggers that will set off a crisis. “While signals suggest the introduction of a
major condition or circumstance of change, triggers represent the specific and significant
impact of that change,” (Malloch & Porter-O’Grady, 2009, page 73).
Butler and Caldwell (2009) point out that the change leader needs to have an
improver attitude rather than a nonstarter attitude. Quantum improver managers have
these attributes in common: confidence, handles ambiguity well, seeks to change the
status quo, questions traditions, bias toward action over analysis, persists through failure,
persuasive, motivated by praise and recognition, possesses a balance in risk management,
and reduces complex issues to manageable components. Nonstarter managers have these
attributes in common: afraid of change, focuses on the unknown, finds comfort in the
status quo, seeks to protect customs and traditions, sees uncertainty as a reason to delay
action, sees failure as a final judgment, uncomfortable with expressing ideas and
rationales, suns attention, appears to treat all risk the same, and is overwhelmed by the
complexity of proposed changes.
To summarize this section, I refer to John Kotter who identifies eight errors that
are evident when change activities don’t work: (1) not establishing a great enough sense
of urgency; (2) not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition; (3) lack of vision; (4)
under-communicating the vision by a factor of 10; (5) not removing obstacles to the new
vision; (6) not planning and creating short-term wins systematically; (7) declaring victory
18

too soon; and (8) not anchoring changes in the corporation’s culture. My goal as Program
Director at LLU, is to understand the key points of change, know the common errors to
avoid when developing a new culture that embraces change, and learn how to lead to
create positive change in order to establish a culture that the students, faculty, and clinical
instructors are happy about.
Initiatives for Organizational Change
Cameron and Quinn (1999), in their book Diagnosing and Changing
Organizational Culture state that because of the rapidly changing external environment
in the 20th
and 21st
Centuries, the only way an organization is going to survive is to
dramatically change. In their review of case studies for organizational change, they
discovered that three key initiatives were evident when companies set out to create an
organizational shift. The three most popular initiatives in the past 25 years include: TQM,
downsizing, and re-engineering. In most cases, according to Cameron and Quinn’s (1999)
study, organizations have fallen short.
On the topic of total quality management (TQM), of the Fortune 500 companies
that were surveyed by the consulting firm, Rath and Stro, (Cameron and Quinn, 1999),
20% reported having achieved their quality objectives, and about 40% reported that their
TQM objectives “were a complete flop,” (p. 7). McKinsey, a consulting firm, found that
in their study of 30 TQM programs, two-thirds “had stalled, fallen short, or failed”
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999, p. 8). Cameron and Quinn also report that Ernst and Young’s
study of 584 companies in four industries (autos, banks, computers, and health care) that
are in four countries (USA, Japan, Germany, and Canada), found that “most firms had not
successfully implemented their total quality practices,” (p. 8).
19

In the area of downsizing, the results have been as dismal as TQM objectives.
Downsizing is one of the three main areas for creating change or corporate
competitiveness, yet downsizing alone has not be successful (Cameron and Quinn, 1999).
Of the many case studies for downsizing, Cameron and Quinn states that “A majority of
organizations that downsized…failed to achieve desired results, with only 9 percent
reporting an improvement in quality,” (p. 8).
In the area of reengineering, which is the attempt to redesign completely the
processes and procedures in an organization, the results are also similar to TQM and
downsizing initiatives. Cameron and Quinn (1999) states that reengineering as an
approach to organizational change “has also had a checkered success record,” (p. 8). One
survey that Cameron and Quinn (1999) elaborate on reports that “69 percent of the firms
in the United States and 75 percent of the firms in Europe had engaged in at least one
reengineering project. Unfortunately, the study reported that 85 percent of those firms
found little or no gain from their effort,” (p. 8).
The point that Cameron and Quinn (1999) are making about organizations and
change is “that without another kind of fundamental change, namely, a change in
organizational culture, there is little hope of enduring improvement in organizational
performance. Although the tools and techniques may be present and the change strategy
implement with vigor, many efforts to improve organizational performance fail because
the fundamental culture of the organization remains the same; i.e., the values, the ways of
thinking, the managerial styles, the paradigms and approaches to problems solving,” (p.
9).
Cameron and Quinn (1999) are emphatic on the concept that organizational
20

improvement is dependent on organizational culture change:
“Scientific evidence of this fact was produced by Cameron and his colleagues
who conducted empirical studies in more than one hundred organizations that had
engaged in TQM and downsizing as strategies for enhancing effectiveness. The
results of those studies were unequivocal. The successful implement of both TQM
and downsizing programs, as well as the resulting effectiveness of the
organizations’ performance, depended on having the improvement strategies
embedded in the culture change. When TQM and downsizing were implemented
independent of a culture change, they were unsuccessful. When the culture of
these organizations was an explicit target of change, so that the TQM and/or
downsizing initiatives were embedded in an overall culture change effort, they
were successful. Organizational effectiveness increased. Culture change was key.
(Cameron and Quinn, 1999, p. 9)
Cultures in Trouble: Addressing Deviant and Weak Cultures
It is accepted belief that an organizations culture is defined “as the sum total of
the psychology and attitudes which are communicated by the leadership team to the
employees and the ethics, values and beliefs which are incorporated for execution of
work and obtaining business objectives, according to Burke (2010).
With that said, a culture could be health; however, it can also be weak, and even
deviant. Deviant organizational culture, as defined by Burke (2010), “is where leadership
communicates to the employees that participating in criminal and unethical practices is
normal. The management and employees rationalize that participating in white-collar
crime and illegal behavior to achieve goals and targets is perfectly justified. Effective
controls to restrain the management and employees from undertaking immoral, illegal
and unethical activities are absent,” states Burke (2010).
Maybe at Loma Linda University in the Medical Radiography Program we don’t
have white collar crime on the level of Enron, but I have witnessed passive aggressive
21

behavior that is unprofessional and difficult to deal with. I’m thinking that no matter what
level of deviant behavior we are talking about, a leader does need to know how to deal
with it.
I appreciate what Burke (2010) is saying when he addresses how to deal with
deviant behavior in an organization:
“A form of cognitive therapy is required where the leaders and the group faces up
to the issues and takes responsibility for their behavior. A need is there to set up a
healthy corporate culture where management is seen as open to ideas, walking the
talk and practicing ethical behavior. The culture should be re-established with a
vision and mission statement, followed with a code of business ethics, policies
and procedures. The bad apples need to be removed from the organization as a
signal to the others that their behavior is unacceptable to the organization. A
formal training process should be established to deal with abrasive managers,
bullying and work place aggression. Last but not the least, multiple channels
should be provided to the employees to report such cases and the employees
should be protected from retaliation by others.” (Burke, 2010)
As I look at our culture at Loma Linda University, I believe that it would be
helpful to have built into the policy how the faculty will deal with unacceptable behavior.
In my opinion, the problem people need to be removed, or their behavioral intentions will
start to create a new norm, and move the culture in a direction that the leadership does not
want the culture to go.
The challenge that I am having in the Medical Radiography Program is not with
students, but with the clinical sites, where “bad apple” techs are allowed to be abrasive,
bullying, and aggressive with students. How do we deal with that? I’m learning from this
student that the best way to deal with it is to clearly state what our Program’s culture is
about. And if we see something different from our clinical sites, we will deal with it head
on. Additionally, we, as faculty, need to be sure that the students feel safe to talk with us,
knowing that we will handle it. That is the kind of culture I want to create.
22

But what about a weak culture, or an organizational culture that is in trouble? A
culture that is in trouble is not necessarily deviant. A culture that is in trouble, according
to Deal and Kennedy (2000), possesses the following characteristics:
• The organization, or even groups within the organization, have no clear values or
beliefs that are agreed upon
• The heroes of the culture are destructive or disruptive
• The day-to-day rituals are disorganized, with people doing their own thing
• The focus within the organization is “inward,” with no connection to the real
world
• The focus is short-term with no focus on long-term sustainability
• Moral problems exist, and people are leaving
• Fragmentation and inconsistency exist, with different standards for different sub-
groups, in areas such as dress, work habits, rituals, and consequences
• Outbursts and displays of anger occur, or strong variations in tolerated employee
behavior
• Sub-groups may exist that take on a life of their own, becoming ingrown or
exclusive, working to deter the focus of the organization as a whole
Understanding this list by Deal and Kennedy (2000) has helped me take a fresh
look at the health of the Medical Radiography Program at LLU. It has also helped me see
more clearly the culture and sub-culture of the School of Allied Health Professions and
Loma Linda University as a whole.
Analysis of Current Organizational Behavior and Culture in
23

LLU’s Medical Radiography Program
What would Indiana Jones say about the culture at Loma Linda Universities
Medical Radiography Program? What artifacts would he find? What stories would he
hear? What customs would be evident?
When I read that Dennis Snow of Snow and Associates (2012) was looking at
corporate culture artifacts from the eyes of Indiana Jones, I was immediately interested in
what they had to say.
Snow says, as says all of the other theorists through time, “Corporate culture is a
very real thing. The question is not, ‘Do we have a culture?’—trust me, you do—but
rather, “Have we defined our culture, and do we reinforce it with everything we do?”
Snow continues to say that “A culture must be more than defined. It must be
reinforced on a daily basis. It must leave artifacts behind as proof,” (2012). When
confronted with the question about whether stories are more important than the “stuff” of
artifacts, Snow (2012) says: “I agree that storytelling, dialogue, and face-to-face
interactions are all important in establishing, building, and sustaining corporate culture.
But let’s face it: A physical artifact provides evidence that storytelling cannot, evidence
that an alleged value really is hardwired into a company’s culture.”
Snow explains that artifacts are not easily changed by leadership whims. He says
“Artifacts are more constant, more permanent, and more quantifiable than dialogue.
Tremendous amounts of time, thought, planning, and money go into aligning physical
artifacts with a desired culture. To remove these artifacts—and the culture they represent
—takes considerable effort. There’s a permanence with artifacts that unrecorded stories
simply don’t have.”
24

Snow continues to tell a story about Indiana Jones. I am placing it, in its entirety,
because of the impact of it, and that I want to always be able to go back to this:
“Back to Indiana Jones. If you don’t mind, let’s pretend I’m Indiana Jones,
discovering your current office place some ten, twenty, or thirty years down the
road. (Don’t worry; your company wasn’t destroyed by man-eating snakes,
malaria, or even poor PR. You simply moved locations. Lock, stock, and barrel,
you abandoned your current office space—as well as its contents, or “artifacts”—
and moved across town to set up shop from scratch.)
When I arrive on the scene, I find your old office space exactly how you left it.
Conference room whiteboards still hold notes from the last Monday meeting; the
desks look like they’re still in use; and the coffeepot, of course, is empty as usual.
In short, it’s a “ghost town”—or “ghost office,” we should say.
I start digging deeper, as any true archaeologist (or Indiana Jones) would do, and I
discover artifact after artifact. What conclusions would I come to about your
organization’s culture from this physical evidence? Would I imagine a company
based on the values you purportedly uphold?
Remember, I have no company representatives to talk to. I can only base my
conclusions on the physical evidence before me. Would my discoveries lead me
to conclude that your culture is what you say it is?
The discrepancy I often find in my consulting work between perceived culture
and actual culture amazes me. I’ve worked with many companies who say they
value attention to detail, yet the physical evidence screams chaos and sloppiness.
Other companies say they value creativity and personal expression while the
physical evidence suggests that they really value conformity.
Imagine further that I, the archeologist, discover some your company’s training
materials, such as handbooks and videos. (These could be analogous to cultural
writings of a civilization.) In essence, these writings document corporate values
and priorities. As I go through these materials with a fine-toothed comb, I
discover what this civilization (your company) taught its youth (your new hires).
Tell me something: Would the emphasis of these materials lead me to come to the
conclusions you want me to?” (Snow, 2012)
So what culture does the LLU Medical Radiography Program have? Using the
theory and definitions of organizational behavior and culture, the first logical step in the
process of creating a culture shift in the Medical Radiography Program at Loma Linda
25

University, is to assess and analyze the current behavior and culture that already exists.
Before assessing the students and faculty, I did my own assessment on myself.
Using Snow’s Indiana Jones story, I embarked on an archeological dig in my own
Department and Program. Pretending that I am Indiana Jones, I enter the parking lot, as if
it were 10-20 years down the road. I see a large tree, surrounded by cars. I descend down
the four stairs and see an orange-wood door, with dust and cobwebs, and an early-70’s
venire sign that says “Radiologic Technology.” I open the door, that has locks on it that
are also an early-70’s vintage, and I am immediately placed in a hallway with three
doors, and a small sign that says “Radiologic Technology.” I do not see anything with
Loma Linda University written on it. I do not see any color, technology, or experience a
welcome atmosphere.
As I continue my archeological quest, I see so many things that need to be
uncovered. I see happy students. I see happy faculty. But I still hear stories from the past
that are negative or unflattering of individuals that are not longer around. I see new desks
and tables in the classrooms and faculty offices, but I see old attitudes toward people that
cause them to walk away sad. I see inconsistent use of policies, or even no use at all. I
also see policies that are hard to read and implement, and that causes “spinning” in the
faculty. I see some faculty working for excellence, and other faculty who are tired.
I don’t see symbols or metaphors for the profession or the vision of excellence. I
see some celebrations, but they are not a natural event. I see faculty collaborating with
each other, and I see faculty in the halls with students. And I do see an attempt at joy and
fun. But when faculty bump up against each other with differences, not all faculty
respond the same. Some respond with an assumed trust, and other respond with doubt and
26

mistrust. I see some faculty with strong relationships between them within the medical
radiography program, but as a department as a whole, not all faculty share a strong
relationship.
Figure 3: My Assessment of the ASMR Organizational Culture
ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRIBUTE CURRENT BEHAVIOR/CULTURE
Artifacts, Symbols, Metaphors Artifacts: Furniture, the pictures, the layout of
the area, the fixtures, offices, cubicles, signage
—what do these say?
Symbols: Not really present. We need an LLU
logo
Metaphors: We don’t have one.
Celebrations: The Games, Awards Party
Assessment: Would like to see more visual
artifacts and symbols, with a visual of a
metaphor. Would like to see more celebrations,
on a monthly basis.
Mission, Vision, Beliefs and Values Mission: Clearly stated and reinforced, but not
visual.
Vision: Compelling, but could do more to
reinforce.
Beliefs: We believe in the student. This could
be reinforced.
Values: Learning, Professionalism, Customer
Service, Safe Learning Environments, and
Excellence. Approachable faculty.
Patterns of Behavior or Habits
(Policies, procedures, systems, and
processes)
Policy/Procedure Patterns: We are always
wondering what to do and how to do it.
System/Process Patterns: Sometimes difficult
Habits:
What behaviors do we want?
Celebrations Reward: What behavior gets rewarded?
Communication Patterns, Styles,
and Language
Communication Patterns: Email, Classroom
Announcements, eNewsletter
Communication Style: Sometimes harsh;
sometimes last minute
Language:
Underlying Assumptions
(Expected Competencies,
Unconscious Beliefs and Values)
Underlying Assumptions:
Expected Competency:
Unconscious Beliefs: Transitioning out of the
belief that students are whiners
Unconscious Values: An attitude of students
27

can barely get by and they’ll still be in the
program
Rationalizations (Incongruent with
behavior and artifacts)
Incongruences: We have University values of
wholeness, and the Program has some issues of
major stress. We say we want a safe learning
environment, yet students are afraid they will
get in trouble in the clinic if they speak up.
Our Stories When I came into the Program, the stories I
heard were all negative about other people.
When people made a mistake, it took on a life
of its own and the stories of failure kept getting
told.
Overall Description of the Learning
Environment
Overall Description: Transitioning to be safer.
Using the theory and definitions of change theory, the next logical step in the
process of creating a culture shift in the Medical Radiography Program at Loma Linda
University, is to work with the students, faculty, and key stakeholders to determine what
culture we want to have. To talk this further, I plan to conduct a survey, asking faculty
and students in the Medical Radiography program to assess their view of the culture, and
to contribute to what they would like to see in the future. My goals is to develop an
intentional safe, learning culture, based on what Bersin and Associates says, “Among all
the HR and training processes we study, the single biggest driver of business impact is
the strength of an organization’s learning culture” (2010).
Linking the Organizational Behavior Competency to Other Leadership
Competencies: Coaching, Change, Learning and Human Development, Policy,
Research, Communication
What is interesting about the organizational behavior and culture competency, and
the research I have done in the area of organizational culture, is that culture and behavior
are closely linked to many other competencies such as coaching, communication, change,
28

and research. Moving through the process of understanding and changing organizational
culture involves coaching followers through the process. Every aspect of a leader’s
actions involves organizational culture: communication, coaching, research, leading,
human development, developing policy, planning celebrations, decorating the office, etc.
Understanding organizational culture and behavior is specifically important when
moving through the change process. It is vital to plan the unfreezing, the action of change
to something new, and then the eventual adoption, maintenance, institutionalizing, and
refreezing around the culture of the organization. A change plan may work in one
organization, but it would fail in another, and understanding the dynamics of the group is
vital to initiating and implementing a change proposal.
Evidence of New Practice: A Reflection on What I’ve Learned About
Organizational Behavior
The process of writing this reflection paper has helped me immensely, in ways
that I would have never imagined. Since going through the process of investigating the
different organizational culture and behavior theories, I now have a different perspective
of working with the faculty and students in the Medical Radiography Program at Loma
Linda University. I can see now, that I may have, in the past, done things too fast. In the
past, I moved as fast as I could think of something, without really understanding how my
decisions were impacting the key stakeholders and the culture in our Program.
I have completed several projects for this competency, and have linked the
practice of this competency with the practice of other competencies; however, the biggest
evidence of new practice can be seen in my work at Loma Linda University. The new
project I chose to pursue was a qualitative research study to understand what the
29

perception was of the current culture in the Radiography program, and what the desired
culture is among the key stakeholders. I developed a simple qualitative survey for a first
year cohort, a second year cohort, ASMR faculty, and for clinical instructors to complete.
From the results, I sorted, grouped, and ordered the result themes in each of the general
categories of organizational culture, based on what is observed now and what the
stakeholders want in the future. What I learned from this major project is that all groups
have a culture, but you can’t change it unless you know what it is and you know the
elements of an organization that influence the culture. If a leader understands that, then
the leader can engage in a change process that will move an organization to the desired
behavior.
Summary
So what does it take to be a leader who can transform an organization by
strategically navigating through the challenges of organizational culture? It takes a leader
who is grounded in a clear understanding of people, who has excellent skills in
interpersonal relationships and interpersonal communication, and has an understanding of
the phenomena of change. In this paper, I have presented the theories of organizational
behavior and culture, with links to change theory and leadership competency, and a
personal application to the challenges in my organization.
What I have learned from this research is that in order to be successful as a leader,
I need to fully understand, grasp, and be able to use the theory of organizational behavior.
Understanding an organization’s culture is complex because it has roots, it is always
occurring, it is tangible and intangible, and each person within the organization is
complex because each person holds different views and responds as a result of their own
30

personal beliefs and values. Ultimately, though, the successful leader knows how to
listen, anticipate, work with finesse to navigate through unknown territory, and unite a
team of people together to accomplish a unified goal.
In conclusion, the biggest take-away from this paper is that the topic of
organizational behavior and culture is BIG…really BIG! As I was researching this topic,
the theory and research just kept coming. I finally had to stop writing. What I learned
from this is that it seems that all competencies in leadership lead to this one.
Organizational behavior and culture is linked to every issue that impacts on
organization’s success. And, as a result, organizational behavior is linked to every issue
that impacts a leader’s success. What I learned from this competency is that I need to do
more reading and research on the topic!
31

References
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Introduction: Resolving the tension between theories E
and O. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change (pp. 1-33).
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Bennis, W. (1982). The artform of leadership. In J. Thomas Wren (Ed.), Leader’s
companion: Insights on leadership through the age, (pp. 377-378). New York:
The Free Press.
Bershin & Associates. (2010). How to build a high-impact learning culture. Retrieved on
May 10, 2012, at http://joshbersin.com/2010/06/14/how-to-build-a-high-impact-
learning-culture/.
Bridges, W. (2002). Way of transition. New York: Perseus Books.
Burke, E. (2010). Deviant organizational culture. Retrieved May 10, 2012, from
http://soniajaspal.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/deviant-organization-culture/.
Butler, G. & Caldwell, C. (2009). What top-performing healthcare organizations know: 7
proven steps for accelerating and achieving change. Chicago: ACHE Management
Series.
Cammeron, K. & Quinn, R., (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture:
Based on the competing values framework. Addison-Wesley, New York.
Del, T. & Peterson, K. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises,
second edition. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Jossey-Bass.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (2000). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate
life. Perseus Books Publishing, Cambridge, Massechusets.
32

Estabrooks, C.A., Thompson, D.S., Lovely, J. J. E., & Hofmeyer, A. (2006). A guide to
knowledge translation theory. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health
Professions, Volume 26, pp. 25–36.
Fields, B. (2007). Strategies for leading through change. Accessed online on June 1,
2011, from the following website:
http://www.ceoconsultant.com/business/strategies-leading-through-change/
Hughes, R. L., Ginnett, R. C., & Curphy, G. J. (2009). Leadership – Enhancing the
lessons of experience. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Kotter, J. P. & Schlessinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Best of HBR,
July/August:130-139. Harvard Business Review.
Kritsonis, A. (2004-2005). Comparison of change theories. International Journal of
Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. 8:1.
Lancaster, J. (1999). Nursing issues in leading and managing change. Carlsbad, CA:
Mosby.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.
Lippitt, R., Watson, J. & Westley, B. (1958). The dynamics of planned change. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Malloch, K. & Porter-O’Grady, T. (2009). Chapter 4 - Confronting crisis: The leadership
of constant change, pages 65-93. The Quantum Leader. Jones and Bartlett
Publishers: Boston.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2008). Influencer:
The power to change anything. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill.
33

Prochaska, J. O. & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Towards a comprehensive model of
change. Chapter 1 in Miller, W. R. & Heather, N. (eds) Treating addictive
behaviors: Processes of change, pages 3-27. London: Plenum Press.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe
Sammer, C., Lykens, K., Singh, K., Mains, D., & Lackan, N. (2010). What is patient
safety culture? A review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42:2,
156-165.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th
edition). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. (1991). Organizational culture and leadership: A Dynamic View. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership (1st
edition). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, D. (2012). Your corporate culture’s artifacts: What would Indiana Jones say?
Retrieved on May 12, 2012, at http://snowassociates.com/articleDetails.asp?id=1.
Weick, K. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Business.
Weick, K. E. & Quinn, R. E. (1999) Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology. 50:361-386.
34

3 c organizational behavior, development, culture paper final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to 3 c organizational behavior, development, culture paper final

Similar to 3 c organizational behavior, development, culture paper final (20)

More from asfawm

More from asfawm (15)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

3 c organizational behavior, development, culture paper final